Read nanny Mayor Bloomberg’s full demand for gun control (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/07/20/nanny-mayor-bloomberg-demands-action-on-gun-control-after-co-shooting/)


While President Obama and Mitt Romney are taking a break from outspoken politicking today, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is stepping forward and demanding action, criticizing the candidates for not directly addressing what he considers to be a key issue in the tragedy: gun control.

Here’s what Bloomberg had to say this morning in an interview with radio host John Gambling , just hours after the shooting in Colorado:

Gambling: Nice to see you as always. That deal in Aurora, just another horrific unexplainable mass murder.

Mayor Bloomberg: You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic,’ and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns? I can tell you what we do here in New York. The State Legislature passed the toughest gun laws – some states may say no. That’s okay, what do you want to do? And maybe every Governor should stand up. But in the end, it is really the leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be President of the United States starting next January 1st – what are they going to do about guns?

Gambling: The reality is you know that will not happen.

Mayor Bloomberg: Well, it’ll happen, John, if it was one of your kids yesterday in Aurora, maybe you’d stand up and say I’m not going to take this anymore. Maybe you get your friends and everything. And it’s not a question of what you think is right here. Here’s the issue: You want to be President? Okay, I said the other day, forget about stuff- you want to fix the economy? Tell us how you’re going to fix the economy, and tell us in a practical sense because the President has to deal with Congress, the President has to do things consistent with what the courts will allow. But just going and talking in generalities unfortunately doesn’t give the public the information they need to make an informed decision.

I'll never understand why some people think that if we become sheep available for slaughter the wolves will disappear

When Mike Bloomburg and other totalitarians decide their lives are not worth defending and have no weapons protecting them, I'll give a flying fart what Mike Bloomburg thinks about others protecting themselves.

When Mike Bloomburg and other totalitarians decide their lives are not worth defending and have no weapons protecting them, I'll give a flying fart what Mike Bloomburg thinks about others protecting themselves.


This coming from a man who out laws large sodas but lets a man down 56 hot dogs on the 4th of July?!?!:coffee:

do we really need 100 round magazines?

do we really need 100 round magazines?

yes

I think Willy Wonka said it best, when he said...

do we really need 100 round magazines?


I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

do we really need 100 round magazines?

See, thats the slippery slope, like the old saw about a woman who would sleep with a man for $100,000, but not $5. "We've established what you are Ma'am, now we are just quibbling about the price". Once you start arguing specifics about weapon types (silly ass definitions like the chimerical "assault rifle"" and magazine capacity, you blow right by the basic fact that the intention of the 2nd wasn't about specifics but about the basic idea that the only way citizens have, in the end, to overthrow a tyrannical government is by having access to firearms.

Like beginning a criminal trial by starting with the sentencing, you have the sequencing backwards.

This coming from a man who out laws large sodas but lets a man down 56 hot dogs on the 4th of July?!?!:coffee:

:lmao:

do we really need 100 round magazines?

Perhaps not. Frankly, 100 round magazines for something like an AR-15 probably don't, in most situations, make much sense from the user's perspective. Thirty round magazines are probably better.

But if the Second Amendment (and its extension by the Fourteenth Amendment) stands for anything, it stands for the idea that one side in the balance of power (i.e. the government) can't be allowed to decide what the other side in that balance of power (i.e. the people) 'needs' when it comes to the very tools which are, when it comes down to it, the only means by which the latter might be able to keep that balance of power from tipping too far in the former's direction. The question of what players the Redskins are allowed to field can't be left up to the Cowboys while those Cowboys remain free to choose for themselves what players they want to use. That would be a recipe for perpetual Cowboy domination, which would be hard enough to countenance. When it comes to the power struggle between governments and citizens though, allowing the government similar authority over the means-of-resistence decisions of those citizens would be much worse: Government domination means tyranny, a state which our forefathers wished us to retain the means to avoid or, at least, mitigate.

So maybe we citizens don't need assault rifles, 100 round magazines, flash suppressors, sawed-off shotguns, or hollow-point rounds; but those are decisions that should be, and according to our Constitution are required to be, left to us to make. The government doesn't get to decide for us what we need in order to pose a palpable threat to its tyrannical potential. That's the whole fllipin' point. The idea that the government gets to decide what weapons we may have, what weapons we 'need', is repugnant to one of the founding principles of this nation - that principle being that, "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to" securing the rights of liberty, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." If we don't need 100 round magazines, we don't have to have them. But if we're to take the words of the Founding Fathers as more than hollow political rhetoric, we sure as hell need the right to decide for ourselves.

Does this proposed gun grab include the security details provided to politicians? :confused: