50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

UxoriousMagnusI know a lot of people here are not big fans of Alex Jones but this is a very interesting story for gun owners.

I'm a fanboy.

The fact Bloomberg doesnt have terminal cancer is offensive to me as both an American, and an intelligent human being.

He is a smarmy little turd who simply needs to be ignored.

reply to post by moresco


"Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that."


Criminals dont posess Legal Registered Firearms and are Not Subject to these Insane Anti Gun Advocates like Bloomberg and his ilk . They are Predators in our Society and use Fear , Intimidation , and Deadly Force to get what they want . Aiming Anti Gun Leglslation towards Law Abiding Gun Owning Citizens is tantamount to Feeding Helpless Baby Lambs to Starving Lions , the " Lions" being Criminals and an Over reaching Federal Goverment used by Politicians for their Own Personal Agendas . The American people have a Freakin' Right to Protect themselves regardless of what some Power Tripping Politico might Desire..........



And yes Mr. Bloomberg , we are Almost All Out Of Bubblegum......


i297.photobucket.com...

moresco


Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that. I think people too often see the "shall not be infringed" part and stop reading before the "well regulated part". I have guns myself and would not be willing to give them up but we have to be reasonable. Being extreme in either direction isn't going to solve any problems.

The very fact that every gun control proponent has to preface their support of unconstitutional policies with the words "reasonable" or "common sense" shows that they have neither reason nor common sense.

The 2nd Amendment doesnt say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed after obtaining a government permission slip and passing government mandated education. Know why it doesn't say that? Because by the very definition of the word infringe, both of those are infringements.

There is no requirement to be reasonable when it comes to government taking away more supposedly protected rights. In fact, that is the perfect time to be unreasonable.

doubletap

moresco


Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that. I think people too often see the "shall not be infringed" part and stop reading before the "well regulated part". I have guns myself and would not be willing to give them up but we have to be reasonable. Being extreme in either direction isn't going to solve any problems.

Thank You for clearing that up . Perception of what someone utters will always be misinterpreted by some .

The very fact that every gun control proponent has to preface their support of unconstitutional policies with the words "reasonable" or "common sense" shows that they have neither reason nor common sense.

The 2nd Amendment doesnt say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed after obtaining a government permission slip and passing government mandated education. Know why it doesn't say that? Because by the very definition of the word infringe, both of those are infringements.

There is no requirement to be reasonable when it comes to government taking away more supposedly protected rights. In fact, that is the perfect time to be unreasonable.

Phage
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

Either way it's obviously a political move rather than one based on his convictions.
It "didn't take long" for him to realize MAIG's "real purpose" but he's been a member for more than 4 years. He waits until he announces that he's running for state senate to quit and denounce MAIG.

If it were my district I don't know who I would vote for but I do know it wouldn't be him.

I agree with your statement and I also think he quit for political reasons instead of his morals. I don't know how his district votes but I don't think he could win the Republican nomination being a part of MAIG's or leaving the group without bashing it. I will say I do think Bloomberg and some of his group members are for stricter gun control then they will let the public know about but I don't think they are for actual gun confiscation. I believe if they got their way they would make it extremely hard for any one to get a gun and I think in time they would adapt our gun laws to mirror Japan, England, and Australia's gun laws.

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

I will say I do think Bloomberg and some of his group members are for stricter gun control then they will let the public know about but I don't think they are for actual gun confiscation.

I doubt it's the express hidden goal of MAIG but the thing is it does bring up the "slippery slope" argument. That argument could be valid. I don't really know.

It's a tricky situation. I'm all for private gun ownership. But I really don't think everyone should be armed. Coming up with laws that make sense and are enforceable is a problem.

reply to post by Phage


problem?...LOL you got that right
our virtual gun registry here in Kanuckistan was coded by the same bunch that brought you the Obama care web fiasco...

hel guvernment is the biggest killer of the twentieth century...( 262 mill give or take)
it would be safer to get rid of them and keep the guns

Phage
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I will say I do think Bloomberg and some of his group members are for stricter gun control then they will let the public know about but I don't think they are for actual gun confiscation.

I doubt it's the express hidden goal of MAIG but the thing is it does bring up the "slippery slope" argument. That argument could be valid. I don't really know.

It's a tricky situation. I'm all for private gun ownership. But I really don't think everyone should be armed. Coming up with laws that make sense and are enforceable is a problem.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well I don't think there will ever be a time in the near future where the vast majority will be armed, I mean now only 37% say they or someone in their house owns a gun according to pew research center but the real % of gun owners is hard to pin down. I don't own a gun and have only shot a gun a handful of times but I'm still a very passionate about gun rights but I would be for background checks at gun shows if we these politicians or researchers could show me that a high number of gun related crime/mass shootings are done by guns bought without a background check. I agree that coming up with smart laws and enforcing them are tough but there have been plenty of times where the courts don't even try an prosecute people who have tried to purchase a gun when they aren't eligible or lied on their background check because it takes to much time and they don't have the resources.

Phage
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I will say I do think Bloomberg and some of his group members are for stricter gun control then they will let the public know about but I don't think they are for actual gun confiscation.

I doubt it's the express hidden goal of MAIG but the thing is it does bring up the "slippery slope" argument. That argument could be valid. I don't really know.

It's a tricky situation. I'm all for private gun ownership. But I really don't think everyone should be armed. Coming up with laws that make sense and are enforceable is a problem.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well I don't think there will ever be a time in the near future where the vast majority will be armed, I mean now only 37% say they or someone in their house owns a gun according to pew research center but the real % of gun owners is hard to pin down. I don't own a gun and have only shot a gun a handful of times but I'm still a very passionate about gun rights but I would be for background checks at gun shows if we these politicians or researchers could show me that a high number of gun related crime/mass shootings are done by guns bought without a background check. I agree that coming up with smart laws and enforcing them are tough but there have been plenty of times where the courts don't even try an prosecute people who have tried to purchase a gun when they aren't eligible or lied on their background check because it takes to much time and they don't have the resources.

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

Well I don't think there will ever be a time in the near future where the vast majority will be armed

Heh. That's not what I mean but I can see how it sounds that way. I don't think everyone should be able to have weapons.

I admit it's a specious argument. It's obvious and I know there are laws but obviously there are holes.

UxoriousMagnus

LadySkadi
Looked up the list - here it is...

Full list of MAIG

Nice LadyS....thanks for adding that. I checked my state.....no Mayors.....zero.....gotta love Idaho!!!

thanks again....

Good hearing that, for what it's worth, as I'm looking more into this.

Well, as opposed to and to not be off topic, this seems concerning,

House Bill 367, which would significantly broaden the role of the Idaho National Guard to include domestic policing powers,

- ID - Reporter

reply to post by benrl


I agree Entirely!

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


Yeah Idaho Rocks!

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by moresco

 

"Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that."


Criminals dont posess Legal Registered Firearms and are Not Subject to these Insane Anti Gun Advocates like Bloomberg and his ilk . They are Predators in our Society and use Fear , Intimidation , and Deadly Force to get what they want . Aiming Anti Gun Leglslation towards Law Abiding Gun Owning Citizens is tantamount to Feeding Helpless Baby Lambs to Starving Lions , the " Lions" being Criminals and an Over reaching Federal Goverment used by Politicians for their Own Personal Agendas . The American people have a Freakin' Right to Protect themselves regardless of what some Power Tripping Politico might Desire..........



And yes Mr. Bloomberg , we are Almost All Out Of Bubblegum......


i297.photobucket.com...

love the "They Live" quote......I am already out of bubble gum myself

HarvardMan2010
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

Yeah Idaho Rocks!

Best kept secret in the country......sshhhhhhhhh

dreamingawake

UxoriousMagnus

LadySkadi
Looked up the list - here it is...

Full list of MAIG

Nice LadyS....thanks for adding that. I checked my state.....no Mayors.....zero.....gotta love Idaho!!!

thanks again....

Good hearing that, for what it's worth, as I'm looking more into this.

Well, as opposed to and to not be off topic, this seems concerning,

House Bill 367, which would significantly broaden the role of the Idaho National Guard to include domestic policing powers,

- ID - Reporter

yes....it is concerning but they sent it back in because they don't want the National Guard doing that.....they are trying to make where only local law enforcement can work with the Feds.....not that that is any better

RevelationsDivad
Don't get rid of the guns. Get rid of the drug king pins, leaders of gangs and their thugs. Its so easy even though they don't want to do it. New York Law Enforcement, S.W.A.T team, U.S troops and all U.S law enforcement > crazy criminals. This is not a way to clean up a part of America.

Because they are beating around the bush with this situation (not getting rid of criminals that deal with drugs) - if they really do confiscate their law abiding citizens guns, its not going to be for a good purpose. Another note - if they do, I wouldn't be suprized if there is an attack similar to when Syria bombed its own people.

There is no doubting how far countries governments will go - The Syrian government is an example of this!

And yet the great irony of this situation is the government is supplying guns to these criminals in programs such as "Fast & Furious" while at the same time trying to take them away from law abiding citizens. Go figure.

Phage
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

Well I don't think there will ever be a time in the near future where the vast majority will be armed

Heh. That's not what I mean but I can see how it sounds that way. I don't think everyone should be able to have weapons.

I admit it's a specious argument. It's obvious and I know there are laws but obviously there are holes.

I agree with your statement and just wanted to say thanks for being the voice of reason and giving us some facts that show Tkazyik could be fudging the facts. I hope more people will look at your info so we can actually start talking about if Mr.Tkazyik story is true or not.

He is such a dirty criminal. Everything he does goes against reason and against freedom.