If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRCB)   NYC mayor launches campaign against gun laws, because if there's one thing NYC needs, it's more guns   (wrcbtv.com) divider line 161
    More: Obvious, nyc mayor, state legislators, gun laws, rocket launch, Mich  
•       •       •

3736 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2012 at 10:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
Biv
2012-04-12 11:35:56 AM

dittybopper: farkityfarker: I'm guessing that Zimmerman wishes he hadn't had a gun that night.

Probably guessing wrong. All Zimmerman has to do is show that he was reasonably in fear of his life, or of serious injury, and that he couldn't reasonably escape from the situation, by the preponderance of evidence to a judge before any trial commences. Then the judge is bound by Florida law to dismiss the charges. But let's say that doesn't happen: He's still got a reasonable chance in front of a jury. The state has to prove Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless they have some really, really good evidence that we haven't heard about, or they can stack the jury, it's likely that there is enough reasonable doubt that Zimmerman will end up with a 'not gillcup' verdict.

My thinking is that the decision to charge him is at least partially politically motivated: Public opinion is inflamed right now, and a decision not to charge Zimmerman would likely cause at least some rioting, ala the Rodney King verdicts. Nobody in power wants that: The local government in Sanford doesn't want it, the state of Florida doesn't want it, and the federal government doesn't want it. Not in an election year. Charging Zimmerman gives people a chance to cool off, it takes the burden off of the prosecutor, and it is entirely likely that any trial won't happen until after election night in November.


Exactly. i think if they really wanted to convict him they would have thrown a lesser charge at him. If there is even on juror with a brain there is no way he'll get convicted.....unless there is a huge bombshell, which I doubt.

BigBooper:
Jeesus Christ. Can't we have a middle ground? If someone is in my house attacking me or my family, I should not have to prove that I had no where to run before I defended my family or myself. On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission.


Wrong. I have the right to protect myself and my property. If someone I don't know is in my home, I'm not waiting to find out his intentions.
 
2012-04-12 11:36:26 AM
gunz! - gunz! - GUNZ! - GUNZ!
 
2012-04-12 11:39:30 AM
Oooo let's see what kinds of fun I should expect next time I visit new York:

1) lots of traffic and people in my way
2) 15 dollar beers
3) shiatty weather
4) if I defend myself while getting
Mugged I may end up in jail
5) no smoking ever
6) hipsters with an ego larger than the hole in the ground where wtc was


I'll pass
 
2012-04-12 11:40:38 AM
Typical Republican!
 
2012-04-12 11:43:59 AM

poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.


Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).
 
2012-04-12 11:48:30 AM

BigBooper: On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission.


I will endorse such a policy at such time that advocates are able to explain how a legal home resident may instantaneously determine the specific intent of a criminal invader. This determination must be made instantaneously, because otherwise the delay in action during the process of determination may place the legal home resident, or another legal occupant, in danger.

An alternative suggestion is to advise individuals not to criminally invade homes.
 
2012-04-12 11:49:34 AM

BigBooper: Or as in the story above, a homeowner may have a drunk or stoned kid that's just trying to hide from the cops so he doesn't get a stupid ticket


Hey, maybe he shouldn't have decided to go from "simple ticket with fine" to "felony".

"I was drunk" isn't an excuse either.
 
2012-04-12 11:52:04 AM

Dimensio: BigBooper: On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission.

I will endorse such a policy at such time that advocates are able to explain how a legal home resident may instantaneously determine the specific intent of a criminal invader. This determination must be made instantaneously, because otherwise the delay in action during the process of determination may place the legal home resident, or another legal occupant, in danger.

An alternative suggestion is to advise individuals not to criminally invade homes.


Maybe they can issues every homeowner a sternly written letter from Bloomberg they can give to any interloper, that should solve the problem of cime.
 
2012-04-12 11:52:36 AM

BigBooper: In Wisconsin we had an obligation to retreat before using force to defend ourselves, and could only use force if all avenues of retreat were exhausted. This included while in our homes. Then the legislature passed to "Castle doctrine" which pretty much removes the need to retreat, and at the same time states that any home invader is automatically considered an imminent threat. So of course not long after the law was changed a kid who broke into a back porch to hide from the cops who were raiding a house party was shot and killed by the home owner. Of course no charges were filed.

Jeesus Christ. Can't we have a middle ground? If someone is in my house attacking me or my family, I should not have to prove that I had no where to run before I defended my family or myself. On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission. I have two daughters, and as much as I hate the thought, they may have boys sneaking around at some point. Or as in the story above, a homeowner may have a drunk or stoned kid that's just trying to hide from the cops so he doesn't get a stupid ticket. Even people that break into a house to rob it. If they retreat when confronted, why should I have the right to use deadly force? Under current law I do, as long as that person is in my house, I have the right to not only shoot first and ask questions latter, but I have the right to shoot a fleeing invader in the back. That makes no sense to me.


So, how old are these "daughters"?


/I keed!
 
2012-04-12 11:53:01 AM

jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?


Because the policies of those other states directly affect NYC.
 
2012-04-12 11:53:04 AM

Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).


It's also why he thinks his cops should be able to operate on an international level, thus really annoying the feds (who are the ones legally charged with doing international stuff).

Bloomberg really doesn't want to be a LOCAL government executive but knows he'll never go anywhere else. This is him compensating.

He's legally no more important than the mayor of Scranton, PA or the mayor of Dothan, AL and I'm sure that annoys him to no end.
 
2012-04-12 11:53:39 AM

poot_rootbeer: Callous: When faced with the threat of death or gross bodily harm, clearly the smartest thing to do is to turn your back and attempt to run. Especially if you are old, infirm or otherwise physically inferior to your attacker.

A compelling rebuttal to an argument nobody has made.


Except Bloomberg. You should be required to run from a predator to make it easier for the police and prosecutor. Didn't read the article, did you?
What usually happens when a sheep runs from a wolf? A rabbit from a dog? A mouse from a cat?
 
2012-04-12 11:56:29 AM

cybernia: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

Because the policies of those other states directly affect NYC.


Hey, you know what we call issues from states that effect other states?

FEDERAL.

In other words, crap that a local mayor gets to piss in the wind about because he's two levels below the people that get to make such decisions.

Bloomberg only gets noticed because, well, he's farking rich. Which is funny considering he belongs to a party that pisses and moans all the time about money in politics and the influence of the "1%". By which they mean "money in politics that isn't ours".
 
2012-04-12 11:56:47 AM

SoCalSurfer: Oooo let's see what kinds of fun I should expect next time I visit new York:

1) lots of traffic and people in my way
2) 15 dollar beers
3) shiatty weather
4) if I defend myself while getting
Mugged I may end up in jail
5) no smoking ever
6) hipsters with an ego larger than the hole in the ground where wtc was


I'll pass


A fun read:

Link (new window)8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live

FTA:

"....Other incidents that prompted citizens to pick up and leave included the sight of garbage bags stacked 5 feet high on the sidewalk; the realization that being alone among millions of anonymous people is actually quite horrifying; a blaring siren that droned on and farking on; muddy, refuse-filled puddles that have inexplicably not dried in three years; the thought of growing into a person whose meanness and cynicism is cloaked in a kind of holier-than-thou brand of sarcasm that the rest of the world finds nauseating; and all the goddamn people.

In addition, 3 million New Yorkers reportedly left the city because they realized the phrase "Only in New York" is actually just a defense mechanism used to convince themselves that seeing a naked man take a shiat on a park bench is somehow endearing, or part of some shared cultural experience."

 
2012-04-12 11:57:24 AM

Biv: dittybopper: farkityfarker: I'm guessing that Zimmerman wishes he hadn't had a gun that night.

Probably guessing wrong. All Zimmerman has to do is show that he was reasonably in fear of his life, or of serious injury, and that he couldn't reasonably escape from the situation, by the preponderance of evidence to a judge before any trial commences. Then the judge is bound by Florida law to dismiss the charges. But let's say that doesn't happen: He's still got a reasonable chance in front of a jury. The state has to prove Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless they have some really, really good evidence that we haven't heard about, or they can stack the jury, it's likely that there is enough reasonable doubt that Zimmerman will end up with a 'not gillcup' verdict.

My thinking is that the decision to charge him is at least partially politically motivated: Public opinion is inflamed right now, and a decision not to charge Zimmerman would likely cause at least some rioting, ala the Rodney King verdicts. Nobody in power wants that: The local government in Sanford doesn't want it, the state of Florida doesn't want it, and the federal government doesn't want it. Not in an election year. Charging Zimmerman gives people a chance to cool off, it takes the burden off of the prosecutor, and it is entirely likely that any trial won't happen until after election night in November.

Exactly. i think if they really wanted to convict him they would have thrown a lesser charge at him. If there is even on juror with a brain there is no way he'll get convicted.....unless there is a huge bombshell, which I doubt.

BigBooper:
Jeesus Christ. Can't we have a middle ground? If someone is in my house attacking me or my family, I should not have to prove that I had no where to run before I defended my family or myself. On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission.

Wrong. I have the rig ...


On Zimmerman: my theory is that the ballistics do not support Zimmerman's story about his shooting Martin at close range. If Martin did attack Zimmerman, but when Zimmerman went for his gun, if Martin got up and started to back off, then I could see a second degree murder charge. The prosecution would argue that self defense was no longer necessary as Martin was retreating. Of course this is just speculation on my part. Remember, we don't have all the witness statements, nor any ballistics or autopsy reports that the prosecution has. I can't believe that the prosecutor would go with a 2nd degree murder charge just to placate the public.

On home defense: A home owner should not have to prove that they had no way to escape. However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force. The invaders mere presence should not be enough reason to use force. I still say if an invader retreats when confronted, the use of deadly force is not reasonable. Of course I believe the bar should be pretty low for the use of force. If the retreat of that invader is towards the bedrooms where my wife or daughters are, then It's reasonable in my mind to fear for their safety and shoot him in the back.

The layout of my house permits me to put me and my .357 in the way of any home invader before that invader gets to our bedrooms. If I think some one is in my house, I'm going to that choke point, and that's where I'm staying. I also intend to have my wife call 911, while I yell at the top of my lungs, I've called the cops, AND I HAVE A GUN! Fark the stuff, I'll die for my family, but I've got insurance for the stuff.
 
2012-04-12 12:00:56 PM

BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.



There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.
 
2012-04-12 12:01:14 PM

Spade: cybernia: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

Because the policies of those other states directly affect NYC.

Hey, you know what we call issues from states that effect other states?

FEDERAL.

In other words, crap that a local mayor gets to piss in the wind about because he's two levels below the people that get to make such decisions.

Bloomberg only gets noticed because, well, he's farking rich. Which is funny considering he belongs to a party that pisses and moans all the time about money in politics and the influence of the "1%". By which they mean "money in politics that isn't ours".


Far be it for Bloomberg to let something like the law or jurisdiction get in his way. And he is only a republican because that's what he needed to be to get elected. Much like the mayor of the town I live in who was a Democrat before he decided switching was the only way to get reelected.
 
2012-04-12 12:01:35 PM

Spade: he belongs to a party


Umm.. He's independent. He was actually elected as a Republican, but left the party.
 
2012-04-12 12:05:55 PM

Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).


Legal or not, what seems to get lost in criticism of those stings is that they were able to make illegal purchases. Why don't we hear an uproar about that?
 
2012-04-12 12:05:59 PM

BigBooper: Spade: he belongs to a party

Umm.. He's independent. He was actually elected as a Republican, but left the party.


He runs with what ever party will let him on their ticket
 
2012-04-12 12:07:00 PM

BigBooper: In Wisconsin we had an obligation to retreat before using force to defend ourselves, and could only use force if all avenues of retreat were exhausted. This included while in our homes. Then the legislature passed to "Castle doctrine" which pretty much removes the need to retreat, and at the same time states that any home invader is automatically considered an imminent threat. So of course not long after the law was changed a kid who broke into a back porch to hide from the cops who were raiding a house party was shot and killed by the home owner. Of course no charges were filed.

Jeesus Christ. Can't we have a middle ground? If someone is in my house attacking me or my family, I should not have to prove that I had no where to run before I defended my family or myself. On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission. I have two daughters, and as much as I hate the thought, they may have boys sneaking around at some point. Or as in the story above, a homeowner may have a drunk or stoned kid that's just trying to hide from the cops so he doesn't get a stupid ticket. Even people that break into a house to rob it. If they retreat when confronted, why should I have the right to use deadly force? Under current law I do, as long as that person is in my house, I have the right to not only shoot first and ask questions latter, but I have the right to shoot a fleeing invader in the back. That makes no sense to me.


The law says that you may assume that a person forceably entering your house intends to do you bodily harm and you are justified in, and may not be sued, for using deadly force to protect yourself. It doesn't say you are not allowed to use your own eyes and brain or that you are required to shoot anybody. If you don't know the difference between threatening and non-threatening behavior you need to unload the gun and lock it away while you turn off the TV and take a look at the real world.
 
2012-04-12 12:08:06 PM

Giltric: Bloombergs security detail is allowed to shoot people who have the intention of doing Bloomberg harm.......thats not self defense. Bloomberg could shoot his attacker, but I didn;t think you could shoot someone who had the intention of killing someone else.

In many/most states, the right of self defense extends to defending another person in your presence from deadly force or grievous bodily harm.

It's referred to as "self defense", because "defense of self or others" is longer and takes longer to type and speak.
 
2012-04-12 12:09:47 PM

Spade: BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.


There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.


And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader. The ability to use lethal force is an awesome responsibility. Me, I chose to figure out what the fark is going on before I blast at a shadow that moves in the dark. And if some idiot is in my house, but is running for an exit? I feel no need or reason to execute someone for breaking into my house. Because if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, that's exactly what your doing.
 
2012-04-12 12:12:00 PM

kendelrio: So, how old are these "daughters"?


One is almost three years old, and one is four months.

No go take a seat over there you sick Fark.
 
2012-04-12 12:14:27 PM

Danger Mouse: SoCalSurfer: Oooo let's see what kinds of fun I should expect next time I visit new York:

1) lots of traffic and people in my way
2) 15 dollar beers
3) shiatty weather
4) if I defend myself while getting
Mugged I may end up in jail
5) no smoking ever
6) hipsters with an ego larger than the hole in the ground where wtc was


I'll pass

A fun read:

Link (new window)8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live

FTA:

"....Other incidents that prompted citizens to pick up and leave included the sight of garbage bags stacked 5 feet high on the sidewalk; the realization that being alone among millions of anonymous people is actually quite horrifying; a blaring siren that droned on and farking on; muddy, refuse-filled puddles that have inexplicably not dried in three years; the thought of growing into a person whose meanness and cynicism is cloaked in a kind of holier-than-thou brand of sarcasm that the rest of the world finds nauseating; and all the goddamn people.

In addition, 3 million New Yorkers reportedly left the city because they realized the phrase "Only in New York" is actually just a defense mechanism used to convince themselves that seeing a naked man take a shiat on a park bench is somehow endearing, or part of some shared cultural experience."


Heh, that was a good read
 
2012-04-12 12:17:42 PM

jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?


Blatant hypocrisy is Mike Bloomberg's stock and trade. And he tries to affect policy and force his will on other places, just ask Muslim college students that were spied on by the NYPD in New Jersey and Connecticut.

To get a better idea on the type of person Bloomberg is, he actually banned food donations to city homeless shelters because his health department would not be able to inspect the food for fat and salt content. And he gladly accepted an award from the government of Singapore.

Bloomberg is a paternalistic douchebag with control issues. If he truly cared about the safety of his citizens, he'd tell the NYPD to stop fudging statistics and investigate the crimes they refused to investigate to make the numbers look good. Bloomberg doesn't care about crime, he's worried about the peasants getting guns.
 
2012-04-12 12:19:43 PM

BigBooper: Spade: BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.


There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.

And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader. The ability to use lethal force is an awesome responsibility. Me, I chose to figure out what the fark is going on before I blast at a shadow that moves in the dark. And if some idiot is in my house, but is running for an exit? I feel no need or reason to execute someone for breaking into my house. Because if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, that's exactly what your doing.


It's an awesome responsibility that should still be left in the hands of the people. Just because a few people will be idiots is no reason to tie everybody elses' hands behind their backs. Anti-gunners are just too damn eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
2012-04-12 12:20:30 PM

cybernia: Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).

Legal or not, what seems to get lost in criticism of those stings is that they were able to make illegal purchases. Why don't we hear an uproar about that?


you don't hear anything about it because the result would be bloomberg and his cronies going to jail, since they were the ones breaking FEDERAL law.
 
2012-04-12 12:20:41 PM

Spade: cybernia: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

Because the policies of those other states directly affect NYC.

Hey, you know what we call issues from states that effect other states?

FEDERAL.

In other words, crap that a local mayor gets to piss in the wind about because he's two levels below the people that get to make such decisions.

Bloomberg only gets noticed because, well, he's farking rich. Which is funny considering he belongs to a party that pisses and moans all the time about money in politics and the influence of the "1%". By which they mean "money in politics that isn't ours".


Yes. federal, but the feds weren't doing anything despite pleas from NYC, so Bloomberg, as much as I hate him, acted unilaterally. He's been howling about it for years.

You have the Tihart Amendment which blocks the ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft and prevents the feds from sharing trace data with local municipalities so they can investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.

AND, background check records are destroyed within 24 hours which makes it hard to catch dealers who falsify their records, and to identify and straw purchasers.

In a city like NYC where approximately 90% of all guns used crimes are from other states, we should have all the tools to stop illegal gun traffic. The Feds don't seem to be doing it.
 
2012-04-12 12:23:23 PM

cybernia: Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).

Legal or not, what seems to get lost in criticism of those stings is that they were able to make illegal purchases. Why don't we hear an uproar about that?


Probably because the fact those illegal sales were being made wasn't a huge surprise. There are a lot of guns in the US, a lot of weapons that aren't well documented, and it is pretty easy to get your hands on one. That isn't going to change, especially in light of recent SCOTUS decisions expanding 2nd Amendment protections.

The really unexpected part of that story was that a local mayor sent local police to an out-of-state jurisdiction to commit crimes. Did Bloomberg really expect the country to just not care that the NYPD was going to other states, undercover, to commit crimes? Did he think that the rest of the country would accept him telling his police officers to go around America and find crimes to report, even if you have to commit them themselves?

Reverse that. If the mayor of Jackson, MI sent a few Jackson PD officers to NYC, undercover and without telling the NYPD, and they bought some drugs undercover, then afterwards they came back and used this as proof about how NYC is a haven for drug dealers and drugs being imported in through New York are affecting small towns nationwide, do you think Bloomberg would be touched by that and want to crack down on drugs for the good of small-town America, or would he furious about somebody stepping on his toes?
 
2012-04-12 12:25:00 PM

BigBooper: kendelrio: So, how old are these "daughters"?

One is almost three years old, and one is four months.

No go take a seat over there you sick Fark.


Window or aisle?

/I have a 10 year old daughter and will GLADLY serve the time for defending her.
 
2012-04-12 12:26:53 PM

cybernia: You have the Tihart Amendment which blocks the ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft and prevents the feds from sharing trace data with local municipalities so they can investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.


The Tiahrt Amendment explicitly allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share firearm trace data with law enforcement agencies as a means of facilitating criminal investigations. Opposition to the amendment is typically motivated by a desire to use the data for "fishing expeditions" as a preliminary stage in filing frivolous lawsuits intended to bankrupt legitimate firearm sellers and manufacturers.
 
2012-04-12 12:27:57 PM

The_Sponge: With his views on gun control and tobacco, it always seems like Bloomberg is constantly running for the "Biggest Buzzkill and Douche Bag of the Year" award.


He's already won those. He was really proud of an award he got from the government of Singapore (a shining beacon of freedom I know) for "sustainability."
 
2012-04-12 12:28:20 PM
Soon to be known as the "You Better Run Biatch!" Doctrine.
 
2012-04-12 12:29:40 PM

cybernia: Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).

Legal or not, what seems to get lost in criticism of those stings is that they were able to make illegal purchases. Why don't we hear an uproar about that?


No actually they weren't, there doesn't have to be a law that says you can eat dinner for it to be legal, there has to be a law aginst it for it to be ILLEGAL.. Editited tapes to make legal sales look bad in efforts to push a gun ban agenda. What else would you expect from an ass like Bloomberg?
 
2012-04-12 12:30:44 PM
In before "flyover country."
 
2012-04-12 12:31:09 PM

BigBooper: On Zimmerman: my theory is that the ballistics do not support Zimmerman's story about his shooting Martin at close range. If Martin did attack Zimmerman, but when Zimmerman went for his gun, if Martin got up and started to back off, then I could see a second degree murder charge. The prosecution would argue that self defense was no longer necessary as Martin was retreating. Of course this is just speculation on my part. Remember, we don't have all the witness statements, nor any ballistics or autopsy reports that the prosecution has. I can't believe that the prosecutor would go with a 2nd degree murder charge just to placate the public.


Unless Martin was shot in the back while running away, that's going to be a very hard thing for the prosecution to prove.

Like I said, I think this was a punt. They'd have to have some pretty ironclad evidence to prove Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense, and the prosecutor undoubtedly knows that they have to prove he committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that all Zimmerman has to do is show by a preponderance of evidence (a much easier legal standard) that he acted in self-defense to a judge before the trial to get the charges dismissed.

Later on, if the charges are dismissed or Zimmerman is acquitted, the prosecution can say "Hey, we tried", even though they might have suspected that it was a loser. Politically, it's a no-brainer: Don't forget that Angela Corey is an elected official. She isn't likely to lose too many votes by charging Zimmerman, and she would lose a large chunk of the African-American vote if she didn't charge him. She's up for reelection next year, so this would still be relatively fresh in the minds of voters, and it would be a wedge issue that a Democrat opponent could really exploit.

This way, she can point to her work on this and perhaps actually gain votes in the African-American community, even if she loses the case. She can blame the jury, or the judge, or the law itself, and the stink of it won't rub off on her politically.
 
2012-04-12 12:32:23 PM

umad: BigBooper: Spade: BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.


There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.

And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader. The ability to use lethal force is an awesome responsibility. Me, I chose to figure out what the fark is going on before I blast at a shadow that moves in the dark. And if some idiot is in my house, but is running for an exit? I feel no need or reason to execute someone for breaking into my house. Because if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, that's exactly what your doing.

It's an awesome responsibility that should still be left in the hands of the people. Just because a few people will be idiots is no reason to tie everybody elses' hands behind their backs. Anti-gunners are just too damn eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Having laws that are to vague, and make a homeowner nearly unprosecutable when that home owner does something obviously negligent only strengthens the anti gun position. I'm in favor of self defense, I realize that the police do not protect people, they arrest people for committing crimes. However, we can go from an "obligation to retreat" to a form of the castle doctrine that simply goes too far. Our enemies will seize on every incident to not only repeal self defense laws, but to also attack gun ownership itself. You and I both know that the media will sensationalize every single accidental shooting. We have to leave law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to go after those who cross the line. If we don't we will be in worse shape than when we started.
 
2012-04-12 12:35:54 PM
Mayor Mike is the Huffington Post of the real world.
 
2012-04-12 12:39:02 PM
Yeah, we know all the black gang member running around with guns are all licensed to carry. So more laws will keep everyone safe.


/Dumb Jew . If he's not preventing food going to the homeless, he's sticking his honker in other states problems
 
2012-04-12 12:41:19 PM
I'm pretty much only for "reasonable" gun control - that is to say taking positive steps to prevent violent and potentially violent persons from possessing a firearm. The rest of us should be free to do as we please.

That being said - why is it that NYC has such low crime rates in comparison to Washington, DC or Chicago when they have the same types of anti-gun laws?

In fact, Chicago's and Washington DC's violent crime rate appears to be equal to Philadelphia's where my state's liberal (classic sense) firearms laws apply.
 
2012-04-12 12:41:26 PM
www.lifelibertyetc.com
 
2012-04-12 12:41:35 PM
As retarded as some of the stand your ground laws are, I with the hell Bloomberg would shut the hell up
 
2012-04-12 12:46:23 PM

BigBooper: In Wisconsin we had an obligation to retreat before using force to defend ourselves, and could only use force if all avenues of retreat were exhausted. This included while in our homes. Then the legislature passed to "Castle doctrine" which pretty much removes the need to retreat, and at the same time states that any home invader is automatically considered an imminent threat. So of course not long after the law was changed a kid who broke into a back porch to hide from the cops who were raiding a house party was shot and killed by the home owner. Of course no charges were filed.

Jeesus Christ. Can't we have a middle ground? If someone is in my house attacking me or my family, I should not have to prove that I had no where to run before I defended my family or myself. On the other hand, I shouldn't have the right to gun down someone for the sole reason that they are in my house without permission. I have two daughters, and as much as I hate the thought, they may have boys sneaking around at some point. Or as in the story above, a homeowner may have a drunk or stoned kid that's just trying to hide from the cops so he doesn't get a stupid ticket. Even people that break into a house to rob it. If they retreat when confronted, why should I have the right to use deadly force? Under current law I do, as long as that person is in my house, I have the right to not only shoot first and ask questions latter, but I have the right to shoot a fleeing invader in the back. That makes no sense to me.


You are missing some facts.

That "kid" broke in the house of the guy he knew called in a noise compliant several hours earlier. He wasn't hiding, he was after revenge of some type. The homeowner knew this, and THAT is why he shot him. Not because he was there.
 
2012-04-12 12:46:39 PM
Siding with Assailants doctrine.
 
2012-04-12 12:46:55 PM
Uh Mister Mayor? Without our guns, how will we greet the alien mother ship?

ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2012-04-12 12:47:20 PM

BigBooper: umad: BigBooper: Spade: BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.


There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.

And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader. The ability to use lethal force is an awesome responsibility. Me, I chose to figure out what the fark is going on before I blast at a shadow that moves in the dark. And if some idiot is in my house, but is running for an exit? I feel no need or reason to execute someone for breaking into my house. Because if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, that's exactly what your doing.

It's an awesome responsibility that should still be left in the hands of the people. Just because a few people will be idiots is no reason to tie everybody elses' hands behind their backs. Anti-gunners are just too damn eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Having laws that are to vague, and make a homeowner nearly unprosecutable when that home owner does something obviously negligent only strengthens the anti gun position. I'm in favor of self defense, I realize that the police do not protect people, they arrest people for committing crimes. However, we can go from an "obligation to retreat" to a form of the castle doctrine that simply goes too far. Our enemies will seize on every incident to not only repeal self defense laws, but to also attack gun ownership itself. You and I both know that the media will sensationalize every single accidental shooting. We have to leave law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to go after those who cross the line. If we don't we will be in worse shape than when we started.


So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.
 
2012-04-12 12:48:09 PM

kendelrio: /I have a 10 year old daughter and will GLADLY serve the time for defending her.


I may be old fashioned, but I think as a father and husband, one of my duties is risk my well being to protect my family if I have too.

You better believe I would risk my life and my freedom for my family. Without question, and without pause.

Sometimes that means avoiding situations and confrontations. In other words being the opposite of a bad ass. If I'm with my family and was faced with the situation of having to hand over my wallet to a mugger If I believed that would end the confrontation, I would. I live in the real world, I'm not a ninja, or have any advanced hand to hand training. Sometimes protecting your family means being forced to sacrifice your dignity.
 
2012-04-12 12:51:06 PM

cybernia: Spade: cybernia: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

Because the policies of those other states directly affect NYC.

Hey, you know what we call issues from states that effect other states?

FEDERAL.

In other words, crap that a local mayor gets to piss in the wind about because he's two levels below the people that get to make such decisions.

Bloomberg only gets noticed because, well, he's farking rich. Which is funny considering he belongs to a party that pisses and moans all the time about money in politics and the influence of the "1%". By which they mean "money in politics that isn't ours".

Yes. federal, but the feds weren't doing anything despite pleas from NYC, so Bloomberg, as much as I hate him, acted unilaterally. He's been howling about it for years.

You have the Tihart Amendment which blocks the ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft and prevents the feds from sharing trace data with local municipalities so they can investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.

AND, background check records are destroyed within 24 hours which makes it hard to catch dealers who falsify their records, and to identify and straw purchasers.

In a city like NYC where approximately 90% of all guns used crimes are from other states, we should have all the tools to stop illegal gun traffic. The Feds don't seem to be doing it.


Dude, you really ought to read the Tihart Amendment that you seem to blame so much on. It restricts BATFE gun traces to legimitate law enforcement investigations and prevents BS studies from using twisted numbers to push for gun bans and bogus law suites.
The BATFE can walk into any gun dealer's place of business and do an audit whenever they want. Any businessman who doesn't do inventory control on an ongoing basis is not in business for long.
Background check information is deleted (supposedly) after 24 hours because it is useless for any legimitate law enforcement purpose and the "Brady" law was passed with that restriction.
I would bet that 90% of all knives involved in fatal stabbings in New York were manufactured somewhere else. When you create the largest black market for illegal guns in the country do you not expect that someone will be willing to fill the demand?
 
2012-04-12 12:54:53 PM

jafiwam: You are missing some facts.

That "kid" broke in the house of the guy he knew called in a noise compliant several hours earlier. He wasn't hiding, he was after revenge of some type. The homeowner knew this, and THAT is why he shot him. Not because he was there.


Yes, I didn't go into all the details. It was more of an example. However, speculation in every article I read was that the kid was simply hiding from the cops, who were breaking up the party. Nothing about the kids history, nor his actions indicate that he was anything other that drunk, stoned, and very stupid. The idiot probably didn't even know who had called the cops, or that someone did.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report