Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:33 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The problem is trying to pick sides between the NRA and Bloomberg. It's like NAMBLA v bin Laden.

I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but I can't think of a lobbying organization that I agree with more than I agree with them.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:40 pm

Herv100 wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:
Herv100 wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:Weird thread.

The statistic of 34 innocent people being shot dead every day in the US.... Pause for thought? "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" not making me feel better about that.
Weird post, considering you're supposed to be from the UK. To use an American negroism: You do you, we'll worry about us.
Pity you wouldn't adopt that approach when it comes to foreign policy.
Swing and miss. That's my exact foreign policy belief, pal

I was wondering if he knew who he was replying to. Herv's probably the most anti-interventionist member here.

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:08 pm

baffled wrote:
Herv100 wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:
Herv100 wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:Weird thread.

The statistic of 34 innocent people being shot dead every day in the US.... Pause for thought? "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" not making me feel better about that.
Weird post, considering you're supposed to be from the UK. To use an American negroism: You do you, we'll worry about us.
Pity you wouldn't adopt that approach when it comes to foreign policy.
Swing and miss. That's my exact foreign policy belief, pal
I was wondering if he knew who he was replying to. Herv's probably the most anti-interventionist member here.

I don't usually read Herv's posts.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:41 am

The Ginger Beard Man · Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:12 am

kreator wrote:
Thud wrote:Mayor Michael Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation
New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and that’s one reason why we are the safest big city in the nation.
Wrong. NYC is one of the safest big cities because people come here to start a career, make money, make a name for themselves, or raise a family. People want to live here and for the most part like living here. Violent crime is always going to be low in places where people like to live and have motivation.

Has nothing to do with gun laws.

This. And I believe we still have, by far, the largest PD in the country.
Just try not be around when four or five cops empty their guns at someone, and forty rounds or so miss the target.

Yes, I'm drunk · Post by **Yes, I'm drunk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:53 am

I've come round to thinking that the US has it right on this one. And I was vehemently anti-gun at one point.

The only people who suffer under draconian gun laws such as we have in the UK are the weakest in society, like women and the elderly. The only people who benefit are the criminal class who'll carry weapons regardless of whether it's legal to or not.

The pros far out-way the cons on gun ownership.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:30 am

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:I've come round to thinking that the US has it right on this one. And I was vehemently anti-gun at one point.

The only people who suffer under draconian gun laws such as we have in the UK are the weakest in society, like women and the elderly. The only people who benefit are the criminal class who'll carry weapons regardless of whether it's legal to or not.

The pros far out-way the cons on gun ownership.

I really enjoy reading your posts. Seriously.

The portion I put into bold is the point I keep making to my extremely left wing uncle. Even extremely strict anti-gun laws don't remove 100% of the guns from a society. Unfortunately, it's only those who don't care whether they get caught with a weapon who will have one.

I found this funny.

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:12 am

Disagree, YID. You can legally hold shotguns just not handguns, in most of Europe. Having a (largely) unarmed police force results in a largely unarmed criminal class. Yes, there are crims who pack heat but they're not the norm and the sentences handed down to them are very harsh. For example, 50 people were killed by gun crime in 2005 in the UK. Many would have been gang-related. I don't see your argument holding water.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:59 am

Gorbachev wrote:Disagree, YID. You can legally hold shotguns just not handguns, in most of Europe. Having a (largely) unarmed police force results in a largely unarmed criminal class. Yes, there are crims who pack heat but they're not the norm and the sentences handed down to them are very harsh. For example, 50 people were killed by gun crime in 2005 in the UK. Many would have been gang-related. I don't see your argument holding water.

Perhaps you and your gov't don't accept that your right to protect yourself and others is fundamental.

Shotguns fit the bill for some, handguns for others. When seconds count and the police are minutes away and your assailant is younger, bigger, stronger, meaner, than you, you deserve to legally have available a means of self defense appropriate to your size, age, and abilities. It is no more or less complicated than that.

Certain things should be inalienable: thinking what you want, saying what you think, worshiping as you wish, freedom from excessive gov't intrusion into your life and property and the right to protect your life and your stuff from those intent on confiscating them from you. Gun nuts do exist in the US but the vast majority of gun rights advocates are making a principled stand for a fundamental human right, the right to stay alive when someone else is trying to take it away.

Yes, I'm drunk · Post by **Yes, I'm drunk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:15 pm

Thanks, baffled, much appreciated.

Gorbachev wrote:Disagree, YID. You can legally hold shotguns just not handguns, in most of Europe. Having a (largely) unarmed police force results in a largely unarmed criminal class. Yes, there are crims who pack heat but they're not the norm and the sentences handed down to them are very harsh. For example, 50 people were killed by gun crime in 2005 in the UK. Many would have been gang-related. I don't see your argument holding water.

In the UK, you can only own a shotgun, or any other gun for that matter, if you have a legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reason for doing so, and self-defence is not one of them, so to carry a weapon around with you for the purposes of personal protection would be illegal, not to mention impractical.

Plus, the criminal class isn't "largely unarmed" either. They'll always carry something with them, whether it's a gun, a knife, a club etc. These things can all kill you, and I'd much prefer to see a woman face down a potential sex-attacker with a gun in her claws rather than just a rape-whistle between her lips.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:48 pm

Gorbachev wrote:Having a (largely) unarmed police force results in a largely unarmed criminal class.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Regardless, in America, guns are already here and prevalent throughout society since our founding. You can't simply remove them from society and if you try, only the law-abiding citizens (e.g., the innocent) would comply, leaving the armed criminal class with greater leverage over the innocent.

So in this sense, we don't have and have NEVER had an unarmed criminal class (or, more accurately, a non-firearm carrying criminal class). Maybe that's a uniquely American problem and why it's so hard for Eurofags to understand.

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:27 pm

Carrying a gun is not a human right in my eyes. Of far more value is a right to live in a society that is not wholly infected with gun culture. If the US is riddled with firearms then maybe it's difficult to see that society changing over. But many would like to debate the merits and practicalities instead of throwing their hands up in exasperation.

LOL at Protohomo using the term "Eurofag". It takes more balls to be an unarmed police officer and a Joe Public without a Glock under your oxter, n'est ce pas?

YID, if you hold a legally held shotgun and someone breaks into your home, you'll get away with shooting them if you're smart enough to fire a warning shot into your ceiling AFTER you've put them down.

cleaner464 · Post by **cleaner464** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:47 pm

Gene wrote:
cleaner464 wrote:Easily frightened rodents like you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun. Please regale us again with your experience at the gas station and how you were prepared TO DRAW DOWN ON THE GUY WHO DARED TO CUT IN FRONT OF YOU.

Yes, I read that before you thought better of it and deleted the post.
Your visual memory is impaired, Joe.

I was at a Stop 'n Rob filling up my gas tank. A decent looking car, I think a Ford Torino, cut around my parked car. He got a bit close to me.

He pulled around me, drunk and angry. Came out of his car. Walked up to me saying, "Who taught you how to park Motherfucker?".

I was filling up my tank with gas. I had a pistol in a holster, a lighter in one pocket and a shotgun in the trunk. He got to within my personal space, far too close.

I realized after he got into my space and then stepped out that he wasn't really into fighting me. I decided that talking would be the best way to work. So I politely stood my ground, kept him in sight and listened to him bluster.

After a few moments he realized I wasn't into fighting.

He began to complain.

I listened to him.

He segued into a mini rant about his "cunt ex wife" and wanting to take his son to see wrestling. I smiled inwardly remembering my own father and I watching studio wrestling when I was younger.

I empathized that my Mom would "play games with Dad". I added that my Dad did not spend as much time with me as he would have liked to have done so."

He nodded and called his wife a "cunt".

I said, "They get to you where it hurts, don't they?" I added that "I think you'll be able to spend more time with him when he's older and doesn't mind his mom as much".

He sounded more hopeful. "That would be nice".

"My Dad and I spent more time together in my teen years. We got along better".

He nodded, his mood brightening.

After spending a few more moments I finished filling up my tank.

We talked for a while longer. He told me that he was a "bouncer" and that he "enjoyed his work" but "hated that he couldn't spend as much time with his boy".

A short while after wards he began to start to cry.

"You've been so cool with me!", he said.

He ran into the Stop 'n Rob and soon came out with a Six pack of Pepsi.

"Here", he said, "Take this! Please, you've been so good to me".

Rather than start this bullshit all over again I took the six pack.

Only later did I realize that I could have burned him or shot him but instead did the right thing.

I'm sure, friends, that Joe will reply that if he were in my shoes that he would have "given him something to cry about" or some other variant of his Urban Tough Guy bullshit rap.

The Internet IS serious business. Right?

Horseshit. You know what you wrote. If you were so calm and collected, then why did you delete the original post?

A gun and a rifle to go get gas? You are a paranoid little weasel. A liar too.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:50 pm

cleaner464 wrote:Horseshit. You know what you wrote.

On the contrary - you don't remember what I wrote but project your own bigoted attitudes about "gun nuts" onto me. The difference between you and a Toothless Redneck or KKKlucker is that you hate on different kinds of people.

cleaner464 wrote:If you were so calm and collected, then why did you delete the original post?

The definition of "Courage", Joe, is being afraid but doing it anyhow. A person can think while afraid, it's not a bad habit to learn.

cleaner464 wrote:A gun and a rifle to go get gas? You are a paranoid little weasel.

In New York State or in New Jersey Mundanes have to go straight from the Safe to the Range and back. In most of "Fly Over Country" Mundanes are allowed to stop by a gas station on the way home from the range.

cleaner464 wrote:A liar too.

Go light a Cross.

Gene

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:23 am

Gorbachev wrote:Carrying a gun is not a human right in my eyes. Of far more value is a right to live in a society that is not wholly infected with gun culture.

Then find a way to travel back to the colonies, circa 1787, and make your argument. Explain to the colonists who'd successfully revolted against the King of England that possessing guns is an "infection."

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:21 am

protobuilder wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:Carrying a gun is not a human right in my eyes. Of far more value is a right to live in a society that is not wholly infected with gun culture.
Then find a way to travel back to the colonies, circa 1787, and make your argument. Explain to the colonists who'd successfully revolted against the King of England that possessing guns is an "infection."

You live in a free and democratic society. The option before you is how best to order your society for the greater good. The infection is in the widespread holding of guns in your civilian population and more importantly the inability to think outside of that exact colonial mindset. For it always boils down to this. The facts are that other nations have decided - by free decision of their populations - not to allow the holding of guns on anything like the scale tolerated in the US. If you put on a Davey Crockett hat every time the argument is raised, I think you're reverting to an historical prism inappropriate to modern society.

I don't want to limit gun control to attack freedom but to make society safer for the greatest number. This idea of wilfully limiting personal behaviour for the greater good is a European concept rooted firmly in our view of how we should best order our society. We see this in environmental legislation, dog muzzling laws, scaled car emissions taxing etc. The gulf between that mindset and the US is vast.

I'm beginning to think that maybe the way US and world history is inculcated in young Americans is copperfastening this frontier mindset into young minds before any other approaches take root. The touchstone for all discussion of societal norms and limits on individual freedom is this fixed and potent world view. The "truth and importance of origin" permeates everything. This meme - and not legitimate arguments about what is actually best now - decides arguments about "freedoms" to carry lethal weapons, pollute, use cheap gas, re-order other dangerous countries etc etc.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:55 am

protobuilder wrote:Regardless, in America, guns are already here and prevalent throughout society since our founding. You can't simply remove them from society and if you try, only the law-abiding citizens (e.g., the innocent) would comply, leaving the armed criminal class with greater leverage over the innocent.

So in this sense, we don't have and have NEVER had an unarmed criminal class (or, more accurately, a non-firearm carrying criminal class).

As much as it pains me to do so, I agree with this although it is a bit of a straw man.

Americans are nuts about this issue more than perhaps any other outside of drugs. Extreme groups like the NRA (no, I haven't read all of their "positions") that try to scare into voting a certain way and handing over money to them are probably to blame as much as any. Yes, it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to take away guns from people and ban their ownership but, seriously, is such a thing even being proposed? Issues being debated are whether you should be able to buy a gun whenever you wish and whether you should be able to pack that gun through your local department store.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:33 am

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:26 pm

Guns are a good sign for the economy, motherfuckers.

I guess.

My favorite line to take out of context:

One possible reason for the surge in gun making: feminism.

Steggy · Post by **Steggy** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:20 pm

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:This. And I believe we still have, by far, the largest PD in the country.
Just try not be around when four or five cops empty their guns at someone, and forty rounds or so miss the target.

Yup, even the number of transit police (ones working the subways) outnumber what some other cities have for their entire force.

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:37 pm

Gorbachev wrote:
protobuilder wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:Carrying a gun is not a human right in my eyes. Of far more value is a right to live in a society that is not wholly infected with gun culture.
Then find a way to travel back to the colonies, circa 1787, and make your argument. Explain to the colonists who'd successfully revolted against the King of England that possessing guns is an "infection."
You live in a free and democratic society. The option before you is how best to order your society for the greater good. The infection is in the widespread holding of guns in your civilian population and more importantly the inability to think outside of that exact colonial mindset. For it always boils down to this. The facts are that other nations have decided - by free decision of their populations - not to allow the holding of guns on anything like the scale tolerated in the US. If you put on a Davey Crockett hat every time the argument is raised, I think you're reverting to an historical prism inappropriate to modern society.

I don't want to limit gun control to attack freedom but to make society safer for the greatest number. This idea of wilfully limiting personal behaviour for the greater good is a European concept rooted firmly in our view of how we should best order our society. We see this in environmental legislation, dog muzzling laws, scaled car emissions taxing etc. The gulf between that mindset and the US is vast.

I'm beginning to think that maybe the way US and world history is inculcated in young Americans is copperfastening this frontier mindset into young minds before any other approaches take root. The touchstone for all discussion of societal norms and limits on individual freedom is this fixed and potent world view. The "truth and importance of origin" permeates everything. This meme - and not legitimate arguments about what is actually best now - decides arguments about "freedoms" to carry lethal weapons, pollute, use cheap gas, re-order other dangerous countries etc etc.

From the Canada thread elsewhere:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2403254/

In contrast, professors Law and Versteeg conclude that the American constitution, once the foundational document for new nations in search of a government, has fallen out of favour. It fails to protect rights, such as freedom from discrimination based on race or sex, that are considered fundamental in our time; it enshrines rights, such as the right to bear arms, that other nations don’t value; its courts increasingly interpret the American document so perversely – by claiming that it must only be applied as the founding fathers originally intended – as to render it useless as a tool for tackling modern problems.

And there we have the fundamental worldview difference that drives this discussion.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:00 pm

The home defense firearm is, by definition, a weapon kept in the home, accessible to those inside the home in case of some attempted break-in. Whether the break-in is an angry ex-boyfriend pounding on the door, a determined home invasion by practiced criminals, some other burglary, or even civil unrest washing into your neighborhood from the world outside, you keep a home-defense gun because you wish to be able to protect your family and yourself in what is your last refuge: the place where you live. The home-defense firearm is the most important piece of technology you will ever bring into your dwelling.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/the-gun-you- ... ur-castle/

johno · Post by **johno** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:36 pm

On a practical note: a substantial % of US gunowners, myself included, believe that they possess a right of self defense that is independent of government permission. And roughly 200 million guns are in private hands.

Considering that US prisons can't keep inmates from getting shanks & drugs, imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:37 pm

Turdacious wrote:
The home defense firearm is, by definition, a weapon kept in the home, accessible to those inside the home in case of some attempted break-in. Whether the break-in is an angry ex-boyfriend pounding on the door, a determined home invasion by practiced criminals, some other burglary, or even civil unrest washing into your neighborhood from the world outside, you keep a home-defense gun because you wish to be able to protect your family and yourself in what is your last refuge: the place where you live. The home-defense firearm is the most important piece of technology you will ever bring into your dwelling.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/the-gun-you- ... ur-castle/

No, no, no! The civilized thing to do is to kindly request that the alleged criminal wait until police arrive in 20-30 minutes so that they can mediate a discussion that allows all parties to go home happy.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:54 pm

johno wrote: imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

it's that possibility that provokes many million of us own guns in the first place.

IGX

Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation

Re: Bloomberg On The NRA’s Nightmare Nation