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

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Shall we list Presidents shot? Celebrities?

What??
Are you saying that non-celebrity civilians don't get shot?
Or are you saying that a citizen only deserves the protection of firearms when they are rich and or famous???

Hmmm..

Originally posted by Indigo5
Technically it's called a binary fallacy of logic. I just call it BS.

Are you saying that you beat your wife in the daytime? Or that you do it at night?

I am saying the obvious, which you are working hard to ignore...that Mayor Bloomberg being a Mayor of a large city, which is the only American city to have sustained a terrorist attack of the scale of 9-11, and being outspoken and consistently in the national spotlight with regards to many issues that people don't THINK RATIONALLY about...is at a greater risk of being targeted than the average American.

That the President of the United States is at a greater risk of being targeted than the average American.

Are you telling me that your logic centers are so thoroughly at the mercy of your idealogy that they aren't permitted to acknowledge that?

Well I'm curious how this is all going to pan out because its not going over too well currently, even the democrats aren't expected to vote for it.


Piers Morgan Admits Defeat In Gun Control Debate

So maybe they won't be challenged as to why they and all the reporters need to keep the guns and security for their homes, because I don't know if the legislation, which is unlawful, is even going to pass.

So here is the real deal:

Out of all the Americans who have come before us apparently this is the worst generation to have ever come hence all the "need" for their laws.

The core issue is you can't be trusted, you have been tried,convicted in a public court of opinion, but they forget every person is guaranteed their day in a real court, and owed their due process.

We are not then the water boys for team government come out and label anyone who defends their personal freedom, and their personal property rights as "morons","gun nuts" etc.

The journalist was exercising his first amendment rights go figure some don't like it when people do exercise those constitutional rights.

Have a problem with the 1st,2nd,4th,5th7th,9th, and 10th amendments deal with it you don't get to pick and choose what parts of the US constitution matter.

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.

Seems to me that you have consumed way too much Kool-Aid.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others definition

A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.

dictionary.reference.com...

No one is asking for a security detail provided at government expense - we are only asking for the right to defend ourselves or our loved ones in the absence of such.

reply to post by Indigo5


Before I go any further, here is some more rope. Your gonna need it......

Alex Jones is that you? Thanks for highlighting my issue with the Gun Lobby being unable to have a debate that doesn't involve red-dawn fantasy or Nazis.

Sigh, you are the one who brought up history in a demeaning manner to try (pathetically I may add) to make those who believe in the 2nd look nuts.

Now you bring up Alex Jones, and Nazis! Are you losing the debate that bad that you have to resort to using Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" tactics? When are you going to realize, that I have read it as have you? You have already proven your desparation to honor your masters by resorting to name calling trying to show your superiority over the rest of us, and hmmmmmm, sorry, it isn't working anymore!

"you progressives"??...Hmmm...And you think that "Alex Jones" is doing the 2nd Amendment good? Or weakening it? Again there is a rational debate to be had and as long as one aprty shouts about Hitler and asks retarded questions like...why does the President have guards?...I see that as damaging the 2nd Amendment, which Istrongly support.

Now that statement right there says it all!

Again, with the Alex Jones thingy. It appears your agenda has become quite transparent when you keep bringing up Alex Jones! OH, let's not forget to mention Hitler! Right out of the Progressive play book!

Just a question. Seeing that you are taking your talking points directly from the progressive MSM and slinging em around as you are on ATS. If Alex Jones was so instrumental in helping you guys out with your attack on the 2nd, then why are you guys not booking him on all of your so called news???

Continue.............I am loving your deflection by calling "NAZI", "Alex Jones" etc etc....Perhaps you might want to join the arguement when you have some concrete and debatable facts other than just slinging names around?

Rules for Radicals was a good read, but you guys who are using it, need to come up with some better tactics! These are getting really old.

reply to post by Indigo5

Technically it's called a binary fallacy of logic

How about this... regular old people get shot too.

You are the one that wants to limit them in their means of self protection. So is Bloomberg.... or did your logic centers skip over that?

You think the NYPD had jurisdiction to demand ID of the reporter after he was blocks away from the mayor?
The truth of the matter is, they wouldn't have probable cause in that situation if he was in NYC when it happened.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Are you telling me that your logic centers are so thoroughly at the mercy of your idealogy that they aren't permitted to acknowledge that?

Say the guy who uses the nuclear weapons argument like it has anything to do with the current gun control debate at all.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I have to honestly say that if Mayor Bloomberg was shot on a street today, it would have zero effect on my life.

It might not necessarily directly affect anything in my life either... Well to be honest I might be in a lighter mood knowing there is one less idiot control freak in power.

Then gain that would be short lived - I am sure he has created whole legions of mini-me's in his sycophants and suck-ups willing to take his place.

One could only hope they'd thin their own herd in the ensuing melee for position...

reply to post by Golf66

Then gain that would be short lived - I am sure he has created whole legions of mini-me's in his sycophants and suck-ups willing to take his place.

There ya go!!!! Tons of knowledge, in that simple sentence!

Protect each others rights, because those of us whom defend our corrupt politicians will soon find themselves feeling like a dirty toilet seat as to their support for a government whom could care less about the people they are supposed to represent!

Wake the hell up! They represent themselves and their corporate and banking masters.

reply to post by neo96

The journalist was exercising his first amendment rights go figure some don't like it when people do exercise those constitutional rights.

And we are exercising our first amendment rights in responding to this reporter.

Funny how that works, you just want everyone to praise him for exercising his rights and pat him on the back...but if someone speaks out against him saying he is a moron and presenting himself as a potential unhinged threat...then all of a sudden, you want us to not exercise our first amendment rights.

Ironic?

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by neo96

 

The journalist was exercising his first amendment rights go figure some don't like it when people do exercise those constitutional rights.

And we are exercising our first amendment rights in responding to this reporter.

Funny how that works, you just want everyone to praise him for exercising his rights and pat him on the back...but if someone speaks out against him saying he is a moron and presenting himself as a potential unhinged threat...then all of a sudden, you want us to not exercise our first amendment rights.

Ironic?

What, did some armed goon follow you down the street, demanding your ID and birthdate for voicing your opinion here?

How did we miss that?

I think the editorial comments on the pic itself are inappropriate, but I don;t have the software to take it off.

reply to post by xedocodex

And we are exercising our first amendment rights in responding to this reporter.

Funny how that works, you just want everyone to praise him for exercising his rights and pat him on the back...but if someone speaks out against him saying he is a moron and presenting himself as a potential unhinged threat...then all of a sudden, you want us to not exercise our first amendment rights.

Ironic?

What's is ironic about it? The fact that you belong to a team that wants to take away people rights because your team doesn't believe in them?

The issue is, people whom are law abiding citizens are being demonized by the likes of people like you!

Get over yourself! Your rights are no more important than mine! If I abide by the law, then leave me the hell alone and quit trying to change the law so that I become a criminal!

It works both ways!

reply to post by xedocodex

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

"If people want to have honest Gun Control debate"... that's the question, isn't it? And after my few exchanges here on ATS in these threads, I can pretty much say that people DON'T want an honest gun control debate...

I fail to see why the journalist "pestering" Bloomberg with ridiculous questions becomes "accosting", when the shoe is on the other foot. When the journalist is asking questions, it's all good, but when the security starts asking him questions, he becomes the victim and being "accosted"...

There's a lot I have to learn about this debate, but sadly, I can see that I'm not going to learn it here.

Originally posted by Golf66

No one is asking for a security detail provided at government expense - we are only asking for the right to defend ourselves or our loved ones in the absence of such.

With you there in spirit, however, I probably would have worded it differently.

The very second you find yourself "asking" for your Rights, is the moment you risk them becoming something else entirely.

Keep that in mind.

reply to post by xedocodex


Funny I listed violations of more than one constitutional right so what about those violations eh?

So free speech is the only one that matters the free speech to call people "morons" .

If people wanted an "honest gun debate" they would not violate the bill of rights:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Calling people morons ring a bell?

dis·par·age /diˈsparij/ Verb Regard or represent as being of little worth. Synonyms depreciate - belittle - decry - underestimate

But then agian you can't get any more clear than 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.

Rather clear what that means there is no debate to be had.

reply to post by seeker1963

What's is ironic about it? The fact that you belong to a team that wants to take away people rights because your team doesn't believe in them?

The issue is, people whom are law abiding citizens are being demonized by the likes of people like you!

Get over yourself! Your rights are no more important than mine! If I abide by the law, then leave me the hell alone and quit trying to change the law so that I become a criminal!

It works both ways!

Which rights do I want to take from you?

I'm very curious to hear your answer.

reply to post by Indigo5

Mayor of a large city, which is the only American city to have sustained a terrorist attack of the scale of 9-11

Okay, you used this for Bloomberg.
What about Rosie O'Donnell?
What is the excuse for her to be protected by firearms?
National security?
It certainly can't be that we as a nation would suffer terribly if she went the way (read murdered) of so many former residents of Washington DC, Chicago, NYC and other cities that rob their 'commoners' of the right to self-protection.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Funny I listed violations of more than one constitutional right so what about those violations eh?

So free speech is the only one that matters the free speech to call people "morons" .

You listed the bill of rights amendments...you didn't actually list any violations of them.

In fact, everytime I ask people to list what "rights" have been taken away from them...they are strangely silent and/or refuse to answer the question.

So...please educate all of us...what "rights" have you lost?