EXCLUSIVE: Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question

Breitbart. com

In an explosive exchange outside the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C., security guards for billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accosted senior Talk Radio Network investigative reporter Jason Mattera when he asked the mayor about his strong support for gun control.

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”
Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”
“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

You see, civilians can't have guns, but put on a government uniform and you magically exempt yourself from laws. Laws are for us common folk, not the rich so called elites. They pass laws, then exempt themselves and all the mega corporations. They pass gun control, but they won't disarm themselves. They can have guns and body guards, but we can't. The hypocrisy is ridiculous, these people are a joke. The man is surrounded by no less than five armed guards, then points the finger and says guns are bad.

Here is a link to the journalist's page:
www.jasonmattera.com...

We know what you corrupt people are planning. You are being exposed more and more everyday. We see you.

We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

The reporter forgot to point out that D.C. for most part is a gun free zone.

reply to post by spacedog1973


IMO it is just as legal and right for civilian protection..... for the same reasons. We are no less people nor do we risk any less....for the same reasons.

reply to post by spacedog1973


No, it is not a flawed argument. These people are hypocrites and their policies are a double standard. One set of human beings doesn't get to have more rights than others, it doesn't work that way. If government gets guns, we get guns. If we disarm, they disarm, it's that simple. Even then, we won't disarm.

You failed to even point out any flaws in the argument. Please, explain to everyone how this is not hypocrisy and a double standard.

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

Stick to the establishment script and youre a "reporter" or "journalist".

Ask relevant questions which highlight hypocrisy and corruption; now youre a possible terrorist in need of being placed on a watch list...

Yeah how many times do we gotta tell the slaves??

Only master is allowed to be above all the draconian laws.
Slaves have no rights they are property.

Now go pay your taxes and fork over the guns.

Mr Bloomberg knows how it works.

I beg to differ, So your saying his life is more important than mine or my young 2 year old daughters at protecting. I'll continue to carry and conceal. No one has a right to say who can be defended and who cant

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

So some people are better than others..
I understand.
I guess that's just common sense.

Name calling is weaker than gun control arguments.

reply to post by ObjectZero


Unless you're of course a government royal who is then exempt from those laws, again, hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
reply to post by ObjectZero

 

Unless you're of course a government royal who is then exempt from those laws, again, hypocrisy.

Its not hypocrisy.

We have been misled by science and DNA and falsely believe we are all human.

This is incorrect, as people with tons of money and power have pointed out many times. Which btw their opinion is the only one that matters.

They are a new evolution and a superior species. Just Google it this isnt a new concept.

And since we play along I guess that means we agree with it.
Look around us everywhere.

Now dont go watching that Planet of the Apes films, they will give us bad ideas.

Dosen't surprise me it the least.The man is a known hipocrite.At a blacktie fundraiser after the smoking ban.He was heard to joke "See no evil, smell no evil" to other elite smoking cigars.

The troubles for the mayor began last week when The New York Times reported on a black-tie dinner on Jan. 15 at the St. Regis Hotel where Wall Street big shots puffed away on cigars within smelling distance of the mayor. Mr. Bloomberg, whose ban on smoking extends to every restaurant, bar and hotel in the city, has urged New Yorkers to tattle on those who break the law. The city has issued dozens of summonses

The basic premise of the OP and the idiot "reporter" is flawed...and that is why these militant pro-gun people look like psychotic fools to the majority of America.

THERE IS NO GUN BAN, You can own a gun just like the private security. In fact, you can go and become private security and get the appropriate licenses to carry your gun where most people can't.

So when this "reporter" asks him to disarm his security team like he is disarming the public...I'm sorry, but he is proving himself a moron.

If people want to have honest Gun Control debate, then the pro-gun people need to educate themselves and stop using strawmen arguments.

reply to post by spacedog1973


A total of 7 US leaders have been assassinated since 1865. Lame duck sir lame duck indeed.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

A total of 7 US leaders have been assassinated since 1865. Lame duck sir lame duck indeed.

I have no idea what you are saying. Be more clear

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

No, it is not a flawed argument. These people are hypocrites and their policies are a double standard. One set of human beings doesn't get to have more rights than others, it doesn't work that way. If government gets guns, we get guns. If we disarm, they disarm, it's that simple. Even then, we won't disarm.

You failed to even point out any flaws in the argument. Please, explain to everyone how this is not hypocrisy and a double standard.

edit on 28-1-2013 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)

I don't need to point to a flaw in an unoriginal argument which will end up going nowhere. Its pretty simple, for the umpteenth time, specific governmental roles require armed protection, it comes with the job. In trying to compare this to the average citizen, all you are doing is looking more extreme and separating yourselves from average gun owners who don't need this level of debate going on. It undermines their position and lumps them in with idiots.

Originally posted by xedocodex
The basic premise of the OP and the idiot "reporter" is flawed...and that is why these militant pro-gun people look like psychotic fools to the majority of America.

THERE IS NO GUN BAN, You can own a gun just like the private security. In fact, you can go and become private security and get the appropriate licenses to carry your gun where most people can't.

So when this "reporter" asks him to disarm his security team like he is disarming the public...I'm sorry, but he is proving himself a moron.

If people want to have honest Gun Control debate, then the pro-gun people need to educate themselves and stop using strawmen arguments.

I beg to differ,any move against the 2nd Amendment set's precedence for furter moves against it.To ensure our right to bear arms,we need to draw a line.Well the line starts at it's current point.The attempt to ban assualt weapons.

When trying to play the video, it says network down. I tried other videos... Same thing. Anyone else have issues with youtube?

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

IMO it is just as legal and right for civilian protection..... for the same reasons. We are no less people nor do we risk any less....for the same reasons.

I agree to an extent; but surely people here can understand that a high profile public role attracts lunatics with firearms no matter how you do your job. Comparing the daily risk of those holding these roles with the average member of the public is not comparable and to argue a position on the basis of that is pointless as you lose many with this level of debate.

reply to post by xedocodex




You did not refute any flaws, just like the other poster and resorted to childish name calling, personal attacks and insults. You gun control advocates only have baseless, emotional arguments which is why you always have to resort to personal attacks, it's pathetic.

You are flat out lying when you say they aren't trying to ban guns, that or you're just very ignorant.



FBI crime statistics show gun control advocates position is irrational and totally baseless. They take a couple shootings and make it seem like there's an epidemic. The US is by far number one in gun ownership, but only 28th in gun violence worldwide. Facts are facts.