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  
•       •       •

1102 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 of 70 comments

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

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