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

reply to post by Indigo5

I operate on the premise that anonymity doesn't permit me to be dishonest..

Maybe you are currently working on that....

I don't believe that you have reached operational status yet.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman

 

Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?

Still waiting for where I stated I wanted people on aircraft to be armed.

Here, this may help **Jeopardy Music On**

Sorry...still not interested in having a discussion with someone that thinks the Mentally ill, Criminals and Children should have the right to buy guns.

When you are ready to big boy up, I will debate with you.

You continually show that when the narrative doesn't go in your favor, you tuck tail and run.

If you want to meet again on the battlefield of ideals, let me know.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman

 

Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?

Still waiting for where I stated I wanted people on aircraft to be armed.

Here, this may help **Jeopardy Music On**

Sorry...still not interested in having a discussion with someone that thinks the Mentally ill, Criminals and Children should have the right to buy guns.

When you are ready to big boy up, I will debate with you.

You continually show that when the narrative doesn't go in your favor, you tuck tail and run.

If you want to meet again on the battlefield of ideals, let me know.

Wow...still can't read? Not interested...I haven't seen any "ideals" from you? Except that you believe that there should be zero restrictions on guns and that the 2nd Amendment means that CHILDREN, CRIMINALS and the MENTALLY ILL should be able to purchase guns without restriction.

Why the hell would I have a debate with someone that proudly defends Adam Lanza's right to own guns? Who thinks that the 2nd Amendment was designed to arm mass killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner????

You can insult, bait and circle jerk amongst your friends all you like and get anonymous stars "pats on the back"...for championing mass killers rights to buy guns, but outside the anonymous dank of ATS you remain what you are.

Originally posted by Indigo5


Wow...still can't read? Not interested..

And yet you still reply.
I believe you detest to much.

Originally posted by Indigo5
.I haven't seen any "ideals" from you? Except that you believe that there should be zero restrictions on guns and that the 2nd Amendment means that CHILDREN, CRIMINALS and the MENTALLY ILL should be able to purchase guns without restriction.

Uh, I posed to you several questions, which you have refused to answer because the narrative does not fit your agenda. That is dishonest any way YOU try to spin it.
Please, show me where in the 2nd Amendment, not what the SCOTUS has ruled on to create case law, that those you have listed are restricted from owning or possessing a firearm.
But, you wont because you are intellectuality dishonest.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Why the hell would I have a debate with someone that proudly defends Adam Lanza's right to own guns? Who thinks that the 2nd Amendment was designed to arm mass killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner????

Another Biden gaff??
Where did I state such things? Please, be specific.
But, this is nothing more then what all here are expecting.
You want to debate with like minded people, or those that don't stand on the direct opposite as you. Again, intellectuality dishonest.
Please, show me where I stated that the 2nd is there to arm mass killers.
Another dishonest statement on your part.

Originally posted by Indigo5
You can circle jerk amongst your friends all you like and get anonymous stars "pats on the back"..

Ouch, the angry ATS'er gnashes his teeth.

Originally posted by Indigo5
.for championing mass killers rights to buy guns, but outside the anonymous dank of ATS you remain what you are.

And where have I championed this???
Too bad, as I truly thought you were one of the Progressive mindset that was open to debate. I was proven wrong and stand corrected.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
Why the hell would I have a debate with someone that proudly defends Adam Lanza's right to own guns? Who thinks that the 2nd Amendment was designed to arm mass killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner????

Another Biden gaff??
Where did I state such things? Please, be specific.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

Should any American Citizen be able to buy a gun, no questions asked?

AS per the 2nd Amendment, YES.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

Since you're firmly against any and all restrictions, should a 6 year old be allowed to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle? A convicted felon?

Yes, as the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman

 

So my 13 year old that has ADHD and very low impulse control should be able to?

AS per the 2nd Amendment, Yes.

Maybe get control of YOUR child, before you allow them to go to Walmart by themselves.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

In thier view the 2nd Amendment affords children, the mentally ill, felons et al the right to purchase guns, since the 2nd Amendment does not, in thier view, specify any restrictions and furthermore enshrines the absense of any regulation.

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict such people or persons.
Please, show me where in that Amendment it states as such.

Thread here: post by macman


Specific enough for you????...geez...you shout about dishonesty...while showing nothing but that...it's a condition

reply to post by Indigo5


Please, pretty please with candy on top. Show me where it states that certain people can be restricted from owning or purchasing a firearm.

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms. 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.[60]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. 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.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. 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.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel 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.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. 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.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people. 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.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

Should any American Citizen be able to buy a gun, no questions asked?

AS per the 2nd Amendment, YES.

And that is where I stated I wanted it there to arm mass killers??
Don't see that. Have you had your eyes checked lately.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

Since you're firmly against any and all restrictions, should a 6 year old be allowed to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle? A convicted felon?

Yes, as the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman

 

So my 13 year old that has ADHD and very low impulse control should be able to?

AS per the 2nd Amendment, Yes.

Maybe get control of YOUR child, before you allow them to go to Walmart by themselves.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

In thier view the 2nd Amendment affords children, the mentally ill, felons et al the right to purchase guns, since the 2nd Amendment does not, in thier view, specify any restrictions and furthermore enshrines the absense of any regulation.

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict such people or persons.
Please, show me where in that Amendment it states as such.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Thread here: post by macman


Specific enough for you????...geez...you shout about dishonesty...while showing nothing but that...it's a condition

And yet where does it state those listed can be restricted in the Bill of Rights???

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
You also decline to answer the difficult questions.

Said the poster that has decided not to review my last answer to the question they asked.

Maybe you want to point out some question of yours that I failed to answer?

You did not post YOUR answer. You posted a link to "The Daily Show", meaning that it was someone else's answer... unless, of course, you meant to imply that your opinions are issued to you by Comedy Central...

Originally posted by nenothtu


You did not post YOUR answer. You posted a link to "The Daily Show", meaning that it was someone else's answer... unless, of course, you meant to imply that your opinions are issued to you by Comedy Central...

It was a link providing statistics, citing laws and legislation that the NRA got passed to restrict enforcement etc.

In that regard it was "MY ANSWER"...there seems to be a segment of folks on ATS who confuse opinion with facts and evidence and take offense when sources and links are introduced.

Considering the crowd here applauds the guy demanding that the mentally ill and children be able to buy guns, but can't be troubled to click on a simple link..and consistently confuse opinion with facts....I'll leave you like minds to this thread where you can continue the intellectual circle jerk and slap eachother on the back for posting bumper stickers instead of thoughts.

Later....

Originally posted by macman

When you are ready to big boy up, I will debate with you.

You continually show that when the narrative doesn't go in your favor, you tuck tail and run.

If you want to meet again on the battlefield of ideals, let me know.

Honestly Mac...you seem to me to be just a few beers away from ending up in a bunker with a kidnapped child and your guns, mumbling about Obama and the "guberment" like that guy in AZ.

Your crazy doesn't entertain me anymore...thanks for the chuckles though.

reply to post by Indigo5


the mentally ill are not banned from firearms possession solely on the bases of being mentally ill.they have to be ruled a danger to them self or others or have been forcibly committed against their will and criminals get their guns on the black markets or steal them

To discriminate against someone for what they haven't done, but may do, mentally ill or not sets a dangerous precedent. No one should be denied their guarenteed Constitutional Rights, if they haven't done anything. Not everyone with a mental health issue is violent. Including those people who are diagnosed with PTSD, Bipolar, or Antisocial Personality Disorder. Only if a person has a history of violence, not a single incendent, but a history of violence. This should include everyone, not only the mentally ill. It should include anyone with a history of violence. We can not allow our fears and misunderstandings of a particular section of our population, dictate the Contistional Rights of others. Years ago, something similar was done to the poor, uneducated and those that others deemed to be SLOW. If you were considered to be slow (mentally deficient) or poor and/or uneducated, people in positions of power, could and did with frightning frequency, have them rendered infertal. It was done primarily to women, but it could be done to anyone. So many innocent people were stripped of their ability to have a child, against their will. They hadn't done anything wrong, but socsiety deemed them unfit. To deny anyone their Constitutional Rights because they may, SOME DAY, do something harmful to themselves or to someone else, would be a travisty no matter what the diagnoses. A dianoses of a mental health condition is not a predition of or a forgone conclusion of a violent future. In fact, in many cases (not all)of gun violence, there was no previous history of mental illness. We need to improve our mental health care and provide early intervention for people, without a mental health diagnoses

one of my favorite quotes from NAMI on the issue from an anonymous poster and feel its highly relevant to this discussion

Originally posted by Indigo5


Honestly Mac...you seem to me to be just a few beers away from ending up in a bunker with a kidnapped child and your guns, mumbling about Obama and the "guberment" like that guy in AZ.

Your crazy doesn't entertain me anymore...thanks for the chuckles though.

That is all you got???
Some news and Progressive anecdotes??

Sorry, but I don't drink.


The funny part is that you are still fail to answer direct questions. It is sad as well, as you continue to banter on about how I have ever suggested that I support arming mass killers and that I stated I want people armed on aircraft.
You have yet to provide any proof that I stated that.

What you think is proof, is my statement that the Constitution does not restrict people from ownership. I stand behind that.,

If you and your Progressive buddies want that changed lawfully, and not by fiat or policy, then amend the Constitution.
But, you won't push for that, as it doesn't suit your Progressive narrative.

I posted above these, the Bill of Rights. I posed to you a simple question, which you have yet to answer, and you probably won't because it shows just how wrong you and your beliefs are.

Originally posted by Indigo5
.I'll leave you like minds to this thread where you can continue the intellectual circle jerk and slap eachother on the back for posting bumper stickers instead of thoughts.

Later....

What is your affinity for circle jerks???
You have brought that up now about a dozen times throughout this year alone.

Are we here on ATS missing something that hasn't been told by you???

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.

If you are SERIOUS...if you honestly are open to actual discussion and ideas that don't outright support your worldview...Your answer here...here's hoping for actual honest discussion...

www.thedailyshow.com...

sorry. I am not at home right now and the video from a television show on Comedy Network will not play on my Galaxy III.
I guess you could not put your reply into words. That's okay. It isn't like I haven't seen this from you before.

I am going to go down to the Mexican border and get some free Obama guns from the ATF. You are right, he has been proactive on guns these last four years.

Perfect...Ask a question...I provide and honest answer

Response when answer provided? I can't watch....I won't watch...and ad insult and BS...

Thanks for affirming my opinion of you. Not much use in further discussion with some plugging thier ears and ramblming insults..

edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Let's see, where to start.....

Let us start with your accusation that I added insult and BS....
I made a reference to Obama continuing with the Bush program that ran guns into Mexico. Is that insulting to you? Is it 'BS'?

Now, let's look at the question I actually posed to you.....

I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.

The 'answer' that you are so proud of.....
The Daily Show
And you state that it covers this....

It was a link providing statistics, citing laws and legislation that the NRA got passed to restrict enforcement etc.

You do realize, Your Honesty, that your 'response' answers a quite different question? It would be an appropriate response to this question.... 'What has the NRA done to block enforcement?'

Give me a ration of BS and blame me for the same....

Yes, you are really honest.

Obama bragged about the fact that he had done nothing to regulate firearms.... when he was campaigning for re-election.

Originally posted by Indigo5

It was a link providing statistics, citing laws and legislation that the NRA got passed to restrict enforcement etc.

In that regard it was "MY ANSWER"...there seems to be a segment of folks on ATS who confuse opinion with facts and evidence and take offense when sources and links are introduced.

It was a link to Comedy Central. Is that where you get most of your facts, or just the "special" ones? In either case, it was not YOUR answer - unless Comedy Central issues your opinions to you. It may be that there is a segment of folks at ATS who also confuse Comedy Central with "news".

Considering the crowd here applauds the guy demanding that the mentally ill and children be able to buy guns, but can't be troubled to click on a simple link..and consistently confuse opinion with facts....

Here's a fact for you - if your child is buying guns, you should see to that child. I'll take care of mine. I don't need either you or the government to raise them for me.

I'll leave you like minds to this thread where you can continue the intellectual circle jerk and slap eachother on the back for posting bumper stickers instead of thoughts.

Later....

edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Now, since we are all so easy to confuse, you're going to have to specify if that calumny is "opinion", or "fact", and from whence it springs.

Have a nice day!

www.youtube.com... this is a pretty good statement from a legal immigrant on the issue as he unlike alot of us have peronaly known tyrriany and fear of oppressive regimes if some one could imbed the video id be much obliged as its still hit or miss for me

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas




ETA: The actual testimony starts at 1:40