Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


There are already restrictions and bans on certain types of firearms.



So according to your logic, the line has already been passed, the precedant is already there...and you have lived this long with the current bans and look...you can still own a gun.

It's a flawed and ignorant argument.


Yes there are... And that proves his point - not yours. His statement was that the line needs to be set here - in kind of a "this is as far as you go" vein. And nobody is arguing that we won't be able to buy any guns at this point. The argument is against creeping gradualism and the intent of the 2nd amendment.

The pro 2nd Amendment arguments put forward take into account an implicit understanding that the citizenry is already legislated to an inferior level of firepower. To let TPTB undermine that position further is a strategic and tactical mistake. And don't be naive or ignorant enough to argue that we have no need to protect ourselves from TPTB and that despotism just couldn't happen here in our enlightened, western, quasi socialist, utopian society.

Your arguments are irksome, vacuous, and display an appalling lack of original thought.
edit on 1/28/2013 by JimmyNeutron because: (no reason given)




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

Originally posted by xedocodex


I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.



Just as Conservatives think you Liberals are by far the worst enemy... See a logical problem here? You took the ideological bait - chose a side blindly - and will defend your decision regardless of how stupid it is. The same is true of the majority of Conservatives. Become an independent thinker...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Majiq1
 



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.


No, I would just like to see it very well regulated.

National gun registries, national ammo registries, national registry of homes with guns, ammo purchase limitations, weapon type limitations, full background checks on all sales of guns and ammo, longer waiting periods for guns and ammo purchases, and no guns allowed in homes with people that have mental health issues.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973

you had the second post, I think you're very wrong. see, now, that's people control, not gun control....
 



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



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


That is not illegal. And whether he was threatening or not is a personal judgement call. You didn't think he was, I did...and it seems like the security officers did as well. Still...nothing illegal in having an opinion and taking precautions.



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.


And you owning a gun is going to stop that if something like this would happen? Again...Rambo is not a documentary...it is a fictional film. I laugh at your false sense of security that you think a gun provides you.

I've said it many times before, guns are some Americans pacifiers. They hold onto them because they think they make them safe, but just like a pacifier and a baby...it is only a trick. Pacifiers don't really feed the baby...and guns really don't keep you safe. Ask Adam Lanza's mother or the family in NM if their guns kept them safe.

The reason I'm not afraid of a situation like you described is because I choose to use other tools besides guns, and I'm confident they will keep me alive much longer than the average gun owner who's solution is to shoot everything.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my situation...but feel free to continue to call me a "sheep"...I think it helps you feel better about yourself.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyNeutron
 



Yes there are... And that proves his point - not yours. His statement was that the line needs to be set here - in kind of a "this is as far as you go" vein. And nobody is arguing that we won't be able to buy any guns at this point. The argument is against creeping gradualism and the intent of the 2nd amendment.


You can't set a line of "We aren't going to allow any gun regulations" when there are already plenty of gun regulations. You have surrendered any legal authority to do so.

You may not like new gun regulations, but there is nothing you can do about it. You can't cry "Unconstitutional" because there are already regulations in place. But good luck trying.


The pro 2nd Amendment arguments put forward take into account an implicit understanding that the citizenry is already legislated to an inferior level of firepower. To let TPTB undermine that position further is a strategic and tactical mistake. And don't be naive or ignorant enough to argue that we have no need to protect ourselves from TPTB and that despotism just couldn't happen here in our enlightened, western, quasi socialist, utopian society.


Oh noes...the scary evil TPTB.

If you plan on wanting people to take you serious, you should maybe stop using ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theory terms.

I would suggest that people with your thinking would benefit more by seeking professional therapy instead of going out to buy more guns. Guns aren't going to help your paranoid delusions, but maybe therapy will and then people won't be so crazy over their pacifiers of guns.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by xedocodex


I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.



Just as Conservatives think you Liberals are by far the worst enemy... See a logical problem here? You took the ideological bait - chose a side blindly - and will defend your decision regardless of how stupid it is. The same is true of the majority of Conservatives. Become an independent thinker...


No, I will stand by my view.

It isn't the label of Conservatives that is the problem, it is there philosophy and views.

There is nothing wrong with identifying a view that is counter to your own and possibly threatening to everything you hold dear.

To me, Conservatives are that to America...not 1950s America that they want to return to, but America as it is today...diverse, accepting, and yes...progressive.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I wonder what would happen if he asked the question again surrounded by his own hired armed security detail? I am sure Bloomberg would not answer the question, but I be he would receive less hostility from the mayor's security.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by JimmyNeutron
 


You can't set a line of "We aren't going to allow any gun regulations" when there are already plenty of gun regulations. You have surrendered any legal authority to do so.


I don't think you read what I wrote very clearly... Or you are trying to misconstrue it in order to come up with some strange argument. I in no way stated or implied that "we" (whoever that may include) are not going to allow any gun regulations - they clearly already exist... And what on earth do you mean by the statement "You have surrendered any legal authority to do so."?



You may not like new gun regulations, but there is nothing you can do about it. You can't cry "Unconstitutional" because there are already regulations in place. But good luck trying.


What planet do you live on? The SCOTUS has the final say on what is or isn't constitutional. The Legislators can legislate all they want. If it doesn't fit the original framework, there are still legal avenues for redress. If something is clearly unconstitutional then I can and will most certainly call it out.



Oh noes...the scary evil TPTB.

If you plan on wanting people to take you serious, you should maybe stop using ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theory terms.


Figures - you are one of those idiots who denies history... Whether I choose to use an acronym for typing brevity or not, it doesn't take away from the reality that tyranny and despotism happen in spite of Polyanna head in the sand ostriches like you.



I would suggest that people with your thinking would benefit more by seeking professional therapy instead of going out to buy more guns. Guns aren't going to help your paranoid delusions, but maybe therapy will and then people won't be so crazy over their pacifiers of guns.


I actually don't own a gun... Violence is a last resort. But will fight people with views like yours until the day I die.

Your ideology gets masses killed - Google Democide

I am no paranoid - I am a realist. Maybe you should get your head out of your arse and grow up.
edit on 1/28/2013 by JimmyNeutron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by xedocodex


I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.



Just as Conservatives think you Liberals are by far the worst enemy... See a logical problem here? You took the ideological bait - chose a side blindly - and will defend your decision regardless of how stupid it is. The same is true of the majority of Conservatives. Become an independent thinker...


No, I will stand by my view.

It isn't the label of Conservatives that is the problem, it is there philosophy and views.

There is nothing wrong with identifying a view that is counter to your own and possibly threatening to everything you hold dear.

To me, Conservatives are that to America...not 1950s America that they want to return to, but America as it is today...diverse, accepting, and yes...progressive.


And Liberals are anything but progressive - they are like artificial sweetener - Ultimately promising something sweet that turns out to be a poison.


I would love to have this debate, but it would be considered hijacking the thread...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Majiq1
 



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.


No, I would just like to see it very well regulated.

National gun registries, national ammo registries, national registry of homes with guns, ammo purchase limitations, weapon type limitations, full background checks on all sales of guns and ammo, longer waiting periods for guns and ammo purchases, and no guns allowed in homes with people that have mental health issues.


As foolish as all that is, it is still not what you said before. You specifically said that you hoped to see guns ONLY in the hands of the state.

Why did you avoid everything else I said? If gun bans are meant to cover new tech and not to further strip Americans of a right that was meant to never be infringed upon why go after the AR for instance? There is no new tech there.

And what about the fact that stricter gun laws have been implemented in various states/cities with no effect. In fact it seems in many cases to have an opposite effect. How will law abiding citizens be assured that while they give up their rights, the criminals are also doing the same? I have never heard of criminals that care about laws but maybe I am wrong.

As far as your proposals, why should a law abiding citizen have to register with the government? Sounds like guilty before innocent to me, and a violation of privacy. Oh, and criminals won't register so what good is a registry with only the names of people who aren't likely to commit a crime anyway? As far as the ammo/gun type restrictions we already have those, have gun crimes decreased because of it? Not according to the FBI.

And the big one. "no guns allowed in homes with people that have mental health issues." What mental health issues? who gets to decide what mental health issues are covered? How about rape victims who decide to get a CCP for protection? Their rape causes mental health issues (depression, anxiety, etc..) should they not be allowed to protect themselves because of it.

And what is the excuse for places like NY City, Chicago, D.C., New Orleans etc... These places by your argument should have virtually no gun crimes committed, but yet they remain among the worst as far as gun crimes.

The point is everything you have described does nothing but punish innocent people while empowering those who would do harm. Stricter gun laws have been tried and have failed over and over to have any affect on crime.

If we start banning the tools people use to commit where does it stop? More people die by drunk drivers that by guns. Do we ban everyone from using cars to keep the ones who don't obey the law out of them? Obesity kills more people than guns, Should we start food rationing for the citizenry?

registering a huge part of the population so that the government can keep tabs on them even if they've done nothing wrong is your answer? I think you need to look at history and statistics. Taking guns away from the population has been tried it has failed. Registering those who the government feels could be a threat has been tried, and failed. It is time to move on and take a look at what is causing the downfall of moral society in this country. Until we do that as a whole country then no law is going to solve the problem.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Yeah crazy people do it too.And they still want to burn the rest.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 


Name calling is really going to win them over......lets creat a bigger divide rather than work togeather for a solution. This forum gives me a glimps into why politics are so divided, if we can have a civil talk Congress has no hope. I would also like to point out that more civilians die from guns than political figures, so civilians actually need better protection.....armed gaurds for every citizen.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
They won't ever take my guns.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


you do realize that being mentally ill in and of its self is not grounds to disqualify you from fire arms ownership you have to have been committed to a mental institution against your will for that to remove you of your fire arms rights(and even then you can petition to get them back like several of my friends have done with my help)
as to your registry we will just do what Canada did "loose them" tell the law is repealed

they do a full background checks for the bulk of guns sold in this country sure a few are sold private party but the vast majority of guns are bought from brick and mortar stores....least the legal ones

as per the rest shall not infringe comes to mind
edit on 28-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)


and as being mentally ill or disabled would put you in to the protected classes of people that you can not be prejudice against might make it harder to change the laws

en.wikipedia.org...


Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

edit on 28-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)


blog.nami.org...

The mayors’ report is correct in identifying holes in the system but in its call on the federal government to provide clear guidance as to “which mental health and drug abuse should be submitted to NICS,” falls woefully short of addressing one of the most important factors responsible for confusion among the states. Federal law speaks in terms of individuals “adjudicated mentally defective” a term that is not only highly offensive, but has no practical meaning. Likewise, terms in the law such as “civilly committed” require practical definition. In 2007, NAMI testified before Congress, explaining how current definitions in the law are vague, leading to holes in compliance and enforcement. To date, there has been no effort in Congress to change the law—thoughtfully and carefully—in a way that is not only overly broad, but also avoids unfair, damaging discrimination. One paramount concern is to avoid creating a situation where people are in fact discouraged from getting help when they need it because of speculative fear over stigma.
edit on 28-1-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 


It's my counter to you saying they need guns more so than anyone else.
edit on 28-1-2013 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
*sigh*

Look. We Americans love cars. Most of us have cars. Most of us drive cars.

But cars can kill people, or at least injure them. Cars can cause property damage.

So all cars are registered and, at least where I live, required to be insured. Those who drive them are required to have a license, which can be removed for cause. Those who cause personal or property damage with their cars are required to fix that damage. At any moment, the governor of my state can call up a list of every single car registered in Massachusetts.

Now, one can see being allowed to drive as a somewhat natural outgrowth of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly. (And I have heard people argue that it is.) But what you don't see are a bunch of people protesting these driving/car owning limitations (except maybe for the outrageous insurance costs). Even though there are certain kinds of cars we're not allowed to drive on the streets -- racing vehicles or vehicles that don't meet federal standards of safety.

And there's no outrage over this.

If gun owners had the same sensible outlook toward their guns as they do toward their cars/trucks/motorcycles, this could be a much calmer debate.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolfbitch
*sigh*

Look. We Americans love cars. Most of us have cars. Most of us drive cars.

But cars can kill people, or at least injure them. Cars can cause property damage.

So all cars are registered and, at least where I live, required to be insured. Those who drive them are required to have a license, which can be removed for cause. Those who cause personal or property damage with their cars are required to fix that damage. At any moment, the governor of my state can call up a list of every single car registered in Massachusetts.

Now, one can see being allowed to drive as a somewhat natural outgrowth of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly. (And I have heard people argue that it is.) But what you don't see are a bunch of people protesting these driving/car owning limitations (except maybe for the outrageous insurance costs). Even though there are certain kinds of cars we're not allowed to drive on the streets -- racing vehicles or vehicles that don't meet federal standards of safety.

And there's no outrage over this.

If gun owners had the same sensible outlook toward their guns as they do toward their cars/trucks/motorcycles, this could be a much calmer debate.



There's a simple difference... The intent for keeping and bearing automobiles was not in any way tied to limiting government authority. Whereas the 2nd amendment was included to expressly dissuade a tyrannical regime from infringing upon the natural rights of man.

Take that to its logical conclusion - a tyrannical regime would like nothing better than to either disarm outright or barring that so tilt the balance of firepower in their direction that resistance becomes futile. Although the United States may or may not be at that point, giving our current government the means to collect information that a future despotic regime would find indispensable would be certain stupidity on our part.

I will say that the car analogy is pretty good though. Look at our right to bear arms as a minor insurance policy of last resort against tyranny. Hopefully never to be used.
edit on 1/28/2013 by JimmyNeutron because: Initial post incomplete...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Yes...Anyone whose day job it is to talk to Millions of folks and give opinions, needs security...cuz statistically a portion of those they reach are wacko and own guns.


Ok so then anyone who goes on the internet daily under your description should be afforded security? LMAO, Oh sorry you said day job, guess thats gonna be your loophole in the argument. Just gotta point out the stupidity in the argument. Thats all, carry on folks.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron


There's a simple difference... The intent for keeping and bearing automobiles was not in any way tied to limiting government authority. Whereas the 2nd amendment was included to expressly dissuade a tyrannical regime from infringing upon the natural rights of man.

Take that to its logical conclusion - a tyrannical regime would like nothing better than to either disarm outright or barring that so tilt the balance of firepower in their direction that resistance becomes futile. Although the United States may or may not be at that point, giving our current government the means to collect information that a future despotic regime would find indispensable would be certain stupidity on our part.

I will say that the car analogy is pretty good though. Look at our right to bear arms as a minor insurance policy of last resort against tyranny. Hopefully never to be used.
edit on 1/28/2013 by JimmyNeutron because: Initial post incomplete...


Agreed, my analogy does break down a bit when considered in the light of the Founders.

But I think of guns the same way I think of cars -- guns are a tool, with several designed purposes (one of which is defense against a tyrannical government). That's one of the reasons I don't get all twitchy and upset during gun control debates -- even though I am a raging left-wing liberal from the original stock of 60's Massachusetts liberals!

I do not own a gun nor would I seek to own one. But I will defend your right to own as many as you can afford. I will also join in an effort to stop you (and just you) should you misuse those guns against me or mine.

I wish my fellow liberals felt the same way. They're as annoying to me as the rabid Out Of My Cold Dead Hands gun owners are.





new topics




 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join