Thread: Mayor Bloomberg thinks police should go on strike until we get stronger gun laws!

Liberals say the damnedest things. Bloomberg is a total loon.
He also conducted an "investigation" 2400 miles away in Arizona at gun shows. Bloomberg Is Criticized for Arizona Gun Show Scrutiny - NYTimes.com

Bloomberg is one of the biggest idiots on the planet.

I think the NYPD and Bloomberg's body guards should stop carrying their guns until we get stronger gun laws.

and the majority elected him

that's some funny shit.. if the police went on strike, chaos would reign and all the criminals who own illegal guns would take over and a warlord state would be created.

^^^^ So, Bloomberg is an anarchist?

Sneaky bastard.

Originally Posted by Jimmyusa

An attack of the second amendment rights, liberals waste no time on "Colorado crisis situation" to try and move on gun control... Mayor Bloomberg Suggests Police Go On Strike Until We Have Stricter Gun Control Laws

to bad Bloomberg isn't a liberal he ran as a Republican and Independent the last 2 times

Go on strike so criminals can break into gun stores and arm themselves with even more unregistered illegal guns.

Originally Posted by maniclion

Go on strike so criminals can break into gun stores and arm themselves with even more unregistered illegal guns.

Originally Posted by LAM

to bad Bloomberg isn't a liberal he ran as a Republican and Independent the last 2 times

just because he calls himself a republican doesnt mean he is one.. you should look up the original definition of "liberal".. disturbing how different the original definition is from the modern "value" system

Originally Posted by LAM

to bad Bloomberg isn't a liberal he ran as a Republican and Independent the last 2 times

this is one more reason I believe "republican and democrats have the same agenda, BIG GOVERNMENT" it is shameful...

Originally Posted by LAM

to bad Bloomberg isn't a liberal he ran as a Republican and Independent the last 2 times

If you're elected in NYC you're a liberal, no matter the party you're with.

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

just because he calls himself a republican doesnt mean he is one.. you should look up the original definition of "liberal".. disturbing how different the original definition is from the modern "value" system

kind of like the fiscal responsibility of the Reagan neo-cons....and i'm well versed in economic language, everywhere else on the Internet and world people consider me to be moderate, only on IM am I called a liberal.

that's the kicker with language in general and why words should never be taken literally as they are open to interpretation...

Originally Posted by maniclion

Go on strike so criminals can break into gun stores and arm themselves with even more unregistered illegal guns.

Good luck with that. Gun stores lock their stuff down at close of business.

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

Originally Posted by Standard Donkey

that's some funny shit.. if the police went on strike, chaos would reign and all the criminals who own illegal guns would take over and a warlord state would be created.

When the citizens beg for a police state, thats when you know the elitist have you under their thumb.

a week or 2 of anarchy and the people of NY would literally adopt any outrageous rule they implemented. of course this wont happen...But its just a preview of what a lot of people in power want. They want a state of anarchy for a brief period...This way the people are so desperate, they would beg for martial law.

Originally Posted by niviceaas

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

I doubt the founding fathers imagined "composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles" which is largely irrelevant because the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the security of a free state; not simply to preserve the state but to secure a free state. You can't do that with muskets. I believe the founding fathers would legalize fully automatic weapons.

Of course they never say they want to take guns away, they do that under the radar and use euphemisms like 'common sense gun laws'. The Aurora shooter had no records to preclude him from purchasing those guns as far as I'm aware.

And what does "composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles" have to do with anything related to this discussion?

Originally Posted by niviceaas

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

Nope the Founders had no idea that things like Glocks, AK's or even a bolt action rifle would ever exist. They did, however, believe that the people should be armed with weapons of war to keep the government in line.

Oh, "they" would take the guns away if they could. It is essential to those who want power to have an unarmed populace. There are more than a few in Congress that would jump on a confiscation of private firearm in a NY minute if they thought it could be done. There is actually nothing wrong with the current screening process. Keep in mind the crazies and criminals will always have access to firearms and ammunition. If there is money to be made, some one will be willing to sell you what you want.

Originally Posted by niviceaas

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

bloomberg is a liberal.

I am certain of this, the founding fathers knew the risk of a free country based on our constitution involved an equal risk of a dictatorship and tyranny as an end result. So, to keep our government "for the people" they included this...

Amendment II
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.

Originally Posted by niviceaas

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

What better screening is needed beyond a federal background check?

Originally Posted by niviceaas

First of all I dont think Bloomberg is a liberal. Second when you talk about second amendment rights and the writing of such rights, do you think the founding fathers imagined composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles ? The problem here is very few if any ever say they want to take guns away, they simply suggest better screening for those who want to buy them.

who knows...., but they had cannons back then and people were allowed to own them. So i think they'd have no problem with it. I sure don't.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

What better screening is needed beyond a federal background check?

gun facts from GOA website

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

Bloomberg is a billionaire, what is most important to him is the security of his MONEY.......

Originally Posted by troubador

I doubt the founding fathers imagined "composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles" which is largely irrelevant because the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the security of a free state; not simply to preserve the state but to secure a free state. You can't do that with muskets. I believe the founding fathers would legalize fully automatic weapons.

Of course they never say they want to take guns away, they do that under the radar and use euphemisms like 'common sense gun laws'. The Aurora shooter had no records to preclude him from purchasing those guns as far as I'm aware.

And what does "composite hand guns and automatic assault rifles" have to do with anything related to this discussion?

Well when you talk about 2nd amendment rights, you should consider the intent. If all they had at the time were farmers with muskets thats very different to have a gun in every house.

The virginia tech shooter had a history of mental illness did he not ? More info may come out about the Co nut job.

Dont you think something is wrong when Mexicans come here to easily get guns ?

I dont have a hand gun licence, but have thought about getting one. I believe it takes about 4-6 weeks here in NY, whats wrong with that ?

Originally Posted by charley

Bloomberg is a billionaire, what is most important to him is the security of his MONEY.......

This, right here!

If Bloomberg were so against guns he wouldn't have an armed security detail.

Originally Posted by niviceaas

Well when you talk about 2nd amendment rights, you should consider the intent. If all they had at the time were farmers with muskets thats very different to have a gun in every house.

The virginia tech shooter had a history of mental illness did he not ? More info may come out about the Co nut job.

Dont you think something is wrong when Mexicans come here to easily get guns ?

I dont have a hand gun licence, but have thought about getting one. I believe it takes about 4-6 weeks here in NY, whats wrong with that ?

you should really re-think the "Mexicans come here for guns" comparison. the only ones in mexico running things are cartels, because LE and the people cannot defend themselves, they have no weapons. your point only cements the founding fathers idea behind the 2nd amendment and the ridiculousness that gun control is based on.