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

Originally posted by wolfbitch

Agreed, my analogy does break down a bit when considered in the light of the Founders.

But I think of guns the same way I think of cars -- guns are a tool, with several designed purposes (one of which is defense against a tyrannical government). That's one of the reasons I don't get all twitchy and upset during gun control debates -- even though I am a raging left-wing liberal from the original stock of 60's Massachusetts liberals!

I do not own a gun nor would I seek to own one. But I will defend your right to own as many as you can afford. I will also join in an effort to stop you (and just you) should you misuse those guns against me or mine.

I wish my fellow liberals felt the same way. They're as annoying to me as the rabid Out Of My Cold Dead Hands gun owners are.

Thank you - that is the most refreshing, sane point of view I have read on the topic. Although we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, we have almost identical views on the topic. Frankly I am pleasantly amazed.

Originally posted by spacedog1973

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.

edit on 28-1-2013 by spacedog1973 because: (no reason given)

I can prove my argument that far more every day people are killed than "high profile" people.
Do you disagree with that?
Your argument is flawed and invalid.

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart


This man should show this stuff to an attorney, and sue the pants off Bloomberg, and all the police involved, for unlawful harassment. The police do NOT have a right to demand identification from someone who is walking down the street. We do not have to CARRY any such identification. They can't just demand information from citizens, for no reason other than an anti-freedom jerk of a politician getting his training pants in a wad.

"Do you have a date of birth, sir?" My response would have been, "No, what's it to you?" Nothing but a bunch of Nazis.

Originally posted by spacedog1973

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.

edit on 28-1-2013 by spacedog1973 because: (no reason given)

Living in certain areas attracts lunatics with fire arms. So what is your point?

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

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

And Rand Paul along with a hundred other republicans said they wanted to ban Abortion. What is your point?

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.

Actually, I believe what we have gone over before is class systems. How do certain "positions" warrant more defence than the average person?

What if it were not government officials but it was only the blacks who couldn't have guns, or only the jews who could. However, how do you see differences between the current political "system" and a system of ruling tyrants and monarchs?

Originally posted by gladtobehere
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...

well this is true, it's never about true press freedom to monitor corruption and report it. Once it was, until all the crooks got into power, and now they are a mafia which stops any reporting, or else it may get out and reveal what 'they' do not certainly want people to be aware of.

As for guns for the politicians, well they are so hated for their evils, that they certainly feel the need for protection, but to be honest, no decent citizen would resort to violence against them, as it is wrong, and no unstable attacker would even try as he'd get nowhere! But a decent man who did speak up for truth and expose the corrupt, probably wouldn't feel safer with such protection, because as soon as he'd piss off the elites, the CIA would just send a intercom call to the body guards, telling them to back away, whilst a government assassin took him out, just like with kennedy. So I guess the crooks have nothing to fear...

reply to post by 00777


True, we have good honest citizens playing by the rules set be for them, trying to makes changes. Then we have politician only following the rules they wish to, changing the ones they can't get around or just plain don't like.

It's easy to see who's going to win the game.

In my opinion, the irony of all of this, is that we are having to protest the coming regulation in the first place, and you know what?

To the gun control advocates I say this; if there is no threat that weapons will be taken, why the need for a change in law? How many people said that the government would never enact anything close to the patriot act? There is a very real threat, some of these bills are extremely vague as to what constitutes an assault weapon. I guess in your opinions, the thousands of people protesting the regulations are all "gun nuts", and I just can't figure out how you guys are able to know what thousands of people all over the U.S., from all walks of life, are thinking.

How could you possibly know that in my small town, and many, many small towns across the nation, that there has not been a murder in years and most likely more than half my neigbors own guns? How could you know that farmers near us are hiring people to shoot wild boars (with assault weapons) because of the huge damage they are doing to the crops?

Quit labeling us "gun-nuts". I am not a "gun-nut", and I have a right which came long before all of us on this forum were born, and that is the right to bear arms.

I would like to "agree to disagree", and leave it at that, but when pro gun right advocates just "agree to disagree", and don't fight, more gun regulation is passed. If laws were not being made, there would be nothing to worry about.

reply to post by artnut

Very good.

I have replied on different threads to people that say, ' This gun ban will never get through Congress'. I said this....

"Who in their right mind would have thought that the Patriot Act could become law?"

Great video and great post!!

These people in power are sociopaths. There was a study done that showed Politicians and serial killers share the same behavioral traits.

Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.

Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.

These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.

But -- and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion -- these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)

Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.

Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.

"This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," he wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders."

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

These people are corrupt to the core and it's scary to think that people were talking about Heil Bloomberg for President. This guy is a fascist who wants to control peoples lives.

It's the same with stars. They do a video about gun violence and shoot movies saturated with killing. They also have guards armed to the teeth.

This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important. If these crooked, sociopaths can be armed to the teeth with security guards then every citizen has this same right.

To make it worse, Bloombergs security was chasing the guy asking for his birth date. I wouldn't have shown him my I.D. either. Just because you ask this sociopath a question, they have the right to all of your info?

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

If it's a gun free zone, why do they need 5 armed security to protect the mayor?

Originally posted by MaMaa

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

If it's a gun free zone, why do they need 5 armed security to protect the mayor?

Why, because gun laws work so damn well.

The hypocrisy at this level is mind blowing. Bloomberg would not take a dump without his armed guards by his side nor would he take a bite of food without first passing it to his food taster first... Bloomberg's aversion to accountability of his own standards should speak volumes. Do as I say not as I do has become a disturbing trend in our Nation's Political Theater. Thank Obama for making that notion acceptable...

Funny how Obama and other DC elite including David Gregory would never dream of sending their children into a gun free zone school either. Just like the anti gun celebs who make a living out of producing gun filled violent movies...

Just look at the DHS's latest request to procure 7,000 select fire "personal defense weapons". First and foremost the average citizen could not legally own one of these select fire short barrel rifles without a a class III license. Second, according to these same people that same weapon in the hands of the average citizen miraculously becomes and "Assault Weapon". Wow.

Originally posted by xedocodex


No, I would just like to see it very well regulated.

National gun registries, national ammo registries, national registry of homes with guns, ammo purchase limitations, weapon type limitations, full background checks on all sales of guns and ammo, longer waiting periods for guns and ammo purchases, and no guns allowed in homes with people that have mental health issues.

And all are a disgusting attempt at infringing further on a Guaranteed right.

You, and others like you sure do love taking away rights and freedoms of others, so you feel safe and secure.

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

So, because he and others like him believe they need protection, the rest of the people are not important enough to get tax payer funded protection? Let alone being able to exercise their Constitutional Right to carry a lawful firearm.

I do love the fact that he was chased down, well after the interaction and the LEO bullied him into providing identification.
I wish he would have stood his ground on not provided ID and was able to press that his civil rights were violated when the LEO tried to arrest him, in the logical progression of events.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

Lord this exhausting....Is it an either or choice? Either both the Secret Service and Joe Wacko who wants to shoot kids get access to the same guns or no one does? Either I get my own Nuclear Weapon or the US Military has to disarm thiers? Technically it's called a binary fallacy of logic. I just call it BS. Can the NRA and Alex Jones minions cease with the BS and engage in rational debate?

Joe Wacko shouldn't have his own Nuclear Weapon...and we shouldn't ban kitchen knives.

And President Obama is the Commander and Chief of the US Military and has the nuclear launch codes. I am OK with affording his kids more armed guards than my own.

Let me know when sanity comes back to the discussion and then maybe we will get some sane answers.

Cuz the idea that we should just become Somalia, where kids wear AKs like a fashion statement, doesn't work for me. Let me know when the Gun Lobby is interested in rational debate.

edit on 28-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Sure, here is a rational stance from a pro gun advocate (me):

How about we enforce tighter background checks, close the gun show loops, and all ALL legal adult Americans who pass all the background checks to 1) be able to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, and semi-automatic rifles 2) be able to conceal carry ANYWHERE they like, unless there is a specific request/reason not to (schools, government buildings, etc)

Also, why not let states decide what is acceptable, and what is not. That way, if an individual doesn't agree with the gun laws of one state, they can freely move to another state that is more like-minded on the issue.




I agree, certain high risk positions call for more security. I don't think anyone is ARGUING that. What people are arguing about, and you gun control advocates don't seem to comprehend, is that it makes NO SENSE whatsoever for some corporate big shot to have bodyguards who are armed, when the average citizen can't arm himself.

I'm not against people having bodyguards. What I'm against is the double standards.

Also, life in America, in many areas, is HIGH RISK in and OF itself. You don't have to be a government official, or anything like that, to be at risk for being violently attacked. Therefore, ALL citizens who are of age, and pass extensive background checks, should be allowed to conceal carry. I can't think of ONE good reason why we shouldn't be able to.

Oh and by the way....I find it SICKENING that politicians are using the mass shootings to justify the anti-gun agenda. It makes NO SENSE. There are over 300million people living in the United States.....do you know how likely a child between the ages of 4-18 are of being shot in a school shooting?

Sure, mass shootings happen. They are evil, disgusting, and certainly devastating. However, # happens. Throughout human history, there have been millions of serial killers, sickos, perverts, and evil minded people. If these people didn't have access to GUNS, they would DEFINITELY find one of the other infinite ways to hurt and/or kill people.

As it stands, I feel MUCH safer in an armed society. People think twice before they do something stupid. I live in Kennesaw, you know, where it is part of the law here to own a firearm if you are a homeowner. I LOVE the law here, and crime has dropped since the law came into effect. I guarantee you, criminals DO think twice before breaking and entering where I live.

If the politicians are REALLY concerned with minimizing the mass shootings, why are they not allocating funds for research into the connection between SSRI medication (anti-depressants) and suicide, mass shootings, etc? I'm pretty sure almost, if not EVERY single shooter in the mass shootings of the past 15 years have been on one of the many SSRI medications.

Supermarket, it's clear they have wanted to bring more gun control. On the same day of the Newtown shooting, Obama and those in the mainstream media were already speaking of gun control. To play with people's emotions to take away freedom in the name of security is just as evil as the coward that killed those children.

reply to post by spacedog1973


It's not flawed. It makes perfect sense. Obama isn't special and neither is Mayor Bloomberg.
They are citizens that were elected into power by the people and are there to serve us. A person in power doesn't deserve any special treatment and just because they are POTUS or whom ever doesn't mean they automatically deserve respect.

Ron Paul wasn't going to have the secret service having his back if he became POTUS. But fools really don't care about their country. They just care for who scratches their ear the most.

reply to post by ObjectZero


Unless you're a criminal. The school in Newtown is in a gun free zone. That sure helped a lot. Chicago too. No gun violence there. Oh wait.