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

Originally posted by neo96
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

Whoa...LOL.

Are you suggesting that if I call this "reporter" a "moron"....then I am violating his right to free speech???

Is that honestly what you are saying???

There is so much wrong with your thinking, but let me just point out one thing...The Constitution limits and grants authority to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...not individuals. That is why if I own a private business, I can ban guns on my property...I can also tell you that if you want to come on to my property, that you have no right to free speech or I will have you removed.

It is hilariou to me that the so called "champions" of the Constitution act so tyranical against everyone and everthing they don't agree with. How many pro-gun lovers out there do you think support Gay Rights? How many Conservatives out there crying about wanting the Government out of their lives also want the Government to define what marriage is?

I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.

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.

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

reply to post by butcherguy

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?

How do you interpret that as supression of free speech?

He was NYPD, on duty as the Mayors security, he has the same right as anyone else does to ask questions and follow someone who may be a potential threat. He didn't detain the reporter, he didn't arrest him, he simply asked him questions.

You guys get so butt hurt about people you don't agree with calling out the idiots on your side (this "reporter")...you would be much better off if you just did the same thing.

reply to post by xedocodex

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.

reply to post by xedocodex


Violations of the bill of rights

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.

The NFA, and the Brady laws and the ASWBS of the 90s clear violations of the second amendment extending to the ban of importation of weapons that earlier generations had clear access to, but no longer do,

No American can buy any machine gun made after 1980's unless LEO.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Clear violation with the recent ban in New York that interjects governnemnt hands in to the majority homes in that state

Feinsteins introduction of the ASWB of 2013.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again New York and Feinstein clearly trying to hold people who committed no crime responsible for actions of mass shootings.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Gun owners across the country are being held responsible for crimes they did not commit and were not given their day in courts.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The property in question carries a value of over 20 dollars.

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

The gun debate in a nutshell and using propaganda to usurp consitutional rights

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people is the source of power of the government not the government has unlimited power to tell us what we need or don't need.

reply to post by xedocodex

Which rights do I want to take from you?

I'm very curious to hear your answer.

The fact you even ask that question makes me want to question your even being on ATS.......

I makes me think that you quite possibly are a government shill, who is trying to get people to say something that may get them in trouble with your masters.

But I will humor you!


You are like a whittler on my rights and freedoms. You exemplify, the workings of an out of control government, whom is try to slowly whittle away the rights of it's citizens in such a way that it is done so slowly and such a manner that before the citizens are aware of what is happening to them it is too late!

See, the problem is, those like you whom could care less about taking the rights away from others, have been doing it for so long, that the little piece of wood you started out whittling away on, is now becoming not so indistinguishable. We can see your intentions, and we have drawn our line in the sand!

You so innocently ask, "Well what rights are being taken away from you.". When anyone who can read and have any level of reading comprehension, can quite easily understand the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It is quite clear that it has to do with protecting the citizens against a tyrannical government.

Sure, you don't like it, and you are prepared to lie to anyone you can, to try and get your agenda stepped up to the next level, but you have a problem at this point.

YOU ARE OUT OF WOOD!

reply to post by xedocodex

Are you suggesting that if I call this "reporter" a "moron"....then I am violating his right to free speech???

No I clearly said a violation of 9th amendments rights.

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by xedocodex

 

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.

Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on it.

reply to post by xedocodex

How do you interpret that as supression of free speech?

Much more clearly than you interpret it for someone debating you on a website.

The police are overstepping their bounds when they follow you, ask for your ID (especially outside of their jurisdiction) and demand to know your birth date.... without probable cause. People have sued police departments and won their cases for this, it is called harassment.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by xedocodex

 

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.

Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on it.

I was responding to the assertion that the only way you may own a weapon is to 'join the National Guard'. It is right there in the center of the quotes above.

reply to post by xedocodex

someone who may be a potential threat.

Sorry.
I can't believe that you went there.

They know that the man(the guy that has a camera following him and a press pass) was not a threat. They saw the pass, they saw his ID.... yet continued to follow him. Pure harassment for daring to ask his highness the mayor a tough question.

One of his own security team may have posed more of a threat than this guy. They were armed and probably dislike their boss, and they are cops, usually hired for reasons other than high intelligence. In the video, I swear the one really did look cross-eyed, better give him a gun!

Originally posted by lernmore

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 they turn into something else entirely.

Keep that in mind.

If you have read any of my other posts on gun control I really am not really a person who is "asking" for anything - I could have used want, demand, need, are entitled to, etc.

Asking just seemed the right word at the time since it is less argumentative. No reason to stir the pot unnecessarily.

I am not one of those who believe the government grants us rights. There are those in this thread who do believe that though. Rights are inherent and unalienable.

I, having taught Government 101 at a Community College know that the Constitution is a document that was intended to be a document that limits/grants government rights from the people not the other way around.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by xedocodex

 

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.

Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on it.

I was responding to the assertion that the only way you may own a weapon is to 'join the National Guard'. It is right there in the center of the quotes above.

My statement is still true. According to SCOTUS, you can restrict who gets guns (felons and mentally ill), and even restrict certain kinds of guns (those deemed dangerous and unusual, i.e., not commonly used for personal defense). That pretty much ends the gun control debate in my opinion.

Originally posted by seeker1963
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.

I brought up the wild west, to which you responded..

Originally posted by seeker1963

Also, as to you mentioning history................have your ever read about Mao or Stalin???? Guess not!!!

So yah...anyone that thinks Mao and Stalin are relevant...yes...Alex Jones rhetoric. All you need to now is regurgitate some Glen Beckism's..

Originally posted by seeker1963
Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" tactics? When are you going to realize, that I have read it as have you?

2 things the wild west and the current gun debate both have in common.

They are both hype the wild west was not the wild west even tho some will try to use it to "legitimize" their "argument" same way they bring nukes to a gun fight.

reply to post by Indigo5

So yah...anyone that thinks Mao and Stalin are relevant...yes...Alex Jones rhetoric. All you need to now is regurgitate some Glen Beckism's..

Oooooooooo. Glenn Beckism's............I almost got wood with that one. Especially since I can't stand him!

Here is some more rope for ya! I love how progressives just keep digging their hole deeper and deeper.

Your response was nothing more than more deflection, and added nothing more to the debate!

Why do you deflect from the history of dictators who took away their citizens ability to defend themselves????

Your a gem!

Nukes Check
Old West Check
Alex Jones Check
Glenn Beck Check
Getting talking points from the admin Check.

Flawless Dogma,..

Originally posted by seeker1963

You so innocently ask, "Well what rights are being taken away from you.". When anyone who can read and have any level of reading comprehension, can quite easily understand the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It is quite clear that it has to do with protecting the citizens against a tyrannical government.

Let's assume you are correct. Would not that mean that a country's citizenry be entitled to equal arms ar thier government? It reminds me of John Rocker on WND opining that "If the Jews had guns the Holocaust wouldn't have happened"...well I am pretty sure the French military had guns and it still didn't slow down Hitler...ditto other countries Germany occupied. It took a multi-national alliance of nations.

I am having a hard time believeing that skeeter in alabama is going to foil a socialist take-over with his AR.

Originally posted by xedocodex
He was NYPD, on duty as the Mayors security, he has the same right as anyone else does to ask questions and follow someone who may be a potential threat.

Your knowledge of the law is limited I can see that. They were not in NYC, the NYPD has exactly ZERO jurisdiction in D.C. His sole duty is to protect the Mayor - period, that is what a PSD (Personal Security Detail) does. They are allowed to carry their firearms there in a reciprocal agreement with the D.C. and Capitol Police Departments. This reciprocity doesn't extend to the power of arrest.

Also, if you are assuming that anyone has the right to follow (stalk) and ask questions (harass) a person they feel threatened by may be in for a shock when the police do respond to your complaint and arrest you rather than the one you fear when they find the "threat" to be a lawful CCW permit holder, credentialed reporter, or whatever the case may be. You will be the one guilty of the crimes stalking, harassment, intimidation, threats - etc.

Originally posted by xedocodex
He didn't detain the reporter, he didn't arrest him, he simply asked him questions.

I don't know what you call it when someone stops you from going where you want to go but I call that being detained. So does the law BTW. When an LEO detains you he must have probable cause - asking the Mayor questions that made him look like a tool won't meet that burden in any court. The reporter handled it poorly as most do when detained by an LEO because they feel threatened by their position and authority. That is called intimidation.

He should have asked if he was under arrest...until the "officer" either said yes , which would have made a great case for false arrest and an awesome lawsuit a first year law student could win or no in which case he could have just walked away.

He had no legal obligation to answer any of this “officer’s” questions – period.

The reason the "officer" was asking to see his ID was specifically to get his name so they could run it for warrants or priors in the hopes they could harass or detain him further. They needed his birth date likely because there are many people with the same name. They wanted to add him to a list that would ban him from all press pools for the Mayors events.

I have worked PSD for the State Department and other officials - this is fairly standard practice to keep people who make your guy look bad out of events.... It is not right but it’s also not illegal.

reply to post by Indigo5

I am having a hard time believeing that skeeter in alabama is going to foil a socialist take-over with his AR.

More deflection and lies. Ask Russia, how their superior military was defeated in Afghanistan!

BTW, love how you are now stooping to the progressive form of racism, by making fun of people who live in the south!

Here is some more rope!

Originally posted by seeker1963

Why do you deflect from the history of dictators who took away their citizens ability to defend themselves????

I skipped the rant and insult and just excerpted the only remotely sane thing you said...

To answer this question...Because the idea that we a Stalinist Russia or a Maoist China or will become one soon ..Or that owning these weapons would halt a take-over of the scale that your paranoid fantasy imagines...makes no sense in the context of reality.

Because the NRA and Gun Lobby appeal to these fantasies of tyrannical rule in the USA in order to shut down any rational discussion on background checks, research...anything at all...no! Tyranny!!

And honestly, what you get when one party fails to have a sane discussion? Gun Bans...

I have said it before, this line of BS...Why does the President of the United States have armed guards and I don't??!!!!...does nothing but damage the 2nd Amendment.