Former Mayor Bloomberg Fights Against NRA

[United Prefectures of Appia]

And yet, despite the "lax" gaun laws in the state of Indiana, Indianapolis doesn't seem to have a huge problem with gun crime and homicide like Chicago does.

Hmm, you're right, because having guns.... Oh wait... I'm getting a news feed. *pressed the lobe on his ear*

This just in:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4171,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4171,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Wc&cad=rjt

[Llamalandia]

The best way to counter the NRA is for gun owners to realize that the NRA doesn't support them anymore. They support gun and ammunition manufacturers, because they're the ones giving them the scads of money they use to shut down any kind of law, even things like background checks which are no problem at all. The NRA is actually doing us a disservice, since they have a vested interest in making us look crazy and making guns look bad, so there will be ban scares which generate huge profits for their sponsors, which they can easily shut down before they get anywhere.

Gun owners need to take a stand and say that the NRA doesn't speak for all of us. Because most gun owners are pretty ok with things like background checks, or even licenses. It's only the extremists who wet their panties over those things.

Personally, I'm chill with pretty much any law like that: registration, licenses, training requirements, background checks, etc. What I don't accept is silly "assault weapons bans" which do absolutely nothing to stop crime or shootings, and only serve to put cool guns out of reach of enthusiasts for some Capitol Hill bastard to be able to say that he did something during his next reelection campaign.

I meant to say NYC have been the ones confiscating guns (specifically ones holding more than 5 rounds) that were legally acquired and registered in NYC (the law itself is old but is only now being enforced and didn't allow for any grandfathering so guns that had been legal to own at one point became illegal to possess and had to be sold, moved or surrendered).



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/the-gun-confiscation-notice-nyc-resident-reportedly-received-will-likely-send-chills-down-your-spine/

The Blaze doesn't count as a source, any more than Cato Institute, the Daily Fail, or Faux News.

DId you actually follow the link or did you just dismiss it out of hand, because they include a scan of the letter the gentleman received (with personal infor redacted for privacy), seems kind of hard to argue with actual you know... evidence. But if you don't believe that why not call the phone number listed there for the NYPD division in charge of enforcing this and ask them about it?

[Archolaos]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/us/bloomberg-gun-safety-initiative/index.html

Former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg is announcing a new umbrella organization to counter the NRA's successful lobbying campaign to limit background check laws and assault weapon bans. The former Mayor is dropping 50 million dollars, his own money to kickstart the group. In practice this new group "Everytown for Gun Safety" will prove a foil to the NRA although Mr. Bloomberg stressed in an interview that he was not looking to ban guns, just increase background checks and promote gun safety.

I disagree with the Mayor on a lot of issues, like the parent role he took on while Mayor limiting calories and the size of your soda. I support gun rights but also background checks obviously I do not want people with mental problems to have access to guns. I think the NRA goes overboard sometimes, in my opinion so this new organization may be promising in moving the debate on firearm issues further. Although he did go overboard himself, saying that this endeavour would "get him into heaven", I am not sure were that came from but I hope it does not distract the issue.

So NSG do you support him or oppose him? Will this move the debate on gun politics in America forward?

It is good that there doing that. However, I disagree with you about people with mental illness and guns. The fact is that until you are able to take a look at yourselves and see the huge, monstrously evil that people with NO mental issues have done. the massive number of people they have killed, you cannot honestly tell me that were responsibile for all the murderse out there.
I live in a comunioty where murder and robbery is not the norm but happens way too often, I have no criminal record and put MYSELF in the hospital for mental health reasons. Looking at that, I see no reason shy I cannot be armed.
However, I am willing to let bygones be bygones ONLY if you will build subsidized housing in safer areas. So either you build subsidized housing in safer areas or you you let people who can reasonably posses a gun own a gun. You cannot have it both ways. Either I get to live in Troy, Michigan or Royal Oak , Michigan or you do away with the restrictions on people with a mental health issue.

[Corrian]

I suppose it's possible some people on fox news might support the 2nd more vehemently then the 4th

I'm not even specifically talking about the 4th amendment. I'm talking about people that want us to support their 2nd amendment rights (and their rights in general) while discarding various other amendments in the process. Or just discarding others rights altogether while talking about their rights, because apparently only their gun rights matter (and rights period)

[United Prefectures of Appia]

The best way to counter the NRA is for gun owners to realize that the NRA doesn't support them anymore. They support gun and ammunition manufacturers, because they're the ones giving them the scads of money they use to shut down any kind of law, even things like background checks which are no problem at all. The NRA is actually doing us a disservice, since they have a vested interest in making us look crazy and making guns look bad, so there will be ban scares which generate huge profits for their sponsors, which they can easily shut down before they get anywhere.

The legitimate organization known as the NRA died in 1978 when extreme right-wingers launched an overnight coup de' tat and toppled the leadership. The NRA today committing a disservice is an understatement. They've made two Union soldiers who fought in the American Civil War roll in their graves.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The best way to counter the NRA is for gun owners to realize that the NRA doesn't support them anymore. They support gun and ammunition manufacturers, because they're the ones giving them the scads of money they use to shut down any kind of law, even things like background checks which are no problem at all. The NRA is actually doing us a disservice, since they have a vested interest in making us look crazy and making guns look bad, so there will be ban scares which generate huge profits for their sponsors, which they can easily shut down before they get anywhere.

The legitimate organization known as the NRA died in 1978 when extreme right-wingers launched an overnight coup de' tat and toppled the leadership. The NRA today committing a disservice is an understatement. They've made two Union soldiers who fought in the American Civil War roll in their graves.

It's quite frustrating to me these extremist right-wingers in the NRA have done such a shitty job protecting gun rights.

Been more major firearms laws passed (and worse ones) since 1978 then there were since the start of the country.

Dudes are doing a piss-poor job of stopping much.

[Llamalandia]

And yet, despite the "lax" gaun laws in the state of Indiana, Indianapolis doesn't seem to have a huge problem with gun crime and homicide like Chicago does.

Hmm, you're right, because having guns.... Oh wait... I'm getting a news feed. *pressed the lobe on his ear*

This just in:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4171,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4171,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Wc&cad=rjt

Yeah, that's my bad, I stand embarrassingly corrected, I should have actually checked the current homicide rate rather just going by historical data. Of course as your own source shows, the Chicago murder rate has topped Indianapolis in 11 of the last 13 years (and besides some natural fluctations are likely to be expected anyway), in some case being twice as high, so I would stand by my assertion that overall Chicago's murder rate is more an endemic problem with the city itself than a result of external factors.

[Llamalandia]

I suppose it's possible some people on fox news might support the 2nd more vehemently then the 4th

I'm not even specifically talking about the 4th amendment. I'm talking about people that want us to support their 2nd amendment rights (and their rights in general) while discarding various other amendments in the process. Or just discarding others rights altogether while talking about their rights, because apparently only their gun rights matter (and rights period)

Oh, well this stemmed from the conversation about stop and frisk which is why I was pointing to the 4th specifically. That being said, I'm not sure where youre getting this idea that gun owners don't care about other parts of the BIll of Rights/Constitution, I mean, most of the time they cite the 2nd amendment as being necessary to protect the first/all the others. I haven't really heard of many people even strong pro-gun advocates agitating for restricting say the first amendment rights of US citizens who may happen to be pro control for instance.

[Corrian]

Oh, well this stemmed from the conversation about stop and frisk which is why I was pointing to the 4th specifically. That being said, I'm not sure where youre getting this idea that gun owners don't care about other parts of the BIll of Rights/Constitution, I mean, most of the time they cite the 2nd amendment as being necessary to protect the first/all the others. I haven't really heard of many people even strong pro-gun advocates agitating for restricting say the first amendment rights of US citizens who may happen to be pro control for instance.

Easily. Because there's always someone on either side of the spectrum who supports something vigorously while carelessly discarding others. And this goes for 2nd amendment supporters just like with anyone.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Yeah, that's my bad, I stand embarrassingly corrected, I should have actually checked the current homicide rate rather just going by historical data. Of course as your own source shows, the Chicago murder rate has topped Indianapolis in 11 of the last 13 years (and besides some natural fluctations are likely to be expected anyway), in some case being twice as high, so I would stand by my assertion that overall Chicago's murder rate is more an endemic problem with the city itself than a result of external factors.

Except Chicago isn't in the state's heartland is it.

[Llamalandia]

Oh, well this stemmed from the conversation about stop and frisk which is why I was pointing to the 4th specifically. That being said, I'm not sure where youre getting this idea that gun owners don't care about other parts of the BIll of Rights/Constitution, I mean, most of the time they cite the 2nd amendment as being necessary to protect the first/all the others. I haven't really heard of many people even strong pro-gun advocates agitating for restricting say the first amendment rights of US citizens who may happen to be pro control for instance.

Easily. Because there's always someone on either side of the spectrum who supports something vigorously while carelessly discarding others. And this goes for 2nd amendment supporters just like with anyone.

Well, I mean, ok, but then by that logic the ACLU should be criticized for not defending the 2nd amendment (they try to claim it only applies to militias but that's largely a bs dodge on there part as far as I can tell). I mean, sure people are do often times become more vocal about the causes they most support, but that doesn't mean, they don't respect other important causes. I mean, I like the NRA and the ACLU just because the NRA doesn't have a huge segment devoted to the first amendment though doesn't mean they are in favor of restricting free speech. And just because the ACLU has sent lawyers or filed briefs in support of an individual right to bear arms doesn't mean they are necessarily opposed to the 2nd amendment.
I was more referring to the bleeding heart liberals in NYC who can simultaneously talk about the need to undermine the second amendment while also decrying "stop and frisk" (which in part actually helps further remove guns from criminals) as a huge violation of the fourth amendment.

[Corrian]

Well, I mean, ok, but then by that logic the ACLU should be criticized for not defending the 2nd amendment (they try to claim it only applies to militias but that's largely a bs dodge on there part as far as I can tell)./quote]
It does say a "Well regulated militia", if I recall. Doesn't mean it only applies to militias but just saying.

I mean, sure people are do often times become more vocal about the causes they most support, but that doesn't mean, they don't respect other important causes. I mean, I like the NRA and the ACLU just because the NRA doesn't have a huge segment devoted to the first amendment though doesn't mean they are in favor of restricting free speech. And just because the ACLU has sent lawyers or filed briefs in support of an individual right to bear arms doesn't mean they are necessarily opposed to the 2nd amendment.

It's just Jon Stewart had a segment of quotes taken from Fox News where they violated like 5 to 10 different Amendments in various different discussions while preaching the 2nd amendment. Fox News is stupid though and not a good representation of anything, just saying that it's silly to support one while ignoring others and wanting us to respect those people. And I'm not saying you're like that all, or anyone on here for that matter, just throwing silly things out

I was more referring to the bleeding heart liberals in NYC who can simultaneously talk about the need to undermine the second amendment while also decrying "stop and frisk" (which in part actually helps further remove guns from criminals) as a huge violation of the fourth amendment.

"Bleeding heart liberals" is a silly term, if you ask me.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

When are people going to get through their head that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

[Llamalandia]

Well, I mean, ok, but then by that logic the ACLU should be criticized for not defending the 2nd amendment (they try to claim it only applies to militias but that's largely a bs dodge on there part as far as I can tell)./quote]
It does say a "Well regulated militia", if I recall. Doesn't mean it only applies to militias but just saying.


It's just Jon Stewart had a segment of quotes taken from Fox News where they violated like 5 to 10 different Amendments in various different discussions while preaching the 2nd amendment. Fox News is stupid though and not a good representation of anything, just saying that it's silly to support one while ignoring others and wanting us to respect those people. And I'm not saying you're like that all, or anyone on here for that matter, just throwing silly things out

"Bleeding heart liberals" is a silly term, if you ask me.

Meh, sometimes it's apt though, like wanting to ban the death penalty in all circumstances or on grounds of compassion. Actually in this case I believe people were more divided, because some perceived stop and frisk to be racially motivated while others didn't and actually wanted it to continue because it was actually making their neighborhoods safer.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

[Geilinor]

Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

People with weapons kill people, but not all weapons are equally efficient.

[Llamalandia]

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

Depends on the size sophistication, type etc etc of bomb were talking about. Obviously a nuke is pretty darn destructive.

[Paddy O Fernature]

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

And yet, the deadliest school massacre in US history was done with a bomb.

[Llamalandia]

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

People with weapons kill people, but not all weapons are equally efficient.

True, but also people use weapons without killing anyone most of the time (or injuring them for that matter). I mean, most bullets aren't used to kill anyone. Neither are any of the other things listed there.

[Geilinor]

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

And yet, the deadliest school massacre in US history was done with a bomb.

That was a single incident.

[Death Metal]

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

Depends on the size sophistication, type etc etc of bomb were talking about. Obviously a nuke is pretty darn destructive.

Can't exactly rob a bank with a nuke though... plus there are some laws in place against creating certain types of explosive devices IIRC.

[Llamalandia]

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

And yet, the deadliest school massacre in US history was done with a bomb.

True, all though in fairness, there was a massive amount of explosive planted throughout the entire building, so it wasn't precisely one bomb but still you make a good point.

[Corrian]

Meh, sometimes it's apt though, like wanting to ban the death penalty in all circumstances or on grounds of compassion. Actually in this case I believe people were more divided, because some perceived stop and frisk to be racially motivated while others didn't and actually wanted it to continue because it was actually making their neighborhoods safer.

I just prefer we don't call each other names . I think it would solve more things if we stopped using silly names to describe each others political preferences (Which I don't really consider myself to be liberal or conservative, just whatever the hell I believe in. No reason to associate myself with democrats or republicans, or liberal or conservative, even if my beliefs may lean towards one more than the other).

And I'm against the death penalty entirely, too, but I don't really see how that makes me a "bleeding heart liberal". And not really a topic for this thread so I won't go there.

People with knives, forks, swords, hammers, chainsaws, cars, drugs, and fists also kill people.

You're more likely to survive pretty much all of those than being shot, which was pretty apparent by the knife attack recently. Of course, depends how much you're stabbed. And they're less effective, as well, because you can't just stab a room full of people from where you're standing

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Except their weapons don't have the murdering efficiency capacity as guns do. Not even a bomb which takes more time to procure and set up.

Depends on the size sophistication, type etc etc of bomb were talking about. Obviously a nuke is pretty darn destructive.

Yeah? While you're busy trying to set us up the bomb while dodging authorities and whatnots, a gunner is locked and load ready to spray lead in seconds. Not even the Boston Marathon bombing could kill more than a person with a machine gun.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

And yet, the deadliest school massacre in US history was done with a bomb.

That was a single incident.

And? 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing were also single incidents. I'm not sure what you are inferring.