Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The concern, of course, is that he believes his life is worth more than any other and therefore will have no compunction against taking more radical action of banning second amendment rights. Like most on the left (and the right) what he says now is meaningless. What he has done in his past is the tell.dunno. if his position is nothing unusual for the left, why is it even an issue at all?So, why is he even talking about gun control if that is his position?and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
We already have laws against selling guns to the mentally ill, criminals and minors.
Agreedyes, i do agree. but it's nothing new from the dem platform is what i am saying. not out to debate good vs. evil on his policies, just see if they're in fact any worse than what we already have from the left.No buy back but banning certain ones is a problem.Where Michael Bloomberg Stands on the IssuesMikey wants to ban "assault weapons" and be able to sue gun manufacturers.
That isnt common sense. That is authoritarian.
seems he wants to ban "assault rifles" but doesn't support the notion to the degree the "social progressive" candidates do. he's spoken out against the buy backs as being stupid, unaffordable and politically counter productive.
Michael Bloomberg unveils sweeping gun control platform
According to his website, Bloomberg's plan consists of five pillars: strengthened background checks, the closing of loopholes such as the so-called boyfriend loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns if they aren't married to their victim, beefed-up regulations to keep guns away from children, increased funding for violence prevention programs and stronger regulation of the gun industry.
he does support the red flag laws and i've heard people on both sides speak out for this notion. it's *how* you do it that can be the issue. certainly if someone is in their front yard waving around AKs in their fruit of the looms and a 6 pack of schlitz under each armpit, it may apply. but i don't see much "radical" out of things i've read.
the counter is "these are merely steps to greater control" and maybe they are. maybe not. i do know people who say this tend to think that about *any* form of increasing regulation *at all* on guns. over protective or correct? who knows anymore.
i don't see a lot that hasn't been rehashed millions of times over already around this. typical old school thoughts and policies around them.
Red flag laws are a problem.
Any gun control measure is a problem. All you have to do is amend the constitution.
this isn't very new either. most people with guards likely feel this way. you can either understand and agree that their public eye makes addition protections necessary or you can disagree and say it's part of the territory they chose to reside in. i'm not making a case for either side as i do agree bloomberg doesn't give a shit about the common man. that is well known for awhile now. so i would agree he and others in his position likely feel their life *is* worth more. whether i agree or not doesn't matter.The concern, of course, is that the believes his life is worth more than any other and therefore will have no compunction against taking more radical action of banning second amendment rights. Like most on the left (and the right) what he says now is meaningless. What he has done in his past is the tell.dunno. if his position is nothing unusual for the left, why is it even an issue at all?So, why is he even talking about gun control if that is his position?and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
We already have laws against selling guns to the mentally ill, criminals and minors.
Your question is moot.my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
Not our job to educate you. If you can’t keep track of your Constitution hating Leftards latest antics.and that may well be. however, why are you opposed to my asking *what* his position really is? how hard is it to simply show what he has done in the past vs. having to lob out insults to others who are here to talk over issues?I'm saying his statement doesn't seem like a gun grabber. if he has past actions that make this statement a lie, just post em.Are you saying New York Gun laws don’t impact law abiding citizens?and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
Because. He. Is. Lying. You. Dense. Twit.
The most lethal guns and rifles used by the most powerful Army in the world, as well as the latest artillery.my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
The same weapons the military used at the timemy friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
nothing that i can tell. that's why i was asking. if his position is what he stated it's a pretty calm position that really doesn't go to either side or extreme.and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
What is wrong with that?
That isn't what he did as mayor of NY.
if he didn't change policies in NYC, did he try? how hard would it be to change policies? rest assured i think bloomberg is a dumbass for various reasons (size of cokes you can buy for example) but i'm not going to just lemming along in hate if i honestly have zero idea on his own position on guns.
as mayor he can only change so much around gun laws. but in my effort to understand this, you get people like martybegan that seem to take it as a personal affront to their own intelligence.
You know what the saying is?
Give a Serpent an Inch, and He will Bite Your Whole Ass Off!
All Gun Control Advocates are snakes. There are thousands of gun control laws on the books, and yet, The Left does not prosecute gun crimes, especially those committed by illegals.
Anyone looking at The Left's gun control madness logically could only conclude that they want to disarm the law abiding public, and arm the lawless scum of the Earth, against The Law Abiding Public.
The Democrat's stance on Law Enforcement and The Rule of Law, represents something like The Purge, where good people will be hunted down like dogs, and criminals will be treated like heroes.
sorry - but this is a forum where things can be discussed and reviewed. education can happen along the way unless you're a dick.Not our job to educate you. If you can’t keep track of your Constitution hating Leftards latest antics.and that may well be. however, why are you opposed to my asking *what* his position really is? how hard is it to simply show what he has done in the past vs. having to lob out insults to others who are here to talk over issues?I'm saying his statement doesn't seem like a gun grabber. if he has past actions that make this statement a lie, just post em.Are you saying New York Gun laws don’t impact law abiding citizens?and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
Because. He. Is. Lying. You. Dense. Twit.
I prefer Richard.sorry - but this is a forum where things can be discussed and reviewed. education can happen along the way unless you're a dick.Not our job to educate you. If you can’t keep track of your Constitution hating Leftards latest antics.and that may well be. however, why are you opposed to my asking *what* his position really is? how hard is it to simply show what he has done in the past vs. having to lob out insults to others who are here to talk over issues?I'm saying his statement doesn't seem like a gun grabber. if he has past actions that make this statement a lie, just post em.Are you saying New York Gun laws don’t impact law abiding citizens?
Because. He. Is. Lying. You. Dense. Twit.
and it looks like that's what you wish to be. so go be a dick.
doesn't matter one iota. otherwise, can i have cannons? they had cannons back then and i want to put cannons on my roof.my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
Standard now, because he is hedging toward being moderate in the contest. Even in a general contest against Trump, he'll stay with the standard dross of, no criminals, mentally ill, minors. How he governed in NYC (utterly opposed to private ownership of guns) is how he would govern as President. That would then force the country to rely upon a feckless Congress to stand between our rights and his presidency.this isn't very new either. most people with guards likely feel this way. you can either understand and agree that their public eye makes addition protections necessary or you can disagree and say it's part of the territory they chose to reside in. i'm not making a case for either side as i do agree bloomberg doesn't give a shit about the common man. that is well known for awhile now. so i would agree he and others in his position likely feel their life *is* worth more. whether i agree or not doesn't matter.The concern, of course, is that the believes his life is worth more than any other and therefore will have no compunction against taking more radical action of banning second amendment rights. Like most on the left (and the right) what he says now is meaningless. What he has done in his past is the tell.dunno. if his position is nothing unusual for the left, why is it even an issue at all?So, why is he even talking about gun control if that is his position?and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
We already have laws against selling guns to the mentally ill, criminals and minors.
now - onto his position on guns. it seems standard left bearing in nature and nothing new or earth shattering.
The most modern weapons known to man.my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
State of the art of the time.my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
i've struck a nerve, my friends!
Okay, so I'm going to say this. It's not so much of what he says, but his actions, or more specifically, his lack of action/s while he was mayor of nyc.and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
And this is all I was really after. more info as to why what he said was bullshit.Okay, so I'm going to say this. It's not so much of what he says, but his actions, or more specifically, his lack of action/s while he was mayor of nyc.and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
New York has some of the most restrictive gun laws. He did NOTHING to improve legal concealed carry and it took a lawsuit for both NY state and city to drop some of their laws that would have been deemed Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS had they not done so. I hope things like this never even come up where I am. The whole thing just reeks of hypocrisy, and his answer was textbook politispeak. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals, mentally impaired etc. We have those laws on the books already. Unfuck the mess created by double standards, unenforceable and pre prejudicial laws and fix the implementation of the NICS system that allows someone who should not be allowed to purchase legally to buy anyways and that would go along ways towards fixing things. Hold accountable those that messed up as an individual, and not a whole cross section of society and maybe, just maybe there would be no need for further restrictions placed on firearm ownership.
Bloomberg isn't the only one out there with what he is saying and doing. Biden has already tagged O'Rourk as his gun grabber should he be elected.
You want to get silly with this shit?my friends! what kind of guns were available when the constitution was written??!
*this* is what i was looking for. information about his actions that would make his words a lie. thank you. given i'm sick and tired of bloomberg ads as it is, i'm not about to go look up things about him to add to my own misery.Just don’t get caught with a 32oz soda with a plastic straw.and bloomberg used this opportunity to state his position on guns:
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.”
-----
what is so earth shattering about this? who exactly is he trying to take them away from; other than criminals, people with mental problems and minors?
What is troublesome about that?
He is too sane to be a democrat. Only socialists can win now... why have "less free shit", when you can have "ALL free shit"?
A Bloomberg presidency would be a dictatorship. That guy is a genuine asshole who preaches do as I say not as I do. He purchased millions in gun control ads in my state, all full of lies and distortions and conned the people of WA state into passing his gun control bill.
i take it the ads he bought were more restrictive than what he said in reply to the man asking the question? he seems to morph his message to his audience. this is how it's done, unfortunately. he's far from the only one there too.
