HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Bloomburg wants to ban ma...

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

Bloomburg wants to ban machine guns

or doesn't think NYPD carries semi autos. Here is a question, is there a reason why I should listen to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Isn't kind of like taking computer buying advice from someone that doesn't know Linux from Windows? Relationship advice from a cleric that took a vow of celibacy?

76 replies, 6765 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 76 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bloomburg wants to ban machine guns (Original post)
gejohnston Dec 2012 OP
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #1
gejohnston Dec 2012 #2
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #6
gejohnston Dec 2012 #7
krispos42 Dec 2012 #10
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #20
gejohnston Dec 2012 #21
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #29
gejohnston Dec 2012 #40
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #74
gejohnston Dec 2012 #75
Jenoch Dec 2012 #61
spin Dec 2012 #63
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #25
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #12
gejohnston Dec 2012 #15
Recursion Dec 2012 #23
thucythucy Dec 2012 #26
Recursion Dec 2012 #35
thucythucy Dec 2012 #44
spin Dec 2012 #64
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #27
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #31
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #33
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #39
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #32
spin Dec 2012 #47
Squinch Dec 2012 #57
spin Dec 2012 #62
Squinch Dec 2012 #66
spin Dec 2012 #69
Squinch Dec 2012 #71
gejohnston Dec 2012 #72
Squinch Dec 2012 #73
tblue Dec 2012 #3
gejohnston Dec 2012 #4
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #36
gejohnston Dec 2012 #41
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #53
gejohnston Dec 2012 #55
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #54
oneshooter Dec 2012 #49
Control-Z Dec 2012 #5
gejohnston Dec 2012 #9
thucythucy Dec 2012 #28
gejohnston Dec 2012 #34
thucythucy Dec 2012 #43
gejohnston Dec 2012 #46
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8
krispos42 Dec 2012 #11
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #13
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #68
Loudly Dec 2012 #14
gejohnston Dec 2012 #16
Loudly Dec 2012 #18
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #17
rrneck Dec 2012 #22
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #24
rrneck Dec 2012 #45
jody Dec 2012 #19
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #37
jody Dec 2012 #42
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #50
jody Dec 2012 #52
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #56
jody Dec 2012 #58
spin Dec 2012 #70
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #30
ileus Dec 2012 #48
PavePusher Dec 2012 #51
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #59
spin Dec 2012 #65
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #60
guardian Dec 2012 #67
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #76

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:49 PM

1. We all know that proper gun terminology is far more important...

than the lives of innocent victims, after all....

Sorry, that NRA meme won't win you any converts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:52 PM

2. he described a machine gun

since there is no evidence his ideas will save any innocent lives............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:56 PM

6. We certainly know those promoted by NRA (and apparently you) do not. n/t

Sorry, innocent life is not expendable to meet the whims of the gun obsessed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:59 PM

7. simple answers to complex problems

are not solutions. Plus, I don't take idiotic and arrogant one percenters seriously on either side. Him and Wayne are mirror images of each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:09 PM

10. Okay, you write laws with the wrong terminology and see how far you get.



And what do you call it when a REPUBLICAN does things like this?

Remember how they redefined "small business" without telling anybody?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

20. Bloomberg will not write the laws. He is speaking in the vernacular.

Experts write the laws. Lawyers write the laws. Politicians read what is handed to them and make changes.

Don't worry. They will get the vocabulary right in the law they pass in Congress.

And unless the gun-owning community does something to police itself, there will be laws regulating the ownership and possession of guns. What those laws will be depends in part on how willing gun-owners and advocates are to face reality and grow up about protecting people who can't, shouldn't or don't want to own guns.

We all have to live together. We have to use our rights so as not to encroach on the rights of others. That goes for Second Amendment rights as it does for other rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:12 PM

21. this guy was not a gun owner

the other stole his in Portland,
most gun violence are among people who can't legally own guns. So, how are we supposed to police ourselves exactly, when they are not part of our community?
How about the drug culture fucking grows up, look in a Mexican or Chicago newspaper and take responsibility for where their money is going?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:32 PM

29. Are you saying there is a need to collect all rapid fire weapons and any means by which ammo is held

These weapons should not be available for anyone to steal and if the owner is careless to allow weapon to be stolen then owner should have their ownership voided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:00 PM

40. no,

I'm saying that we are being blamed for a problem that we did not create. I take it you missed the part about the drug culture growing up and getting its head out of its collective ass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:09 PM

74. Do you think the guy who shot the kindergarten children was on drugs?

I can see the connection between shootings and gangs that sell drugs. It applies in my neighborhood. But as I understand it the young man who shot the kindergarten children was supervised very closely by his mother. I doubt that he was using drugs. Do you have any evidence or even information to the contrary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:27 PM

75. I have also said, in other places,

that I was talking about everyday violence, not rare tragic events like this. No I have no evidence that he was was using illegal drugs. This has more to do with our less than idea mental health system and more testing should be done on psychotropic drugs before putting them on the market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:25 AM

61. Bloomberg is ignorant on the

subject about which he wishes to change the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:27 AM

63. I seriously doubt that. Bloomberg has been discussing the gun control issue for years and years ...

Firearm terminology is not rocket science.

I feel Bloomberg is actually trying to gain support for gun control by misleading the segment of the public that knows little or nothing about firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:19 PM

25. What BS -- Bloomburg is not in any position to write law... Total and absolute BS argument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:13 PM

12. Definitions are part of law.

A law will have a section that defines the terms being used. If you screw up the definitions then you create loopholes where you didn't intend them. It helps greatly to know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:21 PM

15. not only does it make loopholes as GSC mentioned,

but makes unreasonable regulations like defining target pistols used in the Olympics and ISSF as "assault weapons" like California did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117269932

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:31 PM

23. It doesn't bother you that he's advocating for something that's already been law since 1934?

Why does it bother you so much to try to inject actual facts into the issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:21 PM

26. Acording to "Hack89"--another staunch defender of "gun rights"--

machine guns weren't banned by the 1934 law, merely heavily taxed. He specifically corrected me (another one of those ignorant control advocates) when I pointed to the 1934 law as an effective "ban" on a specific type of weapon.

So which of you gun experts is wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:46 PM

35. He's right that they are not literally "banned"

They're just so expensive and difficult for a normal citizen to legally acquire that they might as well be, for the most part.

But, yes, speaking strictly Hack98 is 100% right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:22 PM

44. Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Use of the word "banned" in this context can be rather confusing.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:32 AM

64. A couple of years ago I fired a fully automatic Uzi at a police range ...

that was personally owned by a cop and was not a police issued firearm. His agency has fully automatic M16 rifles available for officers if they are ever needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:21 PM

27. Since Bloomburg is neither a Congressman nor Senator--nor even a NY state rep, he will be writing

No law...

Take those strawman BS arguments elsewhere (like an NRA meeting)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:37 PM

31. By your standard, just who in the hell is Wayne LaPierre and the NRA?

They are not representatives and don't write laws so they have nothing to add by your standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:44 PM

33. A lying lobbyist who has manipulated gun owners to the benefit of the industry for decades

Wake UP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:54 PM

39. You have that right, a weasel whose nerve problem kept him out of Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:54 PM

38. The "cop killer bill" described a

.30-30 round as "armor piercing cop killer" which is also a common hunting round, fired from almost exclusively from lever actions. While Bloomburg may not be writing it, I doubt those will be will be any more knowledgeable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:38 PM

32. Thank god the ACLU does not think that way.

 

It would certainly make lawyers look bad if they didn't pay attention to the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:48 PM

47. Your side of the gun control debate seems to enjoy distorting the facts in order ...

to gain support from those who have little or no knowledge about firearms.

If your argument is valid it should stand up even when you use correct terminology . Distorting or lying about facts indicates to me that your side lacks substance.

The sad part is that if I chose I could argue for extremely strong gun control far more effectively than most gun supporters do and use the proper terms and actual facts. Gun technology is not rocket science and any average person can become fluent at discussing it with just a little effort. The internet offers a person the chance to research almost any subject from their living room. When I grew up finding information usually involved a journey to the library and a lot of effort once there.

Your side of the debate has many excellent points to make. You weaken your position with your lack of knowledge. It's a lot like debating the economic problems our nation faces in the future and not knowing the difference between the debt and the deficit. You make a stupid statement or an idiotic assertion and the point you are trying to make is lost because the other side realizes that you have no idea what you are talking about. You often ignore actual facts and discount them as NRA talking points.

To be fair, both sides of the gun control issue engage in stupidity. The NRA is often as guilty as the Brady Campaign.

We need an HONEST debate over gun control in our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:01 PM

57. Well, gosh. This slaughter took us all by surprise. We haven't had much time to bone up on the

terminology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:19 AM

62. I should have pointed out that many of the misconceptions are caused ...

by the leadership of the gun control movement and by the media. Those who have a career working to promote gun control should have some knowledge of the subject and the main stream media has people hired to do research.

When I reread my post I realized that it could be interpreted as that I was blaming you personally which is not the case.

Some posters who support strong gun control and have posted for a long time in the gungeon have politely had the proper terminology explained to them over and over again and yet ignore the explanations or call them NRA talking points. At times it makes me want to do this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:00 AM

66. Terminology is the least of our problems. And there are very few who have a career

working to promote gun control. The rest of us are just folks who are tired of having idiots pointing guns at us while we are minding our own business.

I've had guns pointed at me three times over the past few years while going about my day. 20 children were just slaughtered in their first grade class. Personally I couldn't give a crap about the correct terminology. I just want it stopped.

And please don't suggest that we need to educate ourselves on the correct terminology of your hobby before we can be made safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:02 PM

69. You had guns pointed at you 3 times in a few years? Damn!

I've had guns pointed at me 3 times in my entire life and I an now 66.

Out of curiosity were these criminals pointing guns at you. In my instances a man who pointed a shotgun at me might have been running an illegal still on his property in Mississippi.

Both of us are interested in making our nation safer and reducing gun violence and incidents like the recent shootings in schools and theaters. Hopefully our nation can make such actual headway in solving this problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

71. Going to and from clients' homes. And my clients were children.

One was pointed directly at me, from about 20 feet away, but they didn't shoot. Those appeared to be gang members. The second was someone shooting randomly into an enclosed courtyard where I was walking. Who knows what his past included? The third was a gunfight in which the shooters were subdued by the police right before I pulled around the corner. They caught one of the guys by slamming him into the car in front of me. So I guess technically that one wasn't pointed at me.

I have stopped doing that work. But the children I used to work with still live in places where this happens routinely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:03 PM

72. since they were gang members,

what does that have to do with us? Chances are they got the gun from their drug profits. Depending on where you are, there is a chance that gun once belonged to the local PD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:04 PM

73. And there is a chance that it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:52 PM

3. Well, if it walks like a duck

WHO CARES? Sounds like you're not gonna listen anyway. And therein is the problem. And therein lies more needless deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:54 PM

4. see above

I don't see any lives being saved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297122

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:48 PM

36. Maybe it is because the present laws has many holes.

What I hear you saying is the need to remove guns and there might be a different outcome. Is it going to take outlawing guns and ammo being used in mass murders or is the NRA and gun rights groups going to wise up and get this situation under control. The current laws has not been enough to control the mass killings by guns, enough is enough, we have the right to life and this is important to many more than unreasonable gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:05 PM

41. mass killings like this are kind of rare

and I don't think there would be a different outcome. The gangs fueled by the drug culture kills more than that every day but I don't see any call for responsibility on their part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:41 PM

53. There has been a war on drugs for a while but the events of mass murders are too many.

In the recent ones totally innocent people have been killed and injured and this is inexcusable. We have speed limits and still have people killed in traffic accidents. The NRA should be pushing safety and promoting actions to keep weapons out of the hands of those incapable of handling them.

Wayne is probably not aware of military having someone watching while others slept at night and still having the company attacked and members killed, guess what hey had good guys there with weapons but it did not stop the killing. The NRA needs to work towards a solution of prevention since they probably do not have the funds to place armed guards in every school, what about the movie theaters, shopping centers and places of worship, where does their armed guards stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:51 PM

55. in all fairness,

their safety program, based on a New Zealand gun safety program, was falsely compared to Joe Camel. I have been in countries that have not only strict gun laws but armed guards in every McDonalds and mall. Seriously. Metro Manila in the 1980s was not a paradise for either side on guns. But if you think Wayne's cop in every school idea (that he stole from Bill Clinton) Barbara Boxer's is even worse. There are a I would support a magazine ban before I would support putting National Guard troops in schools. A cop with a pistol is one thing, a soldier with a real assault rifle (not a pretend one like an AR) is not cool.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73756867/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:45 PM

54. careful now

you were pretty close to playing the race card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:26 PM

49. Please tell me what law, if enforced

at the time of the shootings, would have prevented them from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:54 PM

5. Most people don't know

much about assault weaponry. Seems like only the nuttiest of gun nuts care about terminology. I'm more worried about people like Graham who go on MTP and fret about having their own specific assault weapon banned or taken away from them. Those are the elected leaders that scare me. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:07 PM

9. he and you would have a valid point in 1933

he is describing something that was mostly banned from private ownership in 1934, not that machine gun ownership was common to begin with (which it wasn't). My point is that he is either
has no idea what he is talking about or
being dishonest. If you have to be dishonest, ends justify the means, then maybe there is something wrong with the cause.
Firearms are a technical subject. Regulating technical items should based on input by people who know what they are talking about, like we do airplanes and cars.
Who is Graham and MTP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:22 PM

28. See post 26 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:46 PM

34. it was an economic ban

that was the goal of the $200 transference tax. The reason they did not ban them in the normal sense was because FDR's AG thought a ban would be struck down. It made the price of a Thompson, for example, from half the price of a new car to the price of a new car. Private ownership of machine guns and silencers were almost nonexistent anyway. Dillinger stole his from the Park County, Ohio, sheriff armory (it was on loan from a different county PD. They finally got it returned to them in 2004)
Of course that is before you get to the hoops to get one approved, letter signed from your CLEO, background check that takes about three months depending on the workload on that ATF section. No new machine guns can be registered for private citizens since 1986, so any private machine gun are antiques and very expensive. Any number you see mentioning the number of registered machine guns include those registered to police departments and non-functioning museum pieces. For some reason, the ATF will only give out the total number.
That is why I said Practically banned. None of which has anything to do with Bloomburg's ignorance or dishonesty.

FWIW, The only crime committed with a legal machine gun, that I'm aware of, was committed by a cop who murdered an informant with a SMG registered to the police dept. that employed him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:20 PM

43. Okay, thanks for the explanation.

Not a "legal" ban per se. Makes sense.

This could very well be then another avenue to pursue, in terms of "banning" other categories of weapons. It's difficult to see even this Supreme Court striking down a gun law that's been in place since the 1930s.

Then again, we ARE talking Scalia and Thomas et. al.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:29 PM

46. what make semi autos title 2?

It didn't stop organized crime from getting them. I don't think any other weapon should be banned. The father of criminology points out: they only affect good people, not people who are bent on mayhem. It would not do anything about day to day violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:00 PM

8. And those deadly assault sodas!

Bloomberg = 1%'er totalitarian shitheel. Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:11 PM

11. Hi-capacity assault cups.

The only think he things should be high-capacity are bankster's bonuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

13. Oh, that's GOOD!

"The only thing he thinks should be high-capacity are bankster's bonuses."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:39 AM

68. +1 nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:20 PM

14. You're playing a semantical game for a wholly unworthwhile purpose.

 

Shooting and reloading should be slow, cumbersome and a hassle.

Otherwise, shut the product down.

Simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:23 PM

16. Bloomburg said he was OK with revolvers and

semi auto pistols.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:27 PM

18. Just remind him of Tucson and the Congresswoman.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:25 PM

17. Who gives a shit what Bloomberg says. Really. He isn't going to write the laws. Worry about....

the ones that are going to write the laws. They do know the terminology and they know it well enough to create a law with loopholes in it big enough to drive a tank through.
This kind of shit is used only to get you sidetracked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:14 PM

22. Well, those experts did give us the AWB... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:37 PM

24. Yes. With the loopholes. I actually think a magazine size restriction would...

be more effective. It is easy and it is not ambiguous. If I have to buy smaller magazines at my expense then so be it.
That and the elimination of private sales without going through a FFL for registration and background check. It would be a start.
But that's me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:25 PM

45. I'll be interested to see what legislation gets proposed.

For my part limiting mag capacity can be defeated by changes in evil doer tactics. They'll do an end run around that befroe the ink on the law is dry.

I wouldn't mind private party background checks if firearm anonymity can be preserved. But even if they do that (or not), I don't think it will do a thing to limit straw purchases. If the guy in the gun store can't tell who the straw purchaser is, the guy on the street can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:58 PM

19. Bloomburg et al who believe "guns cause crime" remind me of creationists believers who oppose

 

evolution and were told to take your best shot in the federal case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Those creationists tried their very best and lost.

Will Bloomburg and his gun-creationists win or lose in the court of public opinion aka We the People, many who support the right of each law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms for self-defense protected by our Constitution as enumerated in the Second Amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:51 PM

37. We the people is everyone, we also believe in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:05 PM

42. "believe in life" some after birth and some from conception. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:27 PM

50. I sure believe in life when one is six and seven, talking about late abortion of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:35 PM

52. So when do you believe life begins, birth or conception? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:58 PM

56. I know for sure there is life at six and seven. I dont believe in killing young children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:04 PM

58. I'll put you down as supporting prenatal testing and abortions if a fetus doesn't

 

have the desired potential, especially girls who are unwanted in many countries and increasingly the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

70. The biggest support that the gun control movement has is from the main stream media. ...

This media largely centered in gun unfriendly areas of our nation is more than happy to lie and distort the facts about the gun control issue.

Of course if they succeed in their mission to disarm the American public and do away with the 2nd Amendment they will realize the error of their ways when the government cracks down on their rights as a free press granted by the 1st Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:36 PM

30. Bloomberg is a petty little tyrant.

 

?w=460

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:04 PM

48. Wonder if he knows the difference between automatic rifle and machine gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:33 PM

51. Has he given up his security detail yet?

 

If not, fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:05 PM

59. Stunning demonstration of his ignorance -- it wasn't semantics.


He described the function by which he classified good guns from bad guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:37 AM

65. I seriously doubt that he is that ignorant. ...

He is, however, willing to purposely lie and distort the facts in order to further strong gun control and the media will be more than happy to help him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:08 AM

60. Bloomberg is an idiot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:38 AM

67. Next he'll want to ban all guns that weigh more than 16 oz

 

That's how he saved us from Slurpees. What a fucking moron Bloomberg is. Just goes to show one doesn't need to be smart to become rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

76. Correct.

Aparently you just have to be an asshole to be super wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread