EXCLUSIVE: Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


This guy have "cojones" he is my hero, at least somebody that challenge that corrupted mobster Bloomberg, we need more like him.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


LOL,

none of those are violations...if you think they are...go ahead and file a court case.

Legal experts of the internet make me laugh.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by xedocodex
 



Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.


Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on it.


And there have been restrictions placed on it. I can't go and legally buy a fully automatic weapon, rocket launchers, etc.. Now they are trying to place more restrictions on it. Do you really think if we allow new restrictions that they will be the last?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 



The fact you even ask that question makes me want to question your even being on ATS.......


Why is that? Because I don't buy into the ridiculous crap that is common on here? I come to ATS for the same reason most people do....to combat ignorance...and believe me...there is plenty in the political sections of ATS.



But I will humor you!


You are like a whittler on my rights and freedoms. You exemplify, the workings of an out of control government, whom is try to slowly whittle away the rights of it's citizens in such a way that it is done so slowly and such a manner that before the citizens are aware of what is happening to them it is too late!

See, the problem is, those like you whom could care less about taking the rights away from others, have been doing it for so long, that the little piece of wood you started out whittling away on, is now becoming not so indistinguishable. We can see your intentions, and we have drawn our line in the sand!

You so innocently ask, "Well what rights are being taken away from you.". When anyone who can read and have any level of reading comprehension, can quite easily understand the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It is quite clear that it has to do with protecting the citizens against a tyrannical government.

Sure, you don't like it, and you are prepared to lie to anyone you can, to try and get your agenda stepped up to the next level, but you have a problem at this point.


And so which rates have been taken away??? I believe you can still own a gun.

Pure entertainment when I ask this question....none of you can answer it...just go off on a rant.

I find myself in good company with my positions...I firmly believe I am on the right side of history. You got to admit, the pro-gun side doesn't exactly have intellectual giants with them.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by xedocodex
 





Are you suggesting that if I call this "reporter" a "moron"....then I am violating his right to free speech???


No I clearly said a violation of 9th amendments rights.


And again...I'm not the government...I can't be in violation of ANY of the amendments.

You clearly don't understand the meaning or language of the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 





How do you interpret that as supression of free speech?

Much more clearly than you interpret it for someone debating you on a website.


The police are overstepping their bounds when they follow you, ask for your ID (especially outside of their jurisdiction) and demand to know your birth date.... without probable cause. People have sued police departments and won their cases for this, it is called harassment.


He didn't demand, he requested.

It's not harrassement when you have identified yourself as a threat with questionable mental status...and they way that fool was acting, I would have no problem with them detaining him for a day or two to make sure he isn't about to go out and try to kill the Mayor. Afterall, he was requesting the mayor to be unprotected.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by xedocodex
 



Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.


Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on it.
I was responding to the assertion that the only way you may own a weapon is to 'join the National Guard'. It is right there in the center of the quotes above.


My statement is still true. According to SCOTUS, you can restrict who gets guns (felons and mentally ill), and even restrict certain kinds of guns (those deemed dangerous and unusual, i.e., not commonly used for personal defense). That pretty much ends the gun control debate in my opinion.


by your argument the manufacture of all new guns should be outlawed regardless of its type. I mean after all if it is a new gun style then it is certainly not commonly used.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 



someone who may be a potential threat.


Sorry.
I can't believe that you went there.

They know that the man(the guy that has a camera following him and a press pass) was not a threat. They saw the pass, they saw his ID.... yet continued to follow him. Pure harassment for daring to ask his highness the mayor a tough question.

One of his own security team may have posed more of a threat than this guy. They were armed and probably dislike their boss, and they are cops, usually hired for reasons other than high intelligence. In the video, I swear the one really did look cross-eyed, better give him a gun!


Really...how do they know that? Are people with cameras inherently non-threats? Are all members of the press angels that can do no wrong?

Nice of you to insult cops though, class act.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 



No, it's not a pointless argument. It's their usual double standard, their way of pointing out they are more important than the rest of us. People die every day, you see any of them getting a funeral broadcast on national tv? See anyone declaring a day of mourning? I consider the well being of my dog to be more important than any and all of them.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 



Your knowledge of the law is limited I can see that. They were not in NYC, the NYPD has exactly ZERO jurisdiction in D.C. His sole duty is to protect the Mayor - period, that is what a PSD (Personal Security Detail) does. They are allowed to carry their firearms there in a reciprocal agreement with the D.C. and Capitol Police Departments. This reciprocity doesn't extend to the power of arrest.


Did they attempt to arrest him? Nope.

Try again.


Also, if you are assuming that anyone has the right to follow (stalk) and ask questions (harass) a person they feel threatened by may be in for a shock when the police do respond to your complaint and arrest you rather than the one you fear when they find the "threat" to be a lawful CCW permit holder, credentialed reporter, or whatever the case may be. You will be the one guilty of the crimes stalking, harassment, intimidation, threats - etc.


So by your definition...this "reporter" was harrassing the Mayor.

Any responsible citizen should try to get identifying information from a person that is harrassing and posing a threat to a Mayor.

I'm sorry, the "reporter" is a moron...I would identify him as a threat and follow him to make sure he doesn't try anything else stupid.


I don't know what you call it when someone stops you from going where you want to go but I call that being detained. So does the law BTW. When an LEO detains you he must have probable cause - asking the Mayor questions that made him look like a tool won't meet that burden in any court. The reporter handled it poorly as most do when detained by an LEO because they feel threatened by their position and authority. That is called intimidation.

He should have asked if he was under arrest...until the "officer" either said yes , which would have made a great case for false arrest and an awesome lawsuit a first year law student could win or no in which case he could have just walked away.

He had no legal obligation to answer any of this “officer’s” questions – period.

The reason the "officer" was asking to see his ID was specifically to get his name so they could run it for warrants or priors in the hopes they could harass or detain him further. They needed his birth date likely because there are many people with the same name. They wanted to add him to a list that would ban him from all press pools for the Mayors events.

I have worked PSD for the State Department and other officials - this is fairly standard practice to keep people who make your guy look bad out of events.... It is not right but it’s also not illegal.


No, he had no legal obligation...but he wasn't forced to give information either.

He was not "detained"...he was asked a question...I swear...some people get so butt hurt over questions.

He just got done yelling at the Mayor...but you are mad that a security officer asked him his name. Hilarious.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I am certainly glad that those who share your opinion were not listened to in the 1700's

So you are saying that if the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany, and others who didn't agree with the Nazis had been armed they would not have been able to slow down the Nazi war machine? They may not have stopped the Nazi's without some help but they certainly would have helped immensely.

Would they have died anyways? Possibly, but at least it would have been on a battlefield rather than in a concentration camp.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Originally posted by xedocodex


Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.


If you want to tell people what to do, join the North Korean government.


No thanks, I'll just keep organizing and voting for people who share my views and beliefs.

The country is leaning more and more left every year, I'm sorry, but the days of the wild west are over. Stricter gun control is coming, and in the future hopefully restricted to official State militias (i.e. The National Guard).



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

I skipped the rant and insult and just excerpted the only remotely sane thing you said...

To answer this question...Because the idea that we a Stalinist Russia or a Maoist China or will become one soon ..Or that owning these weapons would halt a take-over of the scale that your paranoid fantasy imagines...makes no sense in the context of reality.


Yeah it is pure fantasy to believe that a bunch of freedom, and liberty loving people even think to put up a fight against an oppressive government. Oh wait, isn't that what happened in the U.S. I haven't read a history book in a while but if my ignorant back woods mind serves me it was a bunch of "Alabama Skeeter's" that took on the most powerful military in the western world at the tim and won.... Imagine that.

It is amazing what normal citizens are capable of when faced with oppression.


Because the NRA and Gun Lobby appeal to these fantasies of tyrannical rule in the USA in order to shut down any rational discussion on background checks, research...anything at all...no! Tyranny!!


Yup, a tyrannical government is not possible in the U.S. oh wait... Already happened.


I have said it before, this line of BS...Why does the President of the United States have armed guards and I don't??!!!!...does nothing but damage the 2nd Amendment.


Can you direct me to the person in this thread who suggested that all Americans be given security details? I'll wait... Okay, back to reality. No one is asking for that because it is absurd. What people do expect is the right to defend themselves, and their homes, properties, and families, and yes, their country if need be against any who would oppress their rights whether it be a thug on the street or one in the White House.

Am I suggesting that an armed revolution is necessary or will be in the near future, no. I hope that there is never a need for such a thing, but in case that need does arise either in my lifetime or at some point in the future beyond that it is good to know that those who would fight for their rights and their liberty have the firepower to do so.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Majiq1
 



And there have been restrictions placed on it. I can't go and legally buy a fully automatic weapon, rocket launchers, etc.. Now they are trying to place more restrictions on it. Do you really think if we allow new restrictions that they will be the last?


No, they won't be the last...because technology is not going to stop.

As guns become more and more advanced, new restrictions will need to be put in place to keep up with the dangers of the new technology.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


That is complimentary for most cops that I know.
Google 'cop shoots _ _ _ _ _ _ _(you choose what you want to put in the blank space)' .
Start with criminal, then try the word suspect. But don't stop there. Try child , girlfriend, family pet, innocent man. Then yoj will see what class acts are wearing a badge.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 





Really...how do they know that? Are people with cameras inherently non-threats? Are all members of the press angels that can do no wrong? 

Oh, eek! Reporters! Quick, shoot them before they ask tough questions.

I quess they better stop having Presidential news conferences. At least with live reporters. Can't be too safe around the President!



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Majiq1
 



And there have been restrictions placed on it. I can't go and legally buy a fully automatic weapon, rocket launchers, etc.. Now they are trying to place more restrictions on it. Do you really think if we allow new restrictions that they will be the last?


No, they won't be the last...because technology is not going to stop.

As guns become more and more advanced, new restrictions will need to be put in place to keep up with the dangers of the new technology.


Except the guns that are part of this proposed ban are not the result of new weapon technology. Semiautomatic weapons were around in the late 1700's what part of these latest proposed bans are meant to keep up with technology?

At least be honest and say what you mean. Well you already have actually a few posts up.


Stricter gun control is coming, and in the future hopefully restricted to official State militias (i.e. The National Guard).


You would like to see the second amendment abolished, plain and simple. It is in your own words, and it is the cornerstone of any progressive movement.

What we need to be talking about in this country is the downfall of mental health. Gun bans effect murderers as well as banning forks and spoons will solve the obesity problem. It has been tried in major cities like NY, Chicago, and D.C. and to what affect?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 





Really...how do they know that? Are people with cameras inherently non-threats? Are all members of the press angels that can do no wrong? 

Oh, eek! Reporters! Quick, shoot them before they ask tough questions.

I quess they better stop having Presidential news conferences. At least with live reporters. Can't be too safe around the President!


He didn't ask his questions at a press conference...he confronted the Mayor on the street and tried to push past his security.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 





Really...how do they know that? Are people with cameras inherently non-threats? Are all members of the press angels that can do no wrong? 

Oh, eek! Reporters! Quick, shoot them before they ask tough questions.

I quess they better stop having Presidential news conferences. At least with live reporters. Can't be too safe around the President!


He didn't ask his questions at a press conference...he confronted the Mayor on the street and tried to push past his security.

He is still a reporter. EEK!
He did nothing threatening to the mayor, yet they followed him for blocks.... after the mayor was gone.

You are a sheep. Hopefully you don't find yourself kneeling at the edge of a ditch someday..... with a friendly govt employee standing behind you with a pistol in his hand.
That can't happen, you say?
I bet that all the Jews executed by the (insert one of many groups that have executed Jews) didn't think so either. .. or they wouldn't have let themselves get into that predicament.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Although it seems like a nonsensical point the journalist makes, it does have some merit.

The guards and their guns are there to protect against criminals with illegally obtained guns, or someone who has gone off the deep end and has resorted to gun violence. The are too many guns in this country that may end up in the hands of unsavory characters that will use them for whatever reason. Be it a natural disaster, crimes of passion, or even tyranny, there may be a time when the bad guys pick up their guns and go out into the streets.

It is precisely for that reason that it should be the right of anyone who is responsible enough to legally take the matters into his own hands for the protection of himself or his family.

The fact that there are already too many guns around is argument enough that we should be legally capable of protecting ourselves against them.





top topics
 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join