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

reply to post by Indigo5

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.

Finally, something of content that I can actually reply on......

Why am I paranoid? Because I believe in the Constitution??? I guess in your eyes, that it is okay to allow a corrupt government to ruin it's country and kill it's people? Take a look around you! It is happening. How is it that Americans can't find jobs that sustain a living wage, yet American corporations had RECORD PROFITS????

You want to claim the moral high ground asking for a sane discussion, but yet, scroll back aways and take a look at who did most of the name calling!!!

Be honest for a change. Take a look in the mirror and take a look at the people in your community. Things are not as rosy for America as you tend to think they are! Obama is NOT going to turn things around and neither is anyone else! Our country has been taken over by banker and corporations.

Originally posted by seeker1963

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

I don't have to???

The USA is how Russia was exhausted...not neccessarily defeated..in Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan 1983 meeting with the Mujahideen from Afghanistan?...Charlie Wilson's war?

reply to post by Indigo5

I don't have to???

The USA is how Russia was exhausted...not neccessarily defeated..in Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan 1983 meeting with the Mujahideen from Afghanistan?...Charlie Wilson's war?

BRAVO!!!!! You just answered your own question and shot yourself in the foot at the same time!

Do you not think that perhaps Russia, or China, would not be supplying American citizens with weapons, if in fact our government turned it's forces against it's own citizens?????

Wake the hell up! Contrary to popular belief, the US is putting itself in the same position in this type of scenario as countries like Egypt, Libya, and Iraq. There are other countries out there that would love to see our government fall!

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Indigo5

 

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.

Finally, something of content that I can actually reply on......

Why am I paranoid? Because I believe in the Constitution???

No, belief in the constitution and the 2nd Amednment as a guaranteed right is what the majority of Americans, left, right and center, including the President believes.

Originally posted by seeker1963
I guess in your eyes, that it is okay to allow a corrupt government to ruin it's country and kill it's people? Take a look around you! It is happening. How is it that Americans can't find jobs that sustain a living wage, yet American corporations had RECORD PROFITS????

Economic strife?? Not "Mao"...not "Stalin"...that is where paranoia enters into the discussion.

Originally posted by seeker1963
Take a look in the mirror and take a look at the people in your community. Things are not as rosy for America as you tend to think they are! Obama is NOT going to turn things around and neither is anyone else! Our country has been taken over by banker and corporations.

I am confused...do your fear Communism .."Mao" and "Stalin"...or do your fear Plutocrasy..."Banks and Corporations"? Either way, your ability to own an automatic rifle seems an irrational, if not ineffective response to either threat to our democracy.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I don't have to???

The USA is how Russia was exhausted...not neccessarily defeated..in Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan 1983 meeting with the Mujahideen from Afghanistan?...Charlie Wilson's war?

BRAVO!!!!! You just answered your own question and shot yourself in the foot at the same time!

Do you not think that perhaps Russia, or China, would not be supplying American citizens with weapons, if in fact our government turned it's forces against it's own citizens?????

Wake the hell up! Contrary to popular belief, the US is putting itself in the same position in this type of scenario as countries like Egypt, Libya, and Iraq. There are other countries out there that would love to see our government fall!

As long as we agree there is no paranoia being exploited in the gun debate.....Wow...

Originally posted by xedocodex


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

If you want to tell people what to do, join the North Korean government.

reply to post by Indigo5

I am confused...do your fear Communism .."Mao" and "Stalin"...or do your fear Plutocrasy..."Banks and Corporations"? Either way, your ability to own an automatic rifle seems an irrational, if not ineffective response to either threat to our democracy.

I fear my country being taken over by the likes of you! You know, people like you who have an agenda. People like you who don't give a damn about demonizing a group of law abiding citizens just because they believe in something you don't.

I also fear, that my country will crumble into a war with millions of people dieing, because of people like you. You see, it isn't cut and dry, when one group of people decide it is okay to take away the rights of another group of people......This kind of partisan nonsense has been going on for quite awhile now in this country! So you can choose to be one of those people who feel that your wants and needs are more important than those of someone who is not like you, or you can brace yourself for a bloody war.

Not a threat, just an observation, looking at our banking system, our economic system, our lack of jobs, and the fact that our government is spending money it doesn't have, all due to their criminal activity and lack of abiding by the same laws that us commoners have to abide by!

Your choice! Be a useful idiot, or take a look around you and realize that our government is NOT working for the the people........

BTW, why don't I see people like you that support gun control, EVER question Big Pharm and their use of SSRI's? You do realize that, these drugs are the one common factor in the majority of these incidents other than the guns??

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

It just shocks the hell out of me when folks shouting about their constitutional rights have absolutely no effen idea what it means.

It doesn't mean you can't call someone a moron...That passage means that the listing of rights "enumeration" is not meant to imply that people don't have rights beyond what is listed. It doesn't protect people who are talking about the constitution from being called a Moron.

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

reply to post by Indigo5


The people have rights beyond what is listed tho some think they are limited, and then it says in this case you can't use free speech to deny other rights retained by the people.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I am confused...do your fear Communism .."Mao" and "Stalin"...or do your fear Plutocrasy..."Banks and Corporations"? Either way, your ability to own an automatic rifle seems an irrational, if not ineffective response to either threat to our democracy.

I fear my country being taken over by the likes of you! You know, people like you who have an agenda. People like you who don't give a damn about demonizing a group of law abiding citizens just because they believe in something you don't.

OK...so far you fear the downfall of America due to "Banks" n "Corporations" (Plutocrasy)...and "Mao" and "Stalin" (Communism)...and obviously "Government"...and last but not least "People"...

As long as we aren't engaging in paranoia...

And BTW...where have I ever had an issue with Law-Abiding gun owners? My issue is that when someone wants to open a discussion on how to prevent criminals or crazies from owning guns...Gun lobby folks engage in...well...a whole lot of talk about Tyranny, America crumbling, Mao, Stalin etc. etc.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The people have rights beyond what is listed tho some think they are limited, and then it says in this case you can't use free speech to deny other rights retained by the people.

No ...it doesn't..."others" referes to other rights already retained by the people

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

The listing of certain rights shal not be interpreted (construed) as to deny or disparage (lessen/erode) other rights (not listed) that are retained by the people.

It was a safeguard against the constitution being used as a complete document of "rights"...if it aint in the constition then you don't have that right!...that kind of legislating.

It doesn't say you can't call someone a moron for excersising his 1st amendment right...just wow.

reply to post by Indigo5

It was a safeguard against the constitution being used as a complete document of "rights"...if it aint in the constition then you don't have that right!...that kind of legislating

Sounds like you just defined what the anti-gun crowd does when they say that the right 'to keep and bear arms' is limited to a 'well-regulated militia'.

reply to post by Indigo5

OK...so far you fear the downfall of America due to "Banks" n "Corporations" (Plutocrasy)...and "Mao" and "Stalin" (Communism)...and obviously "Government"...and last but not least "People"...

As long as we arn't engaging in paranoia...

And BTW...where have I ever had an issue with Law-Abiding gun owners? My issue is that when someone wants to open a discussion on how to prevent criminals or crazies from owning guns...Gun lobby folks engage in...well...a whole lot of talk about Tyranny, America crumbling, Mao, Stalin etc. etc.

Now we are getting somewhere, and I gave ya a star!

Why, do you call people who know history, paranoid, when they see history repeating itself? Now I am quite sure you are intelligent enough to realize that history repeating itself is a known FACT.......

As far as Plutocracy, Communism, etc etc.....they are nothing more than terms, as the term I call you, (progressive) I am more liberal than anyone I know that considers themselves on the left. Jefferson, Washington, they were more liberal than what we call the "left" in todays society. I just much prefer calling you a "progressive" because that seems to be the side you represent. I don't want to call you a Nazi,or a moron, because what does that solve?

Now as to you saying you don't have an issue with law abiding gun owners, that is where I must call BS on you! You most certainly do have an issue with them, if you are in fact advocating that their rights to own certain kinds of weapon must now be restricted, due to some whacked out kid shooting up a school!

You do realize that these gun control laws have been in place and ready and waiting for the most opportune time to be brought up don't you? Don't you????

You also realize that even IF gun control is enacted that it isn't going to stop anyone from being killed by someone who wants them dead?

You are buying into political theater! Accept it or not, but I can promise you, there won't be many good things happening in the good ole USA, if our government decides to be the tyrants they are showing themselves to be. The big picture is very transparent at this point. Just wait till the dollar collapses! Oh boy, will things get fun then....

reply to post by spacedog1973


They choose security.

Why is security mandatory? Because these people of power make it so? Like Obama extending secret service protection for he and Bush to continue for the rest of their lives?

Yeah.. so that is a flawed argument. When these people are the ones making the security mandatory it is not technically mandatory and it is a flawed argument. They choose the security.. even if this string out the process so it becomes mandatory they could just as easily choose to be without it.

reply to post by spacedog1973


They choose security.

Why is security mandatory? Because these people of power make it so? Like Obama extending secret service protection for he and Bush to continue for the rest of their lives?

Yeah.. so that is a flawed argument. When these people are the ones making the security mandatory it is not technically mandatory and it is a flawed argument. They choose the security.. even if this string out the process so it becomes mandatory they could just as easily choose to be without it.

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 it is foolish to expect all citizens to enjoy the same rights? I agree that politicians are at a higher risk of assassination attempts than I am, but I don't think that their choice of employment gives them special rights.

Obviously you feel that the President and his children are more special, and more important than you and yours. I disagree however and feel that it is your argument that is both flawed and foolish.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

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.

A big star for you. When will the true idiots realize that we have already defined and banned "assault rifles" for civilian ownership years ago. This is just broadening the definition. If the pro-Constitution groups allow this to happen what will stop them from broadening it again, and again, and again until the only gun you can legally get has a nerf logo on the side?

The bottom line is that a militia cannot be formed and regulated if the citizenry doesn't have access to the firearms needed, and that is what the 2nd amendment was written to protect.

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.

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

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Hey ATSer's, can you count how many times these authoritarian control freaks used the terms "wacko", "moron", "idiot", "gun-nut","stupid", "militants"? They just bust out insulting labels and expect it to be taken as informative information and facts.

How long until we hear the ol' comparing gun ownership to penises?

Dianne Feinstein said it herself, she wants to BAN ALL GUNS. Did she say that or not? She did. Liars.

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

And they love to throw out those names without addressing the fact that most wackos, and nuts who shoot up schools and such already can't own firearms legally.

If the anti-gun groups want a real discussion let's start with the fact that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have some of the highest gun crime rates. How many criminals are deterred by laws, that is the real question, and the answer is as evident as the nose on your faces (and any progressive is aware of how evident that is as they love looking down theirs at others)

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.

And rulings can be overturned.

With Obama and then most likely Clinton being able to appoint Justices...I see it as a good chance of being overturned.

The point is that nothing in the Constitution is "clear", and it is all up for interpretation...which can change.

Originally posted by xedocodex

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.

Well the Presidents "Trespass Bill" that effectively bans any sort of protest where the President can hear it is a good place to start.

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