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

reply to post by spacedog1973
He choose his role to be mayor nobody choose it for him. So he knew what he was getting himself into. We are responsible for our choices in life and what comes along with them,he is no different, he is not special. SnF .....Good job.

Originally posted by supermarket2012

Sure, here is a rational stance from a pro gun advocate (me):

How about we enforce tighter background checks, close the gun show loops, and all ALL legal adult Americans who pass all the background checks to 1) be able to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, and semi-automatic rifles 2) be able to conceal carry ANYWHERE they like, unless there is a specific request/reason not to (schools, government buildings, etc)

Also, why not let states decide what is acceptable, and what is not. That way, if an individual doesn't agree with the gun laws of one state, they can freely move to another state that is more like-minded on the issue.

YES...YES...YES....Thank you for the sane input.

Now if you take a look at the Presidents relatively weak-tea "executive actions"...which aren't "executive orders"...they, as exec. actions are meant to do, center on enforcing current laws.

His shout-out to the AW Ban wasn't even amongst his "actions"...He ASKED CONGRESS...let me say that again...asked the GOP dominated congress, the most intractable, obstructionist congress ...to consider it.

And the NRA's answer to enforcing actual laws on the books? To cracking down on straw purchases that account for the vast bulk of guns in criminal hands? Hysterics...tyranny...BS...

I would add this to screening gun purchasers..."has any member of your household been convicted of a violent crime in the last 3 years?" or...."Does any member of your household suffer from mental illness and if so do you own the means to securely store your weapons?" Gun safe/ Trigger locks etc.?

Originally posted by supermarket2012

As it stands, I feel MUCH safer in an armed society. People think twice before they do something stupid. I live in Kennesaw, you know, where it is part of the law here to own a firearm if you are a homeowner. I LOVE the law here, and crime has dropped since the law came into effect. I guarantee you, criminals DO think twice before breaking and entering where I live.

First off...Kennesaw...wonderful place to live. Much lower crime rate that GA as a whole...but can you account for this?

Kennesaw crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 11 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Kennesaw for 2013 is expected to be higher than in 2010.

www.cityrating.com...

Originally posted by supermarket2012
Oh and by the way....I find it SICKENING that politicians are using the mass shootings to justify the anti-gun agenda.

....

If the politicians are REALLY concerned with minimizing the mass shootings, why are they not allocating funds for research into the connection between SSRI medication (anti-depressants) and suicide, mass shootings, etc? I'm pretty sure almost, if not EVERY single shooter in the mass shootings of the past 15 years have been on one of the many SSRI medications.

OK...which of the Presidents suggestions did you take issue with? SSRI's could be addresed in items 14, 22 and others...if the NRA and gun lobby hadn't outright dismissed all of these...Including incentives to hire school resource officers...See the issue as I see it is that there is no rational response from the NRA...who should be engaging rather than BSing and screaming hell no. Niether side has it right, but only one side is talking and the other is running crazy ads about Obama's kids...That kind of response is no good for gun owners..

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.


4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.


5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).


9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.


10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.


11. Nominate an ATF director.


12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.


14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.



15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies



16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.


22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

reply to post by spacedog1973


When was the last time a public official was fired on? Not only that but when was the last time someone has got close to them with a gun? Your arguement is flawed on that point alone. Meaning, your arguement is ridiculous. If someone wanted to harm them with a firearm, they wouldnt do it up close, they would do it with a rifle from a window. So having armed security around you is moot. And if someone did get close with a gun and even if they did take a shot, the security wouldnt fire back, they would wrestle them to the ground and subdue them. The only thing you need armed security for is a fire fight, and when was the last time a public official was involved in a fire fight? Hmmmmmmm???

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by seeker1963

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.

Let's assume you are correct. Would not that mean that a country's citizenry be entitled to equal arms ar thier government? It reminds me of John Rocker on WND opining that "If the Jews had guns the Holocaust wouldn't have happened"...well I am pretty sure the French military had guns and it still didn't slow down Hitler...ditto other countries Germany occupied. It took a multi-national alliance of nations.

I am having a hard time believeing that skeeter in alabama is going to foil a socialist take-over with his AR.

Whether or not you believe he can do it has no merit on why he should not have the right to.

Oh, by the way, nice try on making all gun owners out to be rednecks with funny names.

reply to post by Indigo5


Yes, please list the last time a president or a celebrity was shot. What was it, 20 to 30 years ago that a president was shot? What is the security level like to even get to the prez? i think the technical term is sphincter-tight security. So why armed guards when its near impossible to get close to him with out getting frisked six ways to sunday?

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, maybe...just maybe, if he talked about stuff his constituents agreed with....maybe he wouldnt need the armed guards. Its that whole of the people FOR the people thing......

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

It is common sense as you state. It is common sense that for certain positions you need to hire armed men to protect you as you carrying a fire arm is not enough protection for a public figure.

For the common person just being armed is enough.

It is not a flawed argument, it is only flawed because it does not support your beliefs.

This is great journalism as it is something the common man thinks. Why should banks get bailed out and the people not get bailed out?? why is there more consideration of special interests groups in government than there is of the people??

Why is it acceptable that some get protection that is above and beyond just carrying and teh common man is expected to have none?? is he thought to be expendable and not worth him being able to defend himself?? Is there not that much of an inherent risk to him to have the common man armed?? if the common man should not be armed because there is not enough risk then why is there such a fight for gun control??

I believe that if we would all be safer if we had guns taken away shouldn't security for celebrities and public servants be reduced?? as a threat of gun voilence against them goes down due to the gun bans.


Why is their safety more important than mine?? who decides this and why??

Originally posted by Indigo5
That the President of the United States is at a greater risk of being targeted than the average American.

Now think about it reaaaal hard just why that is...

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

Yeah, but who is to say an ordinary person won't need to defend themselves against armed danger? If so, why is it that only those in power are allowed to protect themselves?

You know there's a part of me that believes the argument for pro gun control is "for the children" but the other part of me believes the government is making that argument possible. Read between the lines what I'm saying here. This reporter has got it right, "they" want to disarm the civilians but keep themselves, directly or indirectly, armed to the gills.
Americans are all about morals and values, I mean isn't this why were in other countries in a half dozen wars? Can I help it if I have those same values instilled in me?! I am what I am regardless, and will not put down my arms. Pretty soon they won't want us to read, it makes us dangerous. I more likely would put down my books over my arms. We will see how this plays out but Twin Towers come down and we lose many personal freedoms "for the good of the whole", people get wounded or killed in public places and they take away the one tool we have to keep the government in check.
Very interesting times ahead...

People intent on killing don't care what the laws are. I hate the fact that I have to go out and buy a pistol, why? I may be forced to use it on someone one day.. regardless if I am in my right to do so, it would haunt me for the rest of my life. Only God can excuse me for doing so, not man, or mans laws.. thus, the difference between crooks and civil citizen. NY gets what it deserves by voting that pop tart in office.
However I can guarantee this; that man or any man reguardless of his title isn't any better than me or my family or anyone else for that matter and That's a fact jack.

My life, and the lives of my family members are no less important then Bloomberg's, or Obama's... or ANY politician. And I would protect them just as fiercely as Bloomberg's security team would protect him.

If we are supposed to disarm ourselves then I damn well expect they will too. If they do not, then there is no chance in hell that I will either.

If Bloomberg has 5 (and I think I saw more than that) big burly most likely training in hand to hand combat guards, why do they need guns? That reporter was being herded away from Bloomberg and didn't have a chance of getting close. I don't have the ability to hire a half dozen body guards that are probably $100k each. I'll stick to my $1000 gun and my CCW. This is my right and I have no intent of doing anything illegal, in fact if I were put in a position to protect someone else, I would do it.

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

I do security. Have done, for several years, up to and including dignitary protection. Blocking the reporter from the principle is standard. Chasing him down the street and demanding ID is not.

Furthermore, I'm telling you right now that no one, NO ONE, has more right to personal security than anyone else. If Bloomberg's Boys carry guns, then so should we all be allowed to.

"Security Jurisdiction" as mentioned by the officer is a load of horse-pucky. His "Security Jurisdiction' does not include pursuit of anyone down the street after they have left the immediate area of the principle. He was BS-ing, hoping the reporter wouldn't know.

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

They also used to say that about the Lords, Emperors, Kings, and Pharohs.

The more you allow them to be treated like royalty, the more they will act like it.

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

The comparison is that this person is allowed to defend himself, while he seeks to limit others ability to do so.

reply to post by spacedog1973


"It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool."


why because even if we took everyones guns away , some people would still be able to get them,

or because for the people by the people didnt mean # when they wrote it?

This reply is in no one in particular and yet everyone here in this thread.

Accost

Definition of ACCOST : to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way

I would say the journalist was definitely accosted. The NYPD officer approached him in an intimidating manner, obviously outside his jurisdiction, and asked him for his papers. This isn't Nazi Germany, we are NOT required to carry ID on us unless we are driving or buying something requiring an age limit. If I were him I would've laughed in his face and walked away. If he continued to harass me, I would've called the D.C. police to report stalking and harassment.

Some have said, paraphrasing here, "He's a high ranking politician and needs more security than the rest of us." Maybe that's true but why is he trying to take our personal security away from us "regular" citizens? Not everybody can afford their own private security detail, which the citizens of NYC pay for anyways. I think what they are basically saying is only "trained professionals" should carry guns. Well what's considered trained? I've been around firearms almost my whole life, the first thing I learned about guns is "you only point it at what you want to die." I know common sense isn't common anymore, but there are millions of people in this country who would rather do anything than taking another human life.

The one quote I want to repeat for clarity's sake is this:

Originally posted by xedocodex

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

I'm assuming here, and might very well be incorrect, that you mean only State sponsored military, and by extension the US military, are the only one's you would trust with a firearm? My response would be the Kent State Massacre. A bunch of unarmed college students protesting the Vietnam War were gunned down by the Ohio state National Guard. And you think they are more capable of protecting our individual rights than the people themselves?

Another question that has come up, "What rights are being taken away?" There's a whole list, but let's consider the 1st amendment, the Freedom of assembly, which is the right to protest. According to new laws, the people's right to protest is limited within a certain distance from the president, known as the ridiculous "Free speech zones". How about the 4th, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and possessions without reasonable cause? That was taken away by the Patriot Act and all the warrant-less wiretapping that resulted from that. And you can't forget the violation of the 5th and 6th, the right of due process, thanks to the NDAA. Simply declare them an "enemy combatant" and they no longer have a right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers.

I'm sure everybody on ATS knows the tale of the frog in boiling water but I'll reiterate anyways. Put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out, put him in room temperature water and turn up the heat and he'll be dead before knowing what happened. It's along the same lines as "Give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile." It's all a gradual progression. If you try to do something the people don't want all at once you'll get a push pack, but do it incrementally and nobody will notice until it's too late. I like the analogy another poster had. It's like whittling a piece of wood, you don't go and chop it in half, you take out small chunks at a time to reach the desired result just the same.

Down to the root of the 2nd, as some have said all over ATS, the 2nd amendment isn't about sportsman or hunting or personal protection. It's main purpose is to dissuade a tyrannical government from making slaves of it's citizens. "Those than don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It has happened before and damn sure it will happen again if the people don't keep it in check. The founding founders were smart enough to include this final provision against tyranny directly into our Bill of Rights. As some have stated before, "shall not be infringed" is a very direct and powerful statement to the government. That is why it is being fought so hard for now. When the original "assault weapons ban" passed in 1994 I was 11 years old. Even if I had opinion back then, it didn't matter. It was my parent's and their parent's generation voting at the time. I've noticed a large animosity towards my generation here on ATS but we're not all lazy, self-absorbed, entitlement seeking buffoons. Some of us truly do care for our country and what it stands for in the grand scheme of things, even if we disagree with our parents and the government at large.

I can only hope maybe I can open some eyes to the hypocrisy that is our federal government to date. I am left leaning and yet I'm not what most would think of me by my prescribed political leanings. I believe in freedom for all and tyranny for none.