« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Bloomberg: A Little Anarchy Might Help Convince People to Give Up Their Guns

The latest evidence that Little Lord Farquaad New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg’s brain is melting into a puddle of hot goo came courtesy of a Monday night appearance on Piers Morgan’s CNN “show.” This time, the pint-sized billionaire with a taste for cradle-to-the-grave control over the proletariat suggested that “police officers across this country…stand up collectively and say ‘we’re going to go on strike’” until the people, in exchange for order, safety, and security, willingly give up their right to bear arms.

Bloomberg – who, of course, has a 24/7 armed protective detail – wasted no time after the Aurora, Colorado shooting in calling for President Obama and Governor Romney to impose new gun control laws, and the following Sunday he declared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that, “The bottom line is if we had fewer guns, we would have a lot fewer murders.” Now, he’s going several steps farther, and actually calling for anarchy in the streets until (ostensibly) Congress acts to eradicate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and eliminates the ability of the citizenry to defend itself against aggressors.

The effort to criminalize gun ownership has long rested on the idea that firearms in the hands of the citizenry are a danger, and that legally restricting their access to law enforcement officers would create some sort of nonviolent utopia in which nobody is shot. Of course, as Erick pointed out earlier today, that’s simply not true:

The cities and states with the toughest gun laws typically have the worst gun violence. In Chicago and Washington, DC, two cities with the toughest gun laws and restrictions in America, people have routinely been gunned down. The only people with firearms were the ones unwilling to obey the law.

[...]

What’s more, restricting the second of the Bill of Rights, does nothing but deter the law abiding. Restrict access to cartridges with lots of bullets and the law abiding citizen is deterred. The criminal is just challenged.

Gun control does not stop random acts of madmen. Gun control does, however, increase the body count in Chicago, Washington, and other places where the armed citizenry, disarmed by government, is confronted with evil unwilling to yield to the laws.

When anything is outlawed, guns included, only outlaws will continue to obtain and use it. While law-abiding citizens will be deterred from obtaining firearms by anti-gun laws, criminals will not – a fact which makes “gun control” laws a de facto campaign to prevent people from being able to defend themselves.

As Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, rightly pointed out, “Most of our mass murders have occurred precisely where the criminal knew that he would find unarmed victims, and by and large he has been right.”

Disarming the citizenry would just create more sitting ducks, like too many poor victims in Chicago and Washington, DC have become.

However, Bloomberg’s call for anarchy goes far beyond that. He’s actually so convinced of the need to strip the proletariat of their right to self-defense that he’s actively calling for deaths and chaos as a means to that end.

We already knew Mike Bloomberg was a crazy little wannabe-tyrant. Now, he’s getting scary. Fortunately, such a move won’t happen – and if it did, it would only result in a more heavily armed populace than ever.

COMMENTS

  • From ME to You

    will result in a drastic drop in the crime rate in the Capitol Hill area come 2013!!!

    • pty12300

      Let Bloomberg lead by example. He should disarm all of his security details because guns are so very evil and his people have them. DISARM YOUR SECURITY DETAIL Bloomberg…Lead by Example! How about a bumper sticker for New Yorkers that says Lead By Example Bloomberg! Disarm your security Detail. Same with the guy sitting in the White House and his lackey Sillery Hillary. Let them both give up the Secret Service Detail since they carry those evil guns.

    • http://www.mtgriffith.com independentmike

      If the anti-gun lobby gets its way, the result will be that average citizens won’t be able to get guns, and the only ones who will have guns will be the government and criminals.

      As we know from the old Soviet Union, which had draconian gun control laws, criminals will usually find a way to obtain guns even when they are outlawed. Under Soviet rule, the Russian mafia had guns, and of course the Soviet government had guns, but average citizens were defenseless.

      Statistically, you are more likely to be involved in a knife crime in the UK than you are to be involved in a gun crime in the US. You’re more likely to be involved in a car accident than you are to be injured by a gun.

  • garfieldjl

    I think Bloomberg is well aware of the fact that increased gun control does very little to curb violence. I think Bloomberg, like Obama is trying to make a blanket power grab.

    I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but something smells with that shooting in colorado.

    If you look at Fast & Furious and how there was the uptick in violence, where Obama came out and called for more gun control laws, then we find out that the guns to the cartels were actually from the DoJ.

    Considering the fact that the small arms treaty is being pushed in the UN and there are Senators balking at it, there is grounds, given Fast & Furious, to seriously consider the possibility that what happened in Colorado seems a little too conveinent for the administration’s anti-2nd amendment agenda.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      …in my book.

      • Bill S

        .

        • macbookben

          and mind control, you know.

      • garfieldjl

        This is not an ordinary situation, it would fit Obama using executive privilege to help Holder stonewall on Fast & Furious for instance. I seriously doubt there was any intention to try to trace the guns in F&F in the first place. It looks like it was an attempt to manufacture a crisis in order to further an anti-2nd amendment agenda.

        Then there is the fact that a gun club refused to allow the psycho membership cause the owner of the club thought the guy was creepy…

        Then we have the fact that Obama is trying to regulate every aspect of our lives… Bloomberg is also trying to do it to residents of New York.

        On the way home on Saturday I caught an interview with Rick Santorum on the radio concerning Obama trying to make sure that government and schools had the power over what children with special needs got, not parents, he was pushing it through the United Nations…

        I’ve also read the Great Destroyer by David Limbaugh.

        Jeff, you need to start connecting the dots, I may be wrong and honestly I hope I am, but my suspicions are rational given this administration’s track record.

        • PowerToThePeople

          this is why drugs are bad. If you do not want to turn out like this guy, just say no to drugs and yes to sanity.

          • streiff

            this is a rhetorical question, in case you are curious.

          • garfieldjl

            I would be happy to stop with the back and forth, I do think it is fair for me to demand an apology from PowerToThePeople though, cause I’m not a druggie.

          • streiff

            nt

          • garfieldjl

            PowerToThe People, I seriously suggest you knock it off, first you accuse me of being a troll, then accuse me of being a druggie, what next?

            I need to stop playing Ostrich and wake the hell up!

            The Department of Justice already supplied criminals with guns and hand grenades, what the heck do you think Darrel Issa has been spending over a year trying to get Eric Holder to cough up the paperwork over? Are you telling me it is nothing more than a political witchhunt?

            This is a very scary situation, if you had told me 5 years ago that something like Fast & Furious would be going on, I would would have been thinking you were one of those Alex Jones conspiracy nuts…

            Heck, I was rather hesitent to post my suspicions concerning what happened in Colorado, because I didn’t want people to think I was crazy, cause this is something I would have thought was nuts only a few years ago. However, the fact of the matter is that Fast & Furious did happen, so whether or not that operation was just plain incompetitence or something more sinister is something we really have to consider.

            To repeat myself again so maybe it gets through your thick skull… This same DoJ sent a few thousand guns to the Drug Cartels in Mexico all wrapped up with a neat red bow on top for god’s sakes. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think this same DoJ might give a few guns to what looks to be a psycho in hopes it would lead to a shooting rampage!

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            but given strieff’s comment – I’d exit the battlefield. It’s a piece of advice and completely up to you whether or not you take it…

          • garfieldjl

            I have every intention of exiting the battlefield.

          • angryguy77

            we’ve learned from history, it’s that Marxists never take the “any means necessary” approach. /end sarcasm/

    • Charles Cianfrocca

      …without taking a position as to that: if you’re right, the shooter would be assassinated in short order. Can’t take a chance of him spilling the beans on a conspiracy like that.

      That he hasn’t been plunked in the general population at the prison where he can be conveniently killed tends to argue against your theory, I have to think. If he was Lee Harvey Oswald, he’d be as dead as Lee Harvey, and just as quick.

      • garfieldjl

        However, I’m not entirely sure the Cartels in Mexico were told that these guns were being delivered to them courtesy of the DoJ either.

        I will agree the point you raise is a good one though, the reason why I brought up this possibility is because the Obama DoJ has already pulled a stunt like this when they turned over a few thousand firearms as well as hand grenades to the Mexican Drug Cartels. Then they blamed gun dealerships when violence escalated in an attempt to undermine people’s 2nd Amendment rights.

        My reasoning as to why I have suspicions is more of they’ve already gotten caught pulling a stunt like this with Fast & Furious. Considering Obama’s Solyndra and then other green energy scams, the regime will continue to do stuff even if they get caught at it the first time.

        While Clinton’s DoJ was corrupt for instance, I don’t think his DoJ was so corrupt as to pull a stunt like that. Reagan’s, Bush the elder, and George W. Bush’s DoJ’s would not have pulled a stunt like Fast & Furious.

        Heck if you look at Wide Receiver and compare it to Fast & Furious, there are hardly any similarities. Bush’s DoJ had tracking devices implanted in the firearms and had numerous other safeguards, the intent behind Wide Receiver was to bust the Gun Runners. When guns started disappearing despite the safeguards, the program was immediately shut down. Fast & Furious had no safeguards, in fact it looks that the lapse in tracking the firearms was deliberate, not incompetitence, which is probably why Obama exercised executive privilege over those documents.

        I know this is rather difficult to believe and downright scary, but we already have seen the Obama DoJ arm homicidal maniacs in Mexico in an attempt to try to undermine our 2nd amendment rights, the idea of them trying to manufacture another crisis isn’t far fetched given their dubious track record.

        • Charles Cianfrocca

          I’d be the last man on earth to say I think this regime wouldn’t do anything like that. They’d do that and worse, in a second, and probably have. But like I said – even an amateur like Urkel knows, you get rid of your bagmen as soon as you don’t need them anymore. It’s not like they’d have any moral qualms – Agent Terry and several hundred Mexicans can attest to that.

          It’s not even that I think they’re all that smart. They do tend to make the same mistakes, again and again. But I think it is more a function of ideological singlemindedness than just plain being dumb as posts. You think Cpt. B+ doesn’t KNOW that the economy would boom if he approved XL, and so quick that it would get unemployment down in plenty of time to ride it to victory? I think he knows. But as much as he would do anything to get re-elected, the one thing he won’t do, is actual good. How would he reverse it later, after everyone SAW it work like crazy and he milked it for every drop of credit? More to the point, armed with jobs and money that they earned, those new workers wouldn’t need Democrats like, say, food-stamp recipients do.

          He’s there to do a job, and let’s face it, making America work ain’t it. Getting us to where voters who need welfare to survive outnumber those who don’t is, and has always been, liberal job 1. He’s going for the gold, no retreat, so he’ll have to make electoral do with deceit. It is all he has. That, and as much of our money as he can take. After the exposure of F&F, I think he realizes that getting us disarmed as well as poor will have to wait until he has more ‘flexibility’, as he famously put it to the Russians.

  • wayneinnh

    If every cop in the country went on strike, I predict that you would not be able to find a gun in any gun shop in the country. Maybe this is Bloomberg’s answer to getting the economy going.

    • wag

      If armed crazies were attacking me and mine the first thing I would (not) think is “where can I turn in my weapons?”

    • Common_Cents

      I’d also ask Bloomberg to provide stats on how many gun crimes are committed using registered/permitted guns and/or by the registered owner. I bet very very few.

    • http://my168project.com Batman

      I like your signature, and I agree with your point.

      • wayneinnh

        Much appreciated.

  • withaplum

    but I do diverge with the NRA crowd on a lot of details. I don’t see why conservatives should oppose ANY reasonable restriction. I think there are a lot of things we could do on a case by case basis that would protect people’s rights to own guns while making it harder for the bad guys to get illegal guns. Ways of cracking down on straw buyers for instance, more detailed registration. Better background checks etc. This is a case where you’d want to use a scalpel, not a chainsaw, but I certainly think that conservatives and gun owners can find solutions.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Does anyone actually enforce the laws we have now? Aurora, CO had pretty stiff laws regarding firearms.

      • http://my168project.com Batman

        Cinemark theatres, where the tragedy took place, specifically bans firearms from the building, and escorts you off the premises to put your gun in the car if you miss the sign banning firearms.

        Erick’s original post is right, the idiots don’t care, and the responsible ones are left defenseless. Who’s calling for reasonable restrictions? The Brady bill was bad enough….

    • kipling

      &

      • acat

        Forget if that was Lenin or Stalin’s quote … but the same principle applies.

        My “reasonable restrictions” are significantly more lenient than others…

        “Weapons must be stored in an appropriate location that will minimize the risk of accidental discharge due to heat, be inaccessible to children and young non-permitted adults.”

        “Weapons may either be stored with simple trigger locks or unloaded and separate from ammunition or both.”

        “All adult members of the household must have a permit.”

        “All juvenile members of the household must undergo firearms safety training (NRA program as an example) .”

        As for what you can own, as long as you can store it safely, I don’t much care. Want a howitzer? Build a nice concrete or brick-and-mortar garage to store it, with an underground bunker for the ammunition, and I don’t have a problem with it.

        Mew

        • aesthete

          Suppose hubby owns a gun, has a permit, etc. He marries a foxy minx who doesn’t have any interest in shooting. Boom — if they’re living together, he’s suddenly a criminal. Depending on the size and composition of the family, these requirements would be extremely burdensome.

          Safe storage is sufficient to take care of concerns regarding misfires and improper usage. I don’t see why we should give veto power to your roommate as a condition to owning a firearm, and I imagine that it would be found (rightly) to be an un-Constitutional imposition.

          • acat

            My “reasonable” is your “burdensome”.

            All I mandated is that the owner of the firearm and any adults who share the same living space be able to properly handle said firearm, and that it be reasonably kept isolated from any juveniles who may also share the same living space.

            To your specific point, aesthete, either the foxy minx learns to shoot well enough to get an i.d. and then drops it, or he gives up the weapon… it adds a level of screening to both dating and picking a roommate – sharing information generally leads to better results.

            To your specific point, kipling, “appropriate locations” would be an after-the-fact issue, that is “there was a break-in, the intruder was shot dead”, the cops ask where the firearm was. Small fireproof lockbox in the bedroom, loaded and ready to go? No problem.

            As for trigger locks, it appears I used a specific term incorrectly. What I meant was “trigger immobilization mechanism”, something that “locks” the “trigger” into a set position. No “lock” as in “security device” was intended. Something as simple as a piece of plastic between the trigger and the grip, secured with a simple velcro strap, would be sufficient.

            To your other objections, I already said stored loaded is okay by me, so long as the weapon is inaccessible to the untrained and/or insufficiently mature.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            What happens if one of the roommates changes their minds? Does not care one way or another, and not enough to get a permit? Has a permit from another state? Or if one is married to a person (or has a child) who is not legally allowed to own a gun (a mentally infirm person, or someone with a felony on their record)? Think if we had such regulations for car ownership — and that, in a country where driving permits are much more common and widely owned than gun permits. Sorry if I don’t want to stick “will never change my mind on gun rights, and be vigilant about renewing my gun permit” in the pre-nups, and if I don’t want my gun rights contingent on whether or not I might have a girly-girl daughter who refuses to take a firearms training course. Beyond being burdensome, the restriction is an odd one. What purpose does it avail which is not already served by safe storage? What country has implemented such a law — and does it work? (Personally, I know of no country which has such a restriction.)

            Such a regulation strikes me as patently un-Constitutional as well, for the same reason that it would be un-Constitutional to require a unified household religion in order to be able to pray to that specific god. RKBA is an *individual* right, not a collective one — even if that collective is a fairly small one.

          • acat

            Let’s start with the automobile analogy. If you live with, say, an elderly and mentally infirm individual who is convinced, from time to time, that he or she can still drive .. and has a reason to do so .. you hide the keys, right? Safe storage appears to cover this – the infirm person is prevented – unless they’ve got a history of hotwiring cars – from causing potential harm.

            This is where I think your conclusion goes off the tracks. Yes, the right to bear arms is an individual right, but .. it comes with at least some responsibility for keeping arms out of reach of those who should not bear arms, or who choose to not know how to bear arms.

            The alternative, i.e. under the current system, enforcement of this responsibility is claimed largely by the lefties for the government…. taking it back upon the firearm owners appears a good starting direction.

            Further, I think you’re vastly overstating the case of a girly girl ..

            Every daughter should go to the range, at least once. Take away the fear and danger element. Some will even find that they like shooting.

            Most people don’t have pre-nups, but in successful relationships, both parties have a general understanding of how far they’re willing to bend, and how far they’re willing to ask their SO to bend. If owning a firearm is a non-negotiable for you, then .. perhaps you don’t belong together with someone who thinks guns are icky, eh?

            As to constitutionality, given the rulings by the 9 over the last century, I’d lay even odds.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            I have safe storage, and keep my gun under lock and key. One of my roommates has a permit (but no gun). The other two don’t have permits because they don’t have guns. To go back to the automobile analogy, the situation is akin to not being allowed to own a car, because you live in the same household as an elderly and infirm individual. It’s absolute nonsense that goes far beyond a reasonable duty to protect yourself and others from misuse, and into the silly shibboleths that constitute the majority of our legal code. Your preferred licensing scheme would effectively strip people of any of their gun rights the instant that they get into a relationship — and I do have to wonder how it would even be workable for, say, a security detail in a building where there is likely some adult who does not have a permit.

            It’s silliness without reason, since safe storage more than satisfies the burden for responsible ownership.

          • brojohn2

            is a really good shot, she goes to the range with me and has even had a hunting license. She however does not have a permit to carry a handgun, yet she owns one and fires it at the range on a regular basis. Asking her to get a permit to carry is not even funny, it is just rediculous. The only place she ever carries is when we are at the range or on our ranch. Never know when an illegal alien will show up with heavy firepower.
            Take your restrictions somewhere else, because they do not work, ever. I had a friend who was a police officer, he left his off duty secured and safety on and took his wife out for their anniversary. Received a phone call his 6 year old had gotten into his dresser, figured out how to remove the trigger guard, and take off the safety and proceeded to shoot himself in the leg. Babysitter was quite panicked.
            He lost his job, his child grew up and became a responsible adult, unfortunately, he lived in NYCity and had to leave the city because of the number of robberies in his neighborhood, a number of folks got killed by armed robbers, but none of them were allowed to carry protection (guns). The cops were only able to react after the fact of the crimes, so why should we have to listen to the little dictator of NYC or to your ranting about protection and wively veto power over our guns?

          • acat

            … and is a perfect example of what will be used to bash firearms owners over their heads by the gun-grabbers.

            I’ll note, by the way, that I fully support the right to keep and bear arms. That said, I do not see where this right is abridged by registration of all who may have access to said arms, nor by a requirement to do a better job of “safe storage” …

            There are responsibilities that go along with every right. The responsibilities of safe firearms ownership used to be taught in the culture, just like the basic rules of civic behavior (most of the ten commandments, for example) used to be taught in public schools.

            Times have changed. Assert the responsibilities, or you risk losing the rights.

            Mew

        • kipling

          Suppose a liberal government requires “juvenile members” to undergo firearms safety training conducted by PETA or the Brady Campaign.

          The Second Amendment requires the right to bear arms. Arms are different from artillery, etc.

          Does safe storage, “appropriate locations,” etc require a government inspection prior to the purchase and storage of firearms? The government currently require an inspection for those with an FFL permit and even a C&R permit.

          I am require to secure my guns with trigger locks and/or to store the firearm separately from the ammunition. Someone breaks into my house. I now have to find the key to unlock the trigger lock, find the key to unlock the ammo locker, and then load the gun. By that point, I am dead and the place robbed.

        • ardvarkmaster

          That’s what an unloaded weapon with a trigger lock becomes when someone breaks into your house.

          I find none of YOUR restrictions reasonable. Because all invite some nosy government official in to see if I’m doing it “right”.

          I don’t need a “permit” to exercise my First Amendment rights, I shouldn’t need one to exercise my Second Amendment rights. The only purpose of the “permit” is to tell the government who has weapons.

          No law has ever stopped a criminal.

        • Don T.

          With all due respect, and I mean that because I often like your comments, your proposed restrictions are gross infringements of the 2d Amendment.

          “Weapons in my own home will be stored as I see fit. If I want to place an AK47 leaning on the wall next to each window, fully loaded, I will do so. I and I alone am responsible for gun storage, gun safety, and gun handling by myself and my family members.”

          “Adult members of my household and juveniles over the age of 12 in my home, will be trained to safely handle and operate every weapon in my own home. But no one but me, will be in charge of that training. No permits are required, or ever should be required, inside my own home.”

          “I am in charge of all training of the members of my family. No one else, not the NRA, not the state. I will choose my own firearms training methods and training professionals, as I alone see fit.”

          “I and my family will follow my state’s concealed carry licensing laws, and I will endeavor to encourage my family, friends, and neighbors to get their concealed carry license. I always will leave my home in an armed state and able to defend myself. I will involve myself in removing carry restrictions from my state’s gun laws, and improving other related state laws.”

          In Realville, I am in fact very careful about storing and handling all firearms in my home. But I have always kept at least a couple of weapons fully loaded and easily accessible, not always in a safe, even when I had a young child in the home. My son knew weapons at a young age and knew what they could do, he wasn’t curious, nor could he get to them anyway. My point here is, let me be in charge of that in my own home. I don’t need the state to be my nanny.

          I really hope you might reconsider your stance here. The restrictions you suggest will only hamper law abiding citizens. Criminals and psychopaths, already disinclined to follow any laws, will not be deterred by any of these proposed regulations.

          • wintermute

            nt

        • tallcharlie

          about firearms.

          Accidental discharge due to heat? Where do you live? Hell?

          I’ve never heard of any firearm discharging accidentally due to heat except in a fire.

          Weapons must be stored unloaded? Who are you to tell me how to keep my guns in my house? If I want a gun for self-defense in my own home, what good would it bee if you forced me to keep it unloaded?

          Adults must have a permit? A permit for what? To own a gun? To shoot a gun? To have access to a gun? Whose business is it, once again, if I have a weapon in my own home? Surely not the government’s.

          All juvenile members must undergo training? That’s common sense, but once again, it’s none of the government’s business what I or my kids do with our guns so long as we do not break the law.

          Here you come along wanting to pass another series of victim-less laws in an attempt to further infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

          Build an underground bunker? Are you insane? A person can already own a howitzer, and ammunition, so long as he pays the Federal tax on such items. As a matter of fact, the law includes requirements for reasonable security, but certainly not for brick garages or underground bunkers.

    • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

      Gun laws happen to be very strict as is.

      I’m not sure exactly what world you live on, but “making it harder for the bad guys to get illegal guns” never happens. They just make it harder for good guys to get guns.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        more 55555s later

      • Viet71

        The poster, IMO, is either an anti-NRA interloper or someone who is ignorant of firearm laws. I’d bet the former.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        All more restrictions do is make it harder for those following the law to comply. Those who aren’t concerned with following the law won’t be deterred in the least.

        • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

          We bought my eldest a 1911 for his birthday. His girlfriend coordinated everything and he had to go into the store 10 days before his birthday to fill out the paperwork so he’d have it for his BD. Needless to say, he’s in California.

          He was in the Marine Corps, SpOps unit, three deployments. He had to take a “gun safety” test. He missed two questions. The guy in the store went over the questions with him and told him the “right” answers and Josh said “B*** S***” and quoted from the Marine Corps manual of arms on the questions.

          The guy laughed and said, “you’re right, the State of California is wrong, and since you could get nine wrong it doesn’t matter.”

          • aesthete

            If the government is in error, it’s still on you to learn the error.

    • aesthete

      and we’ll tell you if we agree with it or not. So far, I’ve seen nonsensical bans on “assault weapons” (because guns with plastic stocks are scarier than ones with wood stocks!), extended mags, and a variety of “waiting periods” and registration fees which don’t seem to serve any purpose.

      “Reasonable restrictions” is the “waste, fraud, and abuse” and “sensible regulations” of the gun control debate: a throwaway line which means precisely nothing, but lets people with no knowledge whatsoever get by without looking like the complete ignorants that they are on the subject that they are talking about.

      • jiminga

        Megyn Kelly had two policy wonks on her show “debating” gun control. The liberal chick actually said “In order to buy an ‘assault weapon’ you should at least have to show some ID”, thereby proving she knew nothing about existing law and defaulted to her flawed belief system.

        BTW, I promised myself to never use the term “assault weapon” but included it in the quote for the sake of accuracy. As we all know, a dinner fork could be called one if used improperly.

        • cbartlett

          But we DON’T have to show an ID to vote. Yeah. Right.

        • cbartlett

          But we DON’T have to show an ID to vote. Yeah. Right.

        • Don T.

          And someone who purchases a firearm from a gun store or FFL dealer has to be 21 years of age or older, and has to fill out a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. There is a long list of restrictions on that form, including prohibiting sales to felons and mentally disturbed persons.

          However, current federal also allows private individuals to sell to other private individuals, without these checks, as long as the buyer is over the age of 18, and the buyer is not a resident of a different state.

          • cbartlett

            I am VERY familiar with firearm purchasing restrictions, including showing ID – we have purchased numerous guns for our household over the years.

            I just found it extremely ironic that a liberal would suggest “requiring ID to purchase an assault weapon” (proving her ignorance of the issue) while, at the same time, the Democratic platform calls for fighting AGAINST anything resembling a voter ID law. These people don’t just stick their feet in their mouth – they are choking on them.

          • Don T.

            I sort of thought that, but I thought it couldn’t hurt to include some info, on what you and I know about, for those innocent readers who may not have known. Good comments and right on, about photo ID and how the left twists itself into pretzels in their inconsistent, poorly reasoned arguments about the issue of photo ID requirements.

    • poorwilber

      since it is in the Bill of Rights.

      Perhaps we should “crack down” as severely as Norway’s very restrictive regulations. No…wait, as I recall they recently had a mass murder (by gun… I believe killing 77 students.

      The best remedy for one bad guy with a gun, is two good guys with gun standing right behind him.

      Watch recent video of the senior citizen in Florida, sending two armed thugs fleeing for their lives while trying to rob an internet cafe.

      No measure is ever r”easonable” if it hinders the exercise of liberty.

      • jag57

        Your last line says it all, I couldn’t have said it better.

    • jag57

      I diverge with the NRA, but for exactly the opposite reason. There is no reason to negotiate away our preexisting, God given rights, enshrined in the 2nd amendment, to buy the firearms of our choice, with no limit on how many rounds a magazine may hold, how many inch barrel, or what the gun looks like. If you know anything about history, you should realize registration leads to confiscation. Criminals are always going to have guns, so any restrictions on guns only penalizes the law abiding citizens.

      Bloomberg needs to move to Chicago, a gun free zone, and give up his security detail.

      I probably have a few decades on most on this site, so I will tell you, we are not living in the country I grew up in. In 1954, when I graduated HS, crime was almost non existent; now crime can happen anywhere, rural, or urban.

  • jddrouin

    The Peter Principle.

  • donmyrick

    There are no gun-free zones, but there are legislated free-fire zones for criminals.

    • congressworksforus

      Amen!

  • kowalski

    “We offered the world ORDER!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIrBVjVfjNY

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      .

  • aesthete

    Bloomberg indefinitely striking until either gun control is implemented or the rapture happens (whichever comes last).

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      to study options for either postponing the date of the latter, or extending his term until it occurs (think of the photo-op when he hands over the keys to the city!)

  • kowalski

    Is that once he left Hopkins for Harvard he became a little Napoleon. His sensibilities are all socially left wing on abortion, on gun control, on drugs, on virtually everything because he’s a sophisticate. He’s an admirer of the things he was introduced to at Harvard and the things his wealth have bought him.

    He cares not one iota for the people in the rest of this country and he’s the most condescending and tyrannical jerk who has ever tried to do what he’s trying to do.

    I can also guess that he has a tremendous superiority complex. He uses data to pre-diagnose areas of crime, and his entire life in business was based on predicting things based on data and making hundreds of millions of dollars off of it. I was in the room at Johns Hopkins when he received his crystal award for Entrepreneurship, prior to his funding the Bloomberg School of Public Health. In response to a faculty member there who questioned whether he had the ability to do what he wanted around the world, Bloomberg responded: “I have an army of lawyers who make sure I can do whatever I want.”

    Nothing has changed since then. He’s the same dude.

    It’s the same absolutism, the same overweening and juvenile sense of superiority, the same: “I guess everyone is just smarter than me [wink]” self-aggrandizement BS.

    Except he wants to control the entire country when it comes to guns. He’s a total control freak, and now I’m beginning to think he always has been.

    • kowalski

      Isn’t hard to discern. You can watch most of his press conferences and listen to his radio addresses to hear his crushing logic on almost every subject, blasted out at thousands of watts across the airwaves.

      His basic idea, in case you haven’t already discovered it is:

      “I’m always right. Now listen to me and do what I say, because I’m always right.”

    • kowalski

      By the way, was so deeply offensive to the room of assembled academics that you could hear the gasp wave travel across the auditorium. That has not stopped Mike Bloomberg. It’s made him stronger.

      Here Mike: instead of “Army of Lawyers” I give you: “Army of Lovers”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYT2aWavXlc

      Why don’t you actually go and talk to some of the people you seem to hate so much? The gun owners you despise? You’ll find they’re as good or better than people in your own background. And instead of acting like you hate their guts all the time, if you actually tried to talk with them you’d discover that. You still have a lot to learn.

  • kipling

    Most Americans – at least those living in the heartland – are willing and able to protect themselves and their families from anarchy.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Then the rest of the politicians and their guards. Then celebrities and their guards. Then the criminals (including gun smugglers & anyone in the DOJ sending guns to Mexico). Then the leaders of other countries who want to kill us.

    And I’m going to want a guarantee that nobody will ever threaten me or my family anywhere or anytime, and that I’ll never be in a situation in which I have the need to use my gun(s) to protect myself or my family. You get all of that done and I might be willing to listen.

    (Not really.)

    • http://my168project.com Batman

      But you seem to have beaten me to the punch. This is what I get for living on the left coast, I guess.

      So, by example, Bloomberg should indeed publicly confiscate his protection detail’s guns, and destroy them. He can keep his unarmed guards after that, however, there may be a high turnover rate.

  • mkozikowski

    to own guns.
    If there are no police, then I have only two groups of people which I would be offended by and nervous to be around

    The Military
    and
    Criminals.

    And in both cases, I would rather have a nice sized arsenal in my possession.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      howverysad

  • lineholder

    Without police, people will become that much more proactive in making sure that they have a means of protecting themselves, their families and their property.

    It would be interesting, though…wonder if the police would actually follow through on this particular command or whether the government would have to force them to do it by threatening loss of employment, pay, etc., etc.

    Most cops I know are decent people who take their jobs seriously.

  • runner12

    Either that or he is eccentric to the point of dancing on that line. He wants to control everything in NYC, from big-sized drinks to banning food products with sodium in them at food pantries. Now he wants to get rid of all guns. Each week the guy does or says something just off-the-wall crazy.

    When is his term up? As crazy as the people in NYC are, surely they will have the common sense to boot this guy out of office.

    • aesthete

      Control freaks are, unfortunately, part and parcel of a normal human experience.

      • runner12

        Like I said, he may not be on the clinical side yet but he is dancing awfully close. He is like a little Napoleon, without the French accent.

    • infiltr8tr

      This is the same guy who re-wrote the 2-term only law in NYC when he wanted a third term. I remember when there was talk of postponing the election after 9/11 and asking Rudy to stay on a while longer. Napoleanowitz lost his mind!!! I remember him ranting on talk radio back then and that should have been a clue to most folks in NYC.
      It looks like Kelly is going to take a run at it next, as the power-mad little yenta only won his last go around by something like 4 1/2 points. That won’t stop him though as he truly doesn’t care what the average person thinks.
      I would love nothing more than to see him run out of town tarred and feathered and crying hysterically. Most politicos that I don’t care for, I bear no personal animus against. But there’s something about this guy that makes my skin crawl every time he opens his mouth.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The failure of the state to organize said militia does not absolve me of the responsibility to be trained in arms. “Shall not be infringed” would be a very simple law to follow.

    Nothing harms others in the keeping and bearing of arms. That is a very precise usage of language.

    However, I am responsible for the use or misuse of MY arms. Until I have to be held responsible for said arms, the ideal should be “shall not be infringed.”

    Nothing prevents criminals or determined crazies from acquiring arms. Therefore, the laws against the keeping and bearing of arms should be null and void.

    Yes, I’m including felons that have completed their punishments. If they are too dangerous to trust with a legally acquired firearm, why are they loose? That leaves the mentally ill. And so, we must reform and improve our mental health system. Of course, detecting said mentally ill can be the problem. And until they commit a crime….they are owning inanimate objects.

    It is the misuse of firearms that is the crime. NOT the possession.

    • cwfoster

      “That leaves the mentally ill. And so, we must reform and improve our mental health system. Of course, detecting said mentally ill can be the problem. And until they commit a crime?.they are owning inanimate objects” I wholeheartedly agree, except that it’s NOT just the mental health system. Remember the Gabby Giffords shooting? the Democrat Sheriff of Pima County where Tuscon is located deflected three or four attempts to file charges on the shooter in the year or so before the shooting because the boys mother worked for the county. HAD those charges been filed, the sale would have been flagged when he went to make the purchase under the existing Brady Law, and he wouldn’t have been able to get the gun! Then the wonk had the nerve to blame Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin for it.
      As to the allowing of (former) criminals to own guns, if it was made clear to you as an ex-felon that with a proven previous history of violent crime, anyone shooting you with a gun in your hand wouldn’t be questioned too closely, how anxious would you be to put one in your hand? If you were arrested and convicted of “verbal assault” for calling Obama a racist tyrant, and that charge was PUNISHIBLE by 1 year, but you were placed on probation, you would thus be a felon, and unable to lawfully able to purchase a firearm. But that would be against the First Amendment you say? When has the current regime allowed a 224 year old document stand in the way of real progress? Why change the law if you can redefine the restricted class?

  • jiminga

    This must mean he wants to abandon the 1% and join the occupiers, right?

    This man is seriously in need of counseling or at least a change in his meds.

  • cwfoster

    too much credit: “The latest evidence that Little Lord Farquaad New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg?s brain is melting into a puddle of hot goo”

    Eh, lukewarm at best, and that only because it’s high summer.

  • http://www.redstate.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php docfreeman

    Michael Bloomberg, Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.
    When you consider that NYC is $73.5 billion in debt as of 2011 you would think he has more to do than tell people what size soft drink they can buy. Now he wants people to give up their guns??? Read this small portion of an article from Switzerland:
    ‘Safest Place On Earth’ Is Country With Most Guns Per Person
    Switzerland is Europe’s gun capital. It has more firepower per person than any other country in the world yet it is said to be one of the safest places on Earth.
    Despite the prevalence of lethal hardware, the country has virtually no violent crime, there are only minimal controls at public buildings, and politicians rarely have police protection, although yesterday’s events are bound to bring about a review of that situation.
    Year after year, Switzerland has one of the world’s lowest murder rates while sending machine guns to every member of their citizen army.
    All males between 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for the purposes of national defence and they are not kept in safes or with trigger locks. They are kept at the ready.

  • redneckthinker

    I cannot suffer the sight of that sawed-off dictator wannabe. This is all about freedom and the tyrants who would deprive us of it.

    We need a serious campaign to restore a love for liberty in this country. We will never be secure until liberty is cherished and the maternal oppressiveness of government appropriately scorned.

  • brojohn2

    is hitting what you aim at. There is no law that can protect me and my family if that law restricts my right to keep and bear arms. I am a proud member of the NRA, I practice with my firearms on a regular basis, probably put 1,000 – 2,000 rounds downrange every 6 months or so (firing at least one time a month 80 to 100 rounds each time).

    My wife and I have been shot at once, we were both armed at the time on our ranch, the person doing the shooting was convinced to flee, she with 30-30 and me with 5.56 mini 14. We will not give up our rights to bear arms, since we live in an area where illegal aliens are regularly caught, many times they are armed with auto weapons and carrying marijuana or cocaine into our country.

    We are a part of the citizen militia, and will keep our guns.

  • sgtken

    Someone should get this (man/boy?) back on his meds. I think he is going over the edge faster then before.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    That you don’t have to scratch a lefty very hard to see the Chairman Mao hiding underneath.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      no text

  • tallcharlie

    Bloomberg!

    Somebody called him a little Napoleon. Hitler wannabee is more like it.

    Hitler and his Nazis did well as long as the German economy was suffering and indeed, anarchy reigned for several years as the communists, socialists, Christian democrats, monarchists, and Fascists fought for supremacy. During that period, Hitler made great progress, took advantage of the anarchy, and eventually became Chancellor of Germany then absolute dictator of that country.

    Hitler also had a great interest in health. His Nazis quickly defined what foods were proper for more masculine males and more feminine females. Just like Bloomberg is trying to start with his prohibition on large soft drinks.

    The Nazis wrote the first gun control law, the Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938. This was followed, almost immediately, by a markedly increased program of dispossessing and imprisoning Jews and other so-called sub-species.

    During the pogroms to imprison Jews, the firearms registration lists created by the 1938 law were used to identify gun owners for confiscation of the firearms.

    Our GunControl Act of 1968 was modeled on the Nazi Law of 1938 almost word for word in many parts.

    Hitler organized the Nazi party into areas called Gaus, with managing directors called Gauleiters. This is, of course, very similar to Bloomberg’s organization of mayors.

    Ironically, Micheal Bloomberg, the little Jewish, half-pint billionaire, has learned well from the man that tried to destroy the Jewish race: Adolf Hitler.

    They are two peas from the same pod.

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: read

  • Pingback: Ina Grinkley

  • Pingback: Claretta Weekley

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: maid service

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: the full details

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: skype

  • Pingback: wedding magician

  • Pingback: Proactol customer reviews

  • Pingback: Go to Your WEB ADDRESS

  • Pingback: camping weekend

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: กล้องวงจรปิด

  • Pingback: Continue Reading

  • Pingback: Male Extra scam

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay CA

  • Pingback: Continued

  • Pingback: descargar musica gratis para ipad

  • Pingback: check my weblog

  • Pingback: enemy unknown

  • Pingback: assassins creed 3

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: foreclosure defense

  • Pingback: payday loans online

  • Pingback: free download mp3 songs

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: such a great point

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: what Search engines did in my experience

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: หอพักเอแบค

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: ocoee crown molding kitchen installation

  • Pingback: Keenan Pretti

  • Pingback: florida no fault auto insurance

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: mobile marketing

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: Power Point

  • Pingback: chocolate gift baskets delivered

  • Pingback: http://citricice.com/netrikan/

  • Pingback: Susan Goodell Solana Beach

  • Pingback: cisco wan optimization

  • Pingback: best forex trading software

  • Pingback: sewing machine motor repair

  • Pingback: xmas detox diet

  • Pingback: scrapebox proxies tutorial

  • Pingback: franchise opportunities canada

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: boot problem

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: Mickey Rodkin

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: e cigarettes

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: inquiry

  • Pingback: payday advance loans

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: she assumed

  • Pingback: pmu résultats et rapports

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: economical price

  • Pingback: Setup

  • Pingback: specialist

  • Pingback: enquiry

  • Pingback: Destinee

  • Pingback: Eliza

  • Pingback: Caron

  • Pingback: Flannery

  • Pingback: Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012

  • Pingback: gold and silver investments

  • Pingback: Morton Faries

  • Pingback: Lenita Cerventez

  • Pingback: Johnny Bobeck

  • Pingback: alfileres de novia

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: Look this

  • Pingback: loans and bad credit

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: look up phone number owner

  • Pingback: Trina Hartranft

  • Pingback: Barrie Gilford

  • Pingback: Chase Schriber

  • Pingback: Zella Asher

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: buy active instagram followers

  • Pingback: "??? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: mold testing services

  • Pingback: hop over to this web-site

  • Pingback: Dumpster Rentals

  • Pingback: Audric

  • Pingback: thel Addison

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: free annual credit report gov

  • Pingback: Shae Roddick

  • Pingback: samsung galaxy s 3

  • Pingback: online dating

  • Pingback: baby r us registry

  • Pingback: strengthens the immune system

  • Pingback: Home Detox

  • Pingback: http://landofnodcoupons.weebly.com/

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: make money online

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Ghislaine

  • Pingback: Felicite

  • Pingback: cheapest car insurance quotes

  • Pingback: dieta proteica dukan

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: loans and bad credit

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: las vegas bankruptcy lawyer

  • Pingback: zynga chips

  • Pingback: karla spice gigi

  • Pingback: Medical Marketing

  • Pingback: auto accident boardman

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: uniform specialist

  • Pingback: ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org

  • Pingback: chat

  • Pingback: Medical Practice Marketing

  • Pingback: read what he said

  • Pingback: http://voicelessharbin48.sosblogs.com/Kelley-s-Views-b1/Ponte-Vedra-Cheap-Real-Estate-b1-p3.htm

  • Pingback: cyclical ketogenic diet

  • Pingback: Donatien

  • Pingback: Guy

  • Pingback: Jimmy Lankford

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: spray tan in a can