The Dickey Amendment & Gun Violence in America

A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.

Yes, all of us know that that is exactly what you are. It is unusual, of course, for you to be honest about it, but really, there's no need. We already know.

If you are calling me a liar, you better have evidence. Otherwise, you are just one more right wing hack who thrives on character assassinations, simply because they are too stupid to write a rebuttal.
 
[QUOTE="Wry Catcher, post: 22875099, member: 20297"

You can't know what the shooter thought, unless you think like these monsters (which may not be out of the question).

A gun in possession does impact how someone thinks, I know since I spent some time in IA and terminated probatonary officers whose behavior was reckless. And they had been trained in the Academy and on the range.[/QUOTE]

Your not-so-veiled insult of me aside, I do know what was in the perp's mind he went there to KILL UNARMED PEOPLE!!!! If you can't see that there is no hope of having any kind of discussion with you. Besides you are an insulting troll.
 
Nope, I am NOT willfully ignorant.

I KNOW what billionaire MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is all about.

Are YOU one of his minions too?

Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

What is Bloomberg all about?

Did you even read the link?

The whole issue is basically funded and pushed by him.

Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg,[9] who also founded the group.[10]
Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
OPINION: The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns

"Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”

<snip>

". . . .If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to over influence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.

What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”


"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-biggest army in the world."


Michael Bloomberg
Former mayor of New York City


Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.

Whose guns?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.. . . "

Stop being a servant for the master. This isn't about saving lives, it is about taking freedom away. The STATE will still unreasonably kill people, and it won't be held to account. . . even less so.

My take away, paranoid schizophrenia^^^ is afoot. Those who suffer from this mental illness are not all actors like the Unabomber or McVeigh, but they build there own reality, and find people and things to blame & punish them by word or deed.


I don't know if I would go so far as to call Michael Bloomberg a paranoid schizophrenic. I think he is just power hungry.

. . . but?

I am glad you are finally coming around. :113:


First we work on the over militarization of the police, and the lawmakers and bureaucracy making everything illegal and throwing the citizenry in jail for exercising their civil rights and liberties?

. . . and THEN, and only then, once our people are free once again, we'll see if there really is still a problem, eh? :71:




You've made a transition, from an insipid hack to a comedian. Your sarcasm is completely ridiculous and you know it. Mockery has it's place, but only when the rhetoric has a footing.

Your's does not. It seems you too lack the education and intelligence to write an expository post, making you one more of the hoi polloi attenders of trump's rally's, in person or not.


I posted an informed article, with statistics, telling you EXACTLY what is going on.

YOU returned with nothing but AD hom attacks.

You continue to do so.

What else is there to do when you admit defeat and have no other points to add to the discussion? You completely ignored what I posted.

BIG MONEY and elite politicians are trying to take away our civil rights and create a police state.

You respond with Ad Hom fallacies? :20:


The reason this debate and issue go no where is because it is funded by elites with a nefarious agenda and Americans, for the most part, want nothing to do with it.

So, if you have something other than insults, lets hear it. Otherwise? GET LOST.
 

Forum List

Back
Top