Bloomberg, House Dems call for stricter gun control

Well, I knew this conversation was coming. Especially after Obama's presser with the dramatic pauses and liquidless tears. BO said, “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” To me the writing is on the wall. I don't believe all of these rage shootings are random. I can't. It is too convenient for those that would want to disarm the masses.

New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, as well as several House Democrats, are seizing on Friday’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. to make the case for stricter gun control.

“President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown,” Bloomberg, a frequent advocate of stricter gun laws, said in a statement after the shooting, which killed 27 people, 20 of them children. “But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action.”

The New York City mayor’s office tweeted: “For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds.”

link

The crime scene tape isn't even down yet and it's all still being worked ....and these political animals are out playing it for what it's worth to their agendas. Oh that's as pathetic and low as I can imagine and people ought to let them know about it by phone and letter. Can the victims at least be laid to rest or is it THAT important that agendas be played on the heat of the moment and the emotion of the event? This shows the low character of the men as much as anything else.

Not EVERYTHING has to be turned into political advantage the same day it happens and LEADERSHIP is knowing the difference. New York and America in general are devoid of it right now. We have followers of popularity polls and public opinion. We don't have leaders. Yikes.

Aint that awesome?

From the people who stone walled fast and furious and put more guns in the hand of more criminals than any adminstration in history.

That's right my fellow Americans never letting a good crisis go to waste gun in your hands even tho you have never killed anyone is extremely dangeous!!!

Democrats calling for stricter gun control who are the biggest mass murderers in world history.

reply to post by neo96


I believe the mass murdering accusations belong to both parties. Please. this is not a partisan issue. Banksters have ruined and armies have murdered and maimed under the umbrella of Democrats and Republicans.

Good, I hope they do it soon.

The red coats are no longer coming, time to give up your guns.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by neo96

 

I believe the mass murdering accusations belong to both parties. Please. this is not a partisan issue. Banksters have ruined and armies have murdered and maimed under the umbrella of Democrats and Republicans.

edit on 14-12-2012 by GrantedBail because: cuz

Did that say house Republicans calling for stricter gun control?

Nope

reply to post by neo96


No it did not. Democrats have ostensibly always been the gun control advocates. Both parties front themselves off for each other. Don't think that they aren't "all in" this thing together. Puhleeze.

Right, right! They can't pass a within-their-means budget, but you can bet your sweet patootie they'll be able to pass this!

There's very little chance that any major form of gun control will result from this. The GOP knows that if they were to cede this issue to the Democrats, they would lose probably a third of their voters and wouldn't win at the national level again for a generation. Its not going to happen. This is just more noise from the usual vultures who come out in the wake of a tragedy such as this who would exploit to restrict the rights of the 330 million Americans who haven't done a damn thing to deserve it.

More likely, you'll see further tightening of the background check system and perhaps a ban on some foreign imports. You won't see a sweeping ban on handguns (which is presumably unconstitutional per DC v Heller), and its unlikely that you'll see one on 'assault rifles', given that some 30 million of them have been sold since the 2004 ban expired.

Sadly all this focus on gun control, why not focus intently on what elements either in the shooter's life or in society prompted this and other incidences to occur.

Ban guns and only the criminals will have guns, and those intent on actions such as this will find a way.

Compare the number of threads regarding police brutality and police using unnecessary force versus mass murders. Whenever tragic events like the CT shooting occur, people react emotionally and not logically. While one of these events is far too many, we do have to keep in mind that they are, thankfully, still rare events.

Outlawing drugs, for our safety of course, is a good indication of where the ban on guns will end up. The black market prices for guns will skyrocket, greatly increasing the wealth of the criminals, and subsequently their power. We will have huge tax increases to pay for this new legislation -- the war on drugs has cost billions as an example. And then what? Should I just begin turning over my entire paycheck to the government in the hope they will feed and protect me? Because after all they have shown what an efficient and effective government should be.

We, as a nation, are broke. The government spends $1.17 for every $1.00 they receive in taxes. This should tell anyone that the current model for governance is not working and giving the government more power, more control, and more money all in the name of protecting us is futile. It hasn't worked in the past, and there is no indication of anything changing that will cause it to be effective in the future.

We should instead be talking about the fact that despite all the government does to keep us safe it isn't enough. And simply giving them more power and ourselves less is not going to solve the problem. Rather, we will be stripped bare and still left vulnerable to those in society that wish to do us harm.

Lastly, the guns used were lawfully purchased. Had his mother had a safe with a code lock, or finger print lock, he may not have gotten to the guns. Perhaps the government should enter every per.son's household prior to buying a gun make sure they have a proper safe. Then, perhaps routine checks to make sure the gun owner is using said safe. I know, let's agree to daily searches -- after all, what if the authorities checks on a gun owners safe on Monday, but Tuesday they inadvertently leave the gun out and unprotected.... Do we see where this is going?