National Gun Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
David Harsanyi -National Review March 3, 2020, 4:44 PM CST


How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that is likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines you seek to ban the common citizen from owning? Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these people’s?” a Virginian named Clarke Chitty asked Democratic Party presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg during a recent Fox News town hall.It’s an outstanding question. And Bloomberg’s answer is pretty straightforward: Yes, his life is worth more than yours.

“Look, I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, OK, and some of them are real. That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City or you’re very wealthy and if you’re campaigning for president of the United States,” Bloomberg replied. “You get lots of threats. So, I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and . . . they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”


In the United States, our rights aren’t — or shouldn’t be — meted out according to status. But you’ll notice Bloomberg doesn’t really answer the question, anyway. I suspect millions of Americans who aren’t as famous or rich (very rich, in this case) live in situations in which their property and safety are threatened to the same extent. Not that it matters. Does Bloomberg propose that everyone undergo a government risk assessment before being allowed to practice constitutional rights?

Probably, right?

More importantly, Clarke Chitty, one suspects, has zero interest in stripping away Bloomberg’s constitutional right to own a firearm, or to hire professional armed bodyguards to protect him from legitimate threats. The former mayor of New York City, on the other hand, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to pass laws and regulations that would leave Americans like Clarke Chitty defenseless.

It’s this kind of arrogance that brought about District of Columbia v. Heller, the case affirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right. One of the first plaintiffs in that effort, Shelly Parker, was an African-American resident of Washington, D.C., who had gotten fed up with the crime near her Capitol Hill home. She attempted to rally her neighbors to clean up the neighborhood, provoking the ire of local drug dealers, who began vandalizing her property and threatening her life. “In the event that someone does get in my home,” she explained, “I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them.” It would have been illegal for Parker, neither wealthy nor famous, to obtain a gun to protect herself. She was also in danger.

Or take Otis McDonald, the retired 76-year-old of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case that affirmed that the right of individual gun ownership extended to the states. By 2010, the neighborhood McDonald had lived in since 1971 had become infested with gangs, drug dealers, and widespread criminality. His home had been broken into on five separate occasions, so he had a legitimate reason to worry about his safety. Someone like Bloomberg might have suggested that Otis keep some paper towels handy, but McDonald wanted a handgun. At the time, Chicago had a handgun ban in place, ensuring that only criminals could own them. I suspect that McDonald was in as much jeopardy as Bloomberg.

To top it off, Bloomberg then blatantly lied to the Fox crowd, claiming that “the Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions, and the only restrictions which I am in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals, or people that are minors, OK?”

Not really. If Bloomberg had any practical hope of overturning the Second Amendment, he would certainly do it. As it is, Bloomberg bankrolls major anti-gun efforts that go much further policy-wise than keeping guns out of the hands of children and people with serious psychiatric problems — both of which are already illegal, and supported by nearly everyone.

Bloomberg, the presidential candidate, supports banning “assault weapons,” the most popular rifles in the country, which account for a sliver of the gun crimes in the country. Bloomberg supports stripping gun companies of “immunity” in civil lawsuits that would allow activists to hold manufacturers responsible for all criminality — a blatant attempt to put them out of business. Bloomberg supports “red flag” laws, which strip away due process for gun owners. Bloomberg supports raising the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21. Bloomberg supports federal efforts requiring every gun buyer to obtain a permit. Bloomberg wants to create a positon for a federal gun czar to implement all these restrictions on the federal level. In other words, Bloomberg supports every single active effort to restrict gun ownership that exists.

Well for you, not him.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,370 Posts
Bloomberg's special detail carries full auto subguns at times. He also badgered the Bermuda government to allow his armed goons into their country when even the police are unarmed. So WHO is he afraid of when visiting one of his many homes; this one in Bermuda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,138 Posts
There can be few clearer illustrations of the folly of draconian firearms regulations than this.
The killer was a convicted felon who had previously been found guilty of weapons offenses and aggravated assault, and who is now on the run from federal authorities.
The victim was a “bubbly, well-liked,” law-abiding woman who did not want to run afoul of the government even when she sensed that her life was in danger.
If “government” is just another word for the things we do together, then, frankly, we failed – and damnably.
All Carol Bowne asked was that she be permitted to exercise her right to protect herself in her own home; instead, she ended up bleeding to death in her driveway, as the paper-pushers and know-it-alls decided whether they would deign to indulge her request, and her killer sped away, without fear of retaliation or injury.​
Is that justice? Is that sane? Is that how gun control is supposed to work?
Obviously, gun control advocates don’t (hopefully they don’t) want innocent lives to be lost (even though they use them as campaign fodder), but this is usually the byproduct of their policies; the innocent, law-abiding suffer, while the criminals roam free, inflicting violence on the rest of us.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/draft-n2008956

More Women and Children Killed By The Brady Bill

Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative, issued a 14-page dissent in the background check case.
He accused his colleagues of displaying contempt toward constitutional gun rights protections.
"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene," he wrote, according to Reuters.
"But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."
However, Eric Tirschwell, litigation director for Everytown for Gun Safety, said, "The courts are continuing to recognize that states have the authority to pass reasonable public safety laws to protect their citizens from gun violence."https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-california-law-waiting-period-gun-purchase/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fitasc Shooter

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,370 Posts
However, Eric Tirschwell, litigation director for Everytown for Gun Safety, said, "The courts are continuing to recognize that states have the authority to pass reasonable public safety laws to protect their citizens from gun violence."https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...-gun-purchase/
Gee. maybe they should focus on keeping criminals behind bars. preventing criminals from disobeying the current 30,000 gun laws, and on and on...................................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
One wonders what type of firearm Mini Mike carries. He's also too big to have to submit to security checks, like us "little guys" . Now, I've got Hillary pegged for a S&W 640,
(not that she'll ever get thrown in jail, and strip searched) but IMO, Mike's a bit more of a ***** than Hillary. Maybe he carries a Kahr 380, or a .32 PPK ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,435 Posts
Mini Mike thinks that, because he has a few more pennies in the bank than the average Joe, that he is special and since he believe he is part of the "elite" he should be giving special treatment, after all, according to him, his life is more valuable than the average Joe that is part of the masses he seeks to control.

In summary, Mini Mike is just another DemocRAT SOB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,155 Posts
Doomburg doesn't hide his hatred of guns well and he does a very poor job of explaining. He just makes statements and assumes that like the people that work for him we will all agree with what he says. When asked about that church shooting in TX, he just says he doesn't think that guy should have a gun. As far as I know he was never pressed and asked what he thought would have happened if Jack Wilson wasn't armed.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
22,293 Posts
Boobberg has a "king complex". He wants to tell everyone what to do, how to act, etc. In other words, the SOB is mentally ill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevejet

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,435 Posts
Boobberg has a "king complex". He wants to tell everyone what to do, how to act, etc. In other words, the SOB is mentally ill.
I do not think he is mentally ill, I think he has a superiority complex. He think he is better than every one else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Almost all gun control laws (or any laws that limit the public) which are presented and or passed exclude the lawmakers. Just like when Obamacare was forced upon the public it to excluded the lawmakers. All politicians believe they are above the law.

Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top