Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, nyc mayor, state legislators, gun laws, rocket launch, Mich  
•       •       •

3748 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2012 at 10:57 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-04-12 10:59:19 AM  
5 votes:

Djkb: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bloomberg is FOR gun control. That is to say, he is AGAINST GUNS. Subby please read articles before composing headlines.


You are mistaken. Mr. Bloomberg does not oppose firearms possessed by bodyguards, corrupt police officers and wealthy celebrities who donate in support of the appropriate political ambitions.
Biv
2012-04-12 11:15:41 AM  
3 votes:

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


I guessing he's glad he's not beat to a bloody pulp or dead.

Yes, NY needs more guns. More LEGAL guns. There is no reason a citizen shouldn't be allowed to carry.
2012-04-12 03:22:00 PM  
2 votes:

cybernia: jeepman258: cybernia: ex-nuke:

If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?


if local law enforcement knows what dealers sold the guns, then they've already received the trace information that you claim they can't get. What exactly do you think they should be going after the dealers for? All gun purchases through dealers must have a form 4473 filled out and a NICS check performed by the FBI (or state police if in NJ), with the dealer receiving an OK from the FBI to transfer the gun to the buyer before the transaction can occur. So are you saying that there are gun dealers breaking federal law and selling to prohibited persons and not being prosecuted for it? If so, it's a federal issue to be dealt with by BATFE, not local law enforcement. Either way, your argument is invalid.

NYC knows where the guns are coming from after they've been used in a crime. What they can't get it is who they're coming from. That's the data the ATF withholds.

They have been bugging the feds to take action for years, yet these dealers continue to in business with no hassles from the Feds. Bloomberg's stupid stings were done to publicize the problem. Yet, instead of demanding the feds crack down, people scream at Bloomberg.

NICS records are destroyed 24 hours after the check is approved which hurts law enforcement from tracking and identifying strawmen buyers.

You and others keep saying that it is for the feds to purse, not local enforcement. Well, that is what Bloomberg and other mayors and police departments have been yelling about for all these years. The feds are not doing it. So, local mayors, and P.D.s have said, if you aren't going to do it, then give us the tools to do it.


are you looking to arrest straw purchasers or shut down dealers for selling to people who later on break the law? everything you just said contradicts itself. ATF does not withhold any trace data from law enforcement if they are actually investigating a crime, and that trace data will show every legal transfer of a firearm through dealers, including the dealer of the initial sale.

Bloomberg isn't trying to catch and arrest the people who are buying and reselling the guns illegally. What he wants is to bring civil suits against gun dealers for selling guns legally to people who passed a NICS check. This is exactly the type of unjustified and frivolous garbage that the Tiahrt amendment is there to prevent. What the mayors want to do is immoral and illegal, and does nothing to stop the actual problem. The feds aren't pursuing what Bloomy and his cronies want because it isn't illegal for gun dealers to sell guns to people who pass a NICS check.

you, sir, are either grossly misinformed or a liar.
2012-04-12 02:43:44 PM  
2 votes:

jafiwam: which has had CCW for five months if you got it in the first week


I applied on the first possible day. Got it a little over a month latter.
And you have no idea what my back ground and training with firearms is. I've been around guns and the gun culture all my life, I've shot competitively, and have held a federal firearms license. I've been a volunteer and member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and of the Gun Show protection union. I can walk into any national gun show anywhere in this country, and know at least a dozen people who know my name on sight. I've shot more guns in more calibers than you probably realize exist. I've handled guns that are worth more than my house (they didn't let me shoot that one). Whats more, I've been around some of the greatest heroes of world war two, as well as some of the most despicable neonazis in America. I shook the hand of Paul Tibbets, and watched with pride as a crowd of sixty thousand largely ignored Randy Weaver as he tried to hock his book.

So no, I don't think you know anything about what I know about guns and gun laws.
Biv
2012-04-12 11:35:56 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:32:18 AM  
2 votes:
"New York Penal Law section 35.15 effectively ordains that: "A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense."

Thanks Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
2012-04-12 11:02:42 AM  
2 votes:
Uh, no. He wants to repeal stand your ground laws so that people will be legally obligated to run away from a threat and hope they don't get killed trying.
2012-04-12 03:09:22 PM  
1 vote:

jafiwam: BigBooper: Kit Fister: 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.

In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.

[CITATION NEEDED]


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[CITATION GRANTED]
2012-04-12 02:20:38 PM  
1 vote:

cybernia: ex-nuke:

If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?


if local law enforcement knows what dealers sold the guns, then they've already received the trace information that you claim they can't get. What exactly do you think they should be going after the dealers for? All gun purchases through dealers must have a form 4473 filled out and a NICS check performed by the FBI (or state police if in NJ), with the dealer receiving an OK from the FBI to transfer the gun to the buyer before the transaction can occur. So are you saying that there are gun dealers breaking federal law and selling to prohibited persons and not being prosecuted for it? If so, it's a federal issue to be dealt with by BATFE, not local law enforcement. Either way, your argument is invalid.
2012-04-12 02:16:26 PM  
1 vote:

Biv: towatchoverme: Here's a thought:

Scrap your constitution and start over. Despite your slavish invocation of it at every opportunity, it's clearly not working for y'all.

Still better than what anyone else has.


Well, it would be if we still paid any attention to its provisions.

But nooooooooooooooooooooooo....
2012-04-12 01:32:06 PM  
1 vote:

BigBooper: 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.


There's a Surefire flashlight on my home defense guns. Just because you're shooting at somebody in your house doesn't mean the Rules (Be aware of your target and what's behind it) went out the window.

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.
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.


As was already stated, twice, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
2012-04-12 01:14:28 PM  
1 vote:
BigBooper

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.

How can you make such a stupid and unsubstantiated claim like that.

Don't believe everything you see on TV or project your ineptitdue with a gun on everyone else.
2012-04-12 12:51:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:26:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:23:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:56:29 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:49:34 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:48:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:39:30 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:30:29 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-04-12 11:23:50 AM  
1 vote:

towatchoverme: Here's a thought:

Scrap your constitution and start over. Despite your slavish invocation of it at every opportunity, it's clearly not working for y'all.


Perhaps, before "scrapping" the Constitution, convincing the government to actually honor and abide by it, rather than ignore it when convenient to do so, should be attempted. A new Constitution will be of no use if it is ignored as frequently as is the current one.
2012-04-12 11:15:03 AM  
1 vote:

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


yes, I'm sure he wishes he had let Trayvon beat him all the way to death instead.
2012-04-12 11:11:29 AM  
1 vote:
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.

poot_rootbeer:
A compelling rebuttal to an argument nobody has made.

...except for Bloomberg, who is against any sort of "stand your ground" law, and who is really into "duty to retreat."

"Duty to retreat," by the way, means you have a legal obligation to "turn your back and attempt to run" when confronted by a criminal.
2012-04-12 11:11:17 AM  
1 vote:

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.


FTFA The campaign aims to repeal or reform the laws that eliminated a person's duty to retreat when threatened with serious bodily harm or death.

Thank you for playing. Next time read the article before claiming it doesn't say exactly what it says.
2012-04-12 11:09:43 AM  
1 vote:
Yeah just ask Plaxico Burress
2012-04-12 11:09:38 AM  
1 vote:
Fark New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg !
I know, let him lead by example, take the guns away from the cops and see how that works for him. Or ask that his bodyguards hang up their guns. He's just playing to the current headlines, like any politician.
2012-04-12 11:08:24 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-04-12 11:07:26 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-04-12 11:06:47 AM  
1 vote:

paygun: Uh, no. He wants to repeal stand your ground laws so that people will be legally obligated to run away from a threat and hope they don't get killed trying.


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.
2012-04-12 11:05:42 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-04-12 11:02:54 AM  
1 vote:
Mayor Bloomingidiot is a tool. Regardless of so called "Stand your ground" laws, you still have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself or other against death or serious bodily injury.
2012-04-12 11:01:10 AM  
1 vote:
Fark him and the NAACP too
2012-04-12 11:00:13 AM  
1 vote:

Wendy's Chili: You know how I know you DRTFA?


I'm pretty sure it's a bait and switch.
2012-04-12 10:59:38 AM  
1 vote:
Not big on reading comprehension, eh subby?
2012-04-12 10:26:31 AM  
1 vote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bloomberg is FOR gun control. That is to say, he is AGAINST GUNS. Subby please read articles before composing headlines.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report