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.

(CBS New York)   Bloomberg: When I said the police should go on strike until the people give up their guns, that was not meant as quote to hammer me with. In other news, new "Quote-Walker" scandal emerges   (newyork.cbslocal.com) divider line 70
    More: Obvious, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, gun controls, hammers, Governor Christie, scandals, guns, assault weapons  
•       •       •

1097 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2012 at 10:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-26 10:53:01 AM
I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.
 
2012-07-26 10:53:07 AM
Not intended to be a factual statement, Bloomie?

Well, that was quick.

/Yes, that *is* what she said.
 
2012-07-26 10:53:15 AM
I support police strikes.
 
2012-07-26 10:53:57 AM

sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.


It's just crazy enough to work.
 
2012-07-26 10:54:08 AM
He said members of Congress are two-faced, voting for strict gun controls to protect themselves while they are in Washington, but refusing the same protection for people in their districts.

Huh. Interesting point. Of course, I think the DC laws are overboard, but it is still an interesting point.
 
2012-07-26 10:55:52 AM
"until people give up their guns"

Know how I know you're just not listening?
 
2012-07-26 10:57:21 AM
I don't see a particular problem with banning things like armor piercing rounds, there really isn't any other use for those than piercing through armor. Same with clips above x size. I have no idea how big they should be, but 32 seems a bit excessive, unless you're fighting ali baba and the 40 thieves in a staged gun battle, in your back yard.

Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.
 
2012-07-26 10:59:29 AM

RowdyRough: Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.


Correct. The Second Amendment was written to protect a hobby.
 
2012-07-26 11:01:08 AM

HotWingConspiracy: RowdyRough: Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.

Correct. The Second Amendment was written to protect a hobby.


You're right. The Second Amendment was written to do something, what exactly was that?
 
2012-07-26 11:02:02 AM

sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.


If conservatives really wanted to stop attacks like columbine, aurora, etc. then they would support access to healthcare and services for mentally handicapped adults insead of doing the exact opposite.
 
2012-07-26 11:03:27 AM

Citrate1007: sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.

If conservatives really wanted to stop attacks like columbine, aurora, etc. then they would support access to healthcare and services for mentally handicapped adults insead of doing the exact opposite.


ok
 
2012-07-26 11:04:19 AM
Police aren't allowed to strike in much of the country. They still can in NYC?
 
2012-07-26 11:04:45 AM

sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.


It's amazing how the fear and the paranoia of the government doesn't reflect the bravery and the "nothing's going to ruin my movie night!" of their constituents.

Oh wait, no it's not.
 
2012-07-26 11:06:37 AM

Carth: Police aren't allowed to strike in much of the country. They still can in NYC?


Google "Blue Flu"
 
2012-07-26 11:07:17 AM

RowdyRough: HotWingConspiracy: RowdyRough: Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.

Correct. The Second Amendment was written to protect a hobby.

You're right. The Second Amendment was written to do something, what exactly was that?


Allow people to form regulated militias.
 
2012-07-26 11:09:15 AM

RowdyRough: I don't see a particular problem with banning things like armor piercing rounds


The problem is that all ammunition is armor piercing. It just depends upon the armor. And once you get above standard pistol cartridges virtually everything could be reasonably classified as armor piercing.
 
2012-07-26 11:09:35 AM

dervish16108: sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.

It's amazing how the fear and the paranoia of the government doesn't reflect the bravery and the "nothing's going to ruin my movie night!" of their constituents.

Oh wait, no it's not.


img560.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-26 11:10:06 AM
FTA: "After all, police officers want to go home to their families.."

So do Garbage men but I'm still throwing out my trash.

10 Most dangerous jobs
1)Fisherman
2)Logger
3)Airplane pilot
4)Farmer and rancher
5)Mining machine operator
6)Roofer
7)Sanitation worker
8)Truck driver and deliveryman
9)Industrial machine repairman
10Police officer
 
2012-07-26 11:10:19 AM
If you are going to make a bold statement like that... don't puss out later. If you didn't mean it, don't say it.
 
2012-07-26 11:11:23 AM

nyseattitude: FTA: "After all, police officers want to go home to their families.."

So do Garbage men but I'm still throwing out my trash.

10 Most dangerous jobs
1)Fisherman
2)Logger
3)Airplane pilot
4)Farmer and rancher
5)Mining machine operator
6)Roofer
7)Sanitation worker
8)Truck driver and deliveryman
9)Industrial machine repairman
10Police officer


That is a good point, all in all, police work isn't that dangerous. It just gets tons of exposure when something happens.
 
2012-07-26 11:11:54 AM

hiker9999: Carth: Police aren't allowed to strike in much of the country. They still can in NYC?

Google "Blue Flu"


I hadn't heard of that before. Has it happened since the 90s? The most recent mass incident I found googling was 1994 when 250 of 450 police called in sick for about 3 days.
 
2012-07-26 11:11:59 AM

Citrate1007: sprawl15: I really hope NYC bans guns so shootings don't happen in Aurora anymore.

If conservatives really wanted to stop attacks like columbine, aurora, etc. then they would support access to healthcare and services for mentally handicapped adults insead of doing the exact opposite.


Define access....does access mean they check themselves in because they think they are crazy or does a 3rd party evaluate them and then check them into a facility for their own safety.

Much like drug and alchohol abusers do not believe they have a problem I'd wager that crazy people think they are totally sane.
 
2012-07-26 11:14:44 AM

Giltric: Define access....does access mean they check themselves in because they think they are crazy or does a 3rd party evaluate them and then check them into a facility for their own safety.


Both.

Giltric: Much like drug and alchohol abusers do not believe they have a problem I'd wager that crazy people think they are totally sane.


With the drug analogy, you only have to look at Portugal to see what happens when affordability and access to care go up.
 
2012-07-26 11:15:05 AM

HotWingConspiracy: RowdyRough: HotWingConspiracy: RowdyRough: Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.

Correct. The Second Amendment was written to protect a hobby.

You're right. The Second Amendment was written to do something, what exactly was that?

Allow people to form well-regulated militias.


Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.
 
2012-07-26 11:17:16 AM

Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.


When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?
 
2012-07-26 11:17:48 AM

sprawl15: Giltric: Define access....does access mean they check themselves in because they think they are crazy or does a 3rd party evaluate them and then check them into a facility for their own safety.

Both.


Well which person is crazy, the one who buys a gun after getting robbed or home invaded, or the peaceful guy who rolls into the fetal position thinking the assailants won;t hurt them as bad this time.
 
2012-07-26 11:19:21 AM

HotWingConspiracy: nyseattitude: FTA: "After all, police officers want to go home to their families.."

So do Garbage men but I'm still throwing out my trash.

10 Most dangerous jobs
1)Fisherman
2)Logger
3)Airplane pilot
4)Farmer and rancher
5)Mining machine operator
6)Roofer
7)Sanitation worker
8)Truck driver and deliveryman
9)Industrial machine repairman
10Police officer

That is a good point, all in all, police work isn't that dangerous. It just gets tons of exposure when something happens.


This danger of fishing is also well-documented.

willrabbe.com
 
2012-07-26 11:21:02 AM

sprawl15: Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.

When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?


Maybe, I don't know what sick shiat people are in to.

But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.
 
2012-07-26 11:23:21 AM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.

When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?

Maybe, I don't know what sick shiat people are in to.

But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.


missingthepoint.jpg
 
2012-07-26 11:23:41 AM
FTFA:

"I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're gonna go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,'" Bloomberg said.


Hey Mikey.....if the cops all over the country went on strike, would that decrease or increase firearm sales?

Also, go f*ck yourself.
 
2012-07-26 11:24:22 AM
He's a Republican. Of course he didn't mean what he said.
 
2012-07-26 11:30:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.

When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?

Maybe, I don't know what sick shiat people are in to.

But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.


According to the SCOTUS the regulation comes from the militia itself not Congress. It is "A well regulated militia" not "A Militia well regulated by the Congress".
 
2012-07-26 11:33:56 AM
I was living in New York City at the time of the 2005 transit strike, and I credit that transit strike for turning me into a dedicated cyclist. When I couldn't take the subway to work, I decided to take my bike, which turned out to be fun and easy, even in December. After the transit strike ended, I never went back to consistent subway use and kept the bike as my primary method of transportation; depending on myself and providing my own means of getting around the city proved more dependable and reliable, and saved me around a grand each year, vs. relying on the service provided by the city. Even now, living on the other side of the country, I put in about a hundred miles every week commuting to and from work on my bike, even through the winter.

What Bloomberg is suggesting here is that a law enforcement strike would compel people to impose stricter gun control on themselves, which is the same as saying that the transit strike should have made me want to give up my bike. Take away law enforcement, take away the provided service, and it's my responsibility to protect myself. And you know what I'm going to want to hang on to if I'm left with no option but to protect myself?

A gun.
 
2012-07-26 11:34:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.


There is no regulation of guns is in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment says why.
Regulation of the militia (Section 8, clause 16) is a power of congress, not a Mayor.
 
2012-07-26 11:34:44 AM

RowdyRough: I don't see a particular problem with banning things like armor piercing rounds, there really isn't any other use for those than piercing through armor. Same with clips above x size. I have no idea how big they should be, but 32 seems a bit excessive, unless you're fighting ali baba and the 40 thieves in a staged gun battle, in your back yard.

Of course, guns are fun as hell, so, we shouldn't restrict them at all, because shooting ranges.


But how will I fight the army when the come to take away my freedums? I need those armor piercing rounds to destroy their helicopters and tanks.
 
2012-07-26 11:37:53 AM

lilbjorn: He's a Republican. Of course he didn't mean what he said.


He's not registered as an R anymore

Democratic Party (until 2001)
Republican Party (2001-2007)
Independent (2007-present)
 
2012-07-26 11:50:10 AM

nyseattitude: lilbjorn: He's a Republican. Of course he didn't mean what he said.

He's not registered as an R anymore

Democratic Party (until 2001)
Republican Party (2001-2007)
Independent (2007-present)


So he's a Fark Independent.
 
2012-07-26 11:52:46 AM
First big gulps, now guns. What will Bloomberg want to ban next?

If we're doing a pool, I'll take children's unlicensed lemonade stands.
 
2012-07-26 11:54:54 AM

The_Sponge: Hey Mikey.....if the cops all over the country went on strike, would that decrease or increase firearm sales?


It depends, how many guns in total do police departments buy per year, compared to the rest of the population? It could very well decrease it while more civilians bought guns.
 
2012-07-26 12:05:35 PM

PonceAlyosha: The_Sponge: Hey Mikey.....if the cops all over the country went on strike, would that decrease or increase firearm sales?

It depends, how many guns in total do police departments buy per year, compared to the rest of the population? It could very well decrease it while more civilians bought guns.


How many of those striking officers would buy one or two more guns for their homes once the country had no police force?
 
2012-07-26 12:06:43 PM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.

When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?

Maybe, I don't know what sick shiat people are in to.

But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.



Regulation of militias is in there. Regulation of arms is not. Prohibitions on the infringement of the right to bear arms is in there.
 
2012-07-26 12:07:46 PM

Carth: According to the SCOTUS the regulation comes from the militia itself not Congress. It is "A well regulated militia" not "A Militia well regulated by the Congress".


Congress is given the power to regulate militias.
 
2012-07-26 12:16:44 PM
It's good to see that politicians and pundits aren't wasting any time using the pain and suffering of the victims of the Aurora shooting to further their own political agendas. Never let a good tragedy go to waste!
 
2012-07-26 12:16:57 PM

jigger: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Cletus C.: Ironically enough, considering the aneurysms every time regulating guns is discussed.

When someone says they hope to regulate their bowel movements, does that mean they want Congress to pass fecal handling directives?

Maybe, I don't know what sick shiat people are in to.

But thankfully that doesn't appear in our constitution. Regulating guns and militias does.


Regulation of militias is in there. Regulation of arms is not. Prohibitions on the infringement of the right to bear arms is in there.


"No limits on any guns" is an idiotic idea that is absolutely not implicit in the amendment.
 
2012-07-26 12:33:08 PM

Citrate1007: If conservatives really wanted to stop attacks like columbine, aurora, etc. then they would support access to healthcare and services for mentally handicapped adults insead of doing the exact opposite.


Bingo! While a solid public mental healthcare system wouldn't prevent ALL shootings (as the guy in Sweden proved), it would prevent most of them.
 
2012-07-26 12:36:00 PM

imontheinternet: First big gulps, now guns. What will Bloomberg want to ban next?

If we're doing a pool, I'll take children's unlicensed lemonade stands.


Would you want a child with hepatitis c serving your children? For that matter, would you want a homeless person with hepatitis c serving lemonade to your children? Would you want a Child who is sexually involved with a hepatitis c infected homeless person selling lemonade on your block?
 
2012-07-26 12:40:14 PM

RowdyRough: imontheinternet: First big gulps, now guns. What will Bloomberg want to ban next?

If we're doing a pool, I'll take children's unlicensed lemonade stands.

Would you want a child with hepatitis c serving your children? For that matter, would you want a homeless person with hepatitis c serving lemonade to your children? Would you want a Child who is sexually involved with a hepatitis c infected homeless person selling lemonade on your block?


Hepatitis C is a scourge, a blight on society. Therefore, we must ban lemonade, children, and homeless people!
 
2012-07-26 12:44:59 PM

imontheinternet: RowdyRough: imontheinternet: First big gulps, now guns. What will Bloomberg want to ban next?

If we're doing a pool, I'll take children's unlicensed lemonade stands.

Would you want a child with hepatitis c serving your children? For that matter, would you want a homeless person with hepatitis c serving lemonade to your children? Would you want a Child who is sexually involved with a hepatitis c infected homeless person selling lemonade on your block?

Hepatitis C is a scourge, a blight on society. Therefore, we must ban lemonade, children, and homeless people!


Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
2012-07-26 12:53:11 PM

LasersHurt: "No limits on any guns" is an idiotic idea that is absolutely not implicit in the amendment.


Then I don't know who's constitution you are reading.

The US constitution and bill of rights define the powers and limits of government. It spells out pretty clearly that, because the people are the source of their own security, blocking them from the arms trade is counter productive.
Congress has the power to decide how things should be organized in a militia (because the militia must be able to work within the chain of command), but they couldn't disarm the states.

Irregardless the government has taken it upon itself to write thousands of infringements which are enforced. These limits are altering the shape of the modern gun, its safety features, and its capabilities as well as the user base.
Since you are not pleased with the already limited and background checked access, I can only assume you want more of a restriction.

...Where does your train of thought stop?
When you are in total violation of the law?
 
2012-07-26 12:54:39 PM

way south: LasersHurt: "No limits on any guns" is an idiotic idea that is absolutely not implicit in the amendment.

Then I don't know who's constitution you are reading.

The US constitution and bill of rights define the powers and limits of government. It spells out pretty clearly that, because the people are the source of their own security, blocking them from the arms trade is counter productive.
Congress has the power to decide how things should be organized in a militia (because the militia must be able to work within the chain of command), but they couldn't disarm the states.

Irregardless the government has taken it upon itself to write thousands of infringements which are enforced. These limits are altering the shape of the modern gun, its safety features, and its capabilities as well as the user base.
Since you are not pleased with the already limited and background checked access, I can only assume you want more of a restriction.

...Where does your train of thought stop?
When you are in total violation of the law?


This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.
 
2012-07-26 12:58:15 PM

LasersHurt: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.


The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.
 
2012-07-26 01:00:34 PM

jigger: The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.


ORLY?
 
2012-07-26 01:01:42 PM

LasersHurt: way south: LasersHurt: "No limits on any guns" is an idiotic idea that is absolutely not implicit in the amendment.

Then I don't know who's constitution you are reading.

The US constitution and bill of rights define the powers and limits of government. It spells out pretty clearly that, because the people are the source of their own security, blocking them from the arms trade is counter productive.
Congress has the power to decide how things should be organized in a militia (because the militia must be able to work within the chain of command), but they couldn't disarm the states.

Irregardless the government has taken it upon itself to write thousands of infringements which are enforced. These limits are altering the shape of the modern gun, its safety features, and its capabilities as well as the user base.
Since you are not pleased with the already limited and background checked access, I can only assume you want more of a restriction.

...Where does your train of thought stop?
When you are in total violation of the law?

This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.


The constitution can still be amended at any time. No one has altered this part.
How are we supposed to assume the people have changed their mind when they keep the same laws?
 
2012-07-26 01:02:48 PM

LasersHurt: way south: LasersHurt: "No limits on any guns" is an idiotic idea that is absolutely not implicit in the amendment.

Then I don't know who's constitution you are reading.

The US constitution and bill of rights define the powers and limits of government. It spells out pretty clearly that, because the people are the source of their own security, blocking them from the arms trade is counter productive.
Congress has the power to decide how things should be organized in a militia (because the militia must be able to work within the chain of command), but they couldn't disarm the states.

Irregardless the government has taken it upon itself to write thousands of infringements which are enforced. These limits are altering the shape of the modern gun, its safety features, and its capabilities as well as the user base.
Since you are not pleased with the already limited and background checked access, I can only assume you want more of a restriction.

...Where does your train of thought stop?
When you are in total violation of the law?

This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.


I should be able to purchase a low orbit ion cannon for my personal defense needs. It's still an "arm". For that matter, so are explosives. I would like some C4 for the area under my mail slot in case someone tries to put their hand through there and unlock my front door when I'm not home, or the neighbor parks in front of my house without my permission.
 
2012-07-26 01:04:25 PM

sprawl15: jigger: The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.

ORLY?


That particular document came with day 1 patches, truly revolutionary.
 
2012-07-26 01:07:38 PM

jigger: LasersHurt: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.


way south: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The constitution can still be amended at any time. No one has altered this part.
How are we supposed to assume the people have changed their mind when they keep the same laws?


Maybe it's because every time we try to talk about it, some idiots flip their wigs about it and scream about the existing constitution?
 
2012-07-26 01:08:45 PM
"I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're going to go on strike -- oh, wait, that's right, they like being paid, and don't want to work in fast food restaurants."

/Afterwards, Bloomberg expressed surprise that soldiers didn't go on strike, what with all of the foreigners shooting at them and all.
 
2012-07-26 01:33:49 PM

LasersHurt: jigger: LasersHurt: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.

way south: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The constitution can still be amended at any time. No one has altered this part.
How are we supposed to assume the people have changed their mind when they keep the same laws?

Maybe it's because every time we try to talk about it, some idiots flip their wigs about it and scream about the existing constitution?


...and how exactly do you expect this to work?

You want change, I don't. We disagree.
You want a discussion and I see no problem with that. But you only think the discussion is valid of it ends in change?
How do you expect me to agree to that?
Doubly so if I've already conceeded on many points (background checks, caliber limits, carry limits, import limits, shipping regulations, black lists, etc, etc...) and you keep coming back for more.
Am I not allowed to say "no" when I've had enough?

If You want to lobby for an unpopular cause and then complain when you are blocked by a more popular lobby, maybe the system just doesn't work for you.

/Maybe you should fight a revolution and change it.
 
2012-07-26 01:49:11 PM
I am guessing this retard wants them to also go on strike against that pesky fourth amendment as well? I mean it does make their job more difficult and all that.

I can only hope that he gets primaried by either a fiscally conservative democrat or a socially liberal republican. I will move my residence of record to vote for either one over this nanny stating POS.

One can only hope that this entire unfortunate event has highly personal unintended consequences for Mr. Bloomberg.
 
2012-07-26 01:55:04 PM

Surool: PonceAlyosha: The_Sponge: Hey Mikey.....if the cops all over the country went on strike, would that decrease or increase firearm sales?

It depends, how many guns in total do police departments buy per year, compared to the rest of the population? It could very well decrease it while more civilians bought guns.

How many of those striking officers would buy one or two more guns for their homes once the country had no police force?


A strike like that, if it went to effect, wouldn't have to last more than a day or so. Chances are, the threat to strike itself would be enough.
 
2012-07-26 01:57:33 PM
If they go on strike, how would Bloomberg keep track of Muslims attending Rutgers and living in NJ?
 
2012-07-26 02:15:18 PM

way south: LasersHurt: jigger: LasersHurt: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The law of the land that has yet to be amended occurred 200 years ago.

way south: This is a ridiculous argument that presumes the pinnacle of human knowledge and culture occured 200 years ago.

The constitution can still be amended at any time. No one has altered this part.
How are we supposed to assume the people have changed their mind when they keep the same laws?

Maybe it's because every time we try to talk about it, some idiots flip their wigs about it and scream about the existing constitution?

...and how exactly do you expect this to work?

You want change, I don't. We disagree.
You want a discussion and I see no problem with that. But you only think the discussion is valid of it ends in change?
How do you expect me to agree to that?
Doubly so if I've already conceeded on many points (background checks, caliber limits, carry limits, import limits, shipping regulations, black lists, etc, etc...) and you keep coming back for more.
Am I not allowed to say "no" when I've had enough?

If You want to lobby for an unpopular cause and then complain when you are blocked by a more popular lobby, maybe the system just doesn't work for you.

/Maybe you should fight a revolution and change it.


You're not allowed to say "we can't try to reduce gun crime because I might be inconvenienced."

The issue is reducing gun crime - legal owners are not the targets here. By not allowing a discussion on ways that could help reduce gun crime, I feel like pro-gun groups are doing themselves a great disservice. The issue isn't about taking anyone's guns, its about reducing how much they hurt people. The NRA should help, not obstruct.
 
2012-07-26 02:58:21 PM

GameSprocket: He said members of Congress are two-faced, voting for strict gun controls to protect themselves while they are in Washington, but refusing the same protection for people in their districts.

Huh. Interesting point. Of course, I think the DC laws are overboard, but it is still an interesting point.


How's that working out for everyone else in DC? I hear it's almost as safe as Chicago.
 
2012-07-26 03:34:00 PM

LasersHurt: You're not allowed to say "we can't try to reduce gun crime because I might be inconvenienced."


Unless you decided that the first amendment changed yesterday, I certainly am allowed to say that.
I am also allowed to say that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think gun regulations are the way to prevent violence.

I don't think anyone is pro-anarchy here, But your method for dealing with it goes into dangerous territory that I can't accept. I value the convenience of our constitutional rights, our right to self defense, and my property. They shouldn't spontaneously disappear just because a recent tragedy makes it seem like a good idea to you. Especially if people are bringing up examples to show why it is not a good idea.

You are free to ask for a vote on the matter, but if the outcome isn't to your liking then you can't simply wave away the process as being some trifling inconvenience. You alone can't decide what the law should be just because the thought of a gun ban tickles your ears.

/We had a king that used to do that.
/The People didn't like it.
 
2012-07-26 03:54:53 PM

sprawl15: ORLY?


uh, ok

And which one of those changed anything about the second amendment?

LasersHurt: Maybe it's because every time we try to talk about it, some idiots flip their wigs about it and scream about the existing constitution?


So you don't think you have the votes?
 
2012-07-26 04:02:32 PM

jigger: sprawl15: ORLY?

uh, ok

And which one of those changed anything about the second amendment?

LasersHurt: Maybe it's because every time we try to talk about it, some idiots flip their wigs about it and scream about the existing constitution?

So you don't think you have the votes?


I think people should be allowed to talk about it, and not shouted down by false cries of infringing on peoples' rights.
 
2012-07-26 04:07:47 PM

way south: LasersHurt: You're not allowed to say "we can't try to reduce gun crime because I might be inconvenienced."

Unless you decided that the first amendment changed yesterday, I certainly am allowed to say that.
I am also allowed to say that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think gun regulations are the way to prevent violence.

I don't think anyone is pro-anarchy here, But your method for dealing with it goes into dangerous territory that I can't accept. I value the convenience of our constitutional rights, our right to self defense, and my property. They shouldn't spontaneously disappear just because a recent tragedy makes it seem like a good idea to you. Especially if people are bringing up examples to show why it is not a good idea.

You are free to ask for a vote on the matter, but if the outcome isn't to your liking then you can't simply wave away the process as being some trifling inconvenience. You alone can't decide what the law should be just because the thought of a gun ban tickles your ears.

/We had a king that used to do that.
/The People didn't like it.


Yes, I literally meant you weren't allowed to say the words. Putz. I am not advocating taking away anyone's rights, stop being such a paranoid reactionary.
 
2012-07-26 04:23:08 PM

LasersHurt: I think people should be allowed to talk about it, and not shouted down by false cries of infringing on peoples' rights.


Ok. Lemme see if I follow. Does it go something like this?

"Let's talk about censoring advocacy of communism on television. I think that there should be some reasonable restrictions."

"Wouldn't that be a violation of freedom of speech? What about the first amendment?"

"Hey, I just want to talk about it. I don't actually want to do it."

"Ok. I don't think there should be government censorship of television. It would violate the first amendment."

"Dammit. Every time I want to talk about it, I'm shouted down by false cries of infringing on peoples' rights."
 
2012-07-27 02:29:35 AM
I support gun rights, for the most part. I don't currently own a gun, though I've owned several in my lifetime. If the cops go on strike, I will immediately go purchase a new handgun and a new shotgun.

Bloomberg should really think before he speaks. Obviously, he doesn't actually want the cops to strike. Crime is bad enough in NYC when they are on the job; it would be a free-for-all without them. But spouting off at the mouth, regardless of how frustrated one is, is hardly the best way to get one's point across.
 
2012-07-28 08:24:00 PM
The shooting in the theater could not of happened, there were laws in place to prevent it, so it never happened...
Oh, ya, criminals, sane or otherwise don't care about laws.
So if we outlaw ALL guns, would that have prevented it?
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report