Quantcast

Mike Bloomberg Calls Out Gun Extremists

ProudProgressive 2012/02/06 12:45:13
The battle to control the flood of unregistered and untraceable guns in this country goes on. While few Americans favor any sort of actual ban on handguns, most sensible Americans realize that gun violence in this country is out of control, and that some reasonable steps to do something about it is essential if we are to remain a civilized society. Over a year ago, Jared Loughner responded to the violent rhetoric of extremist Right Wingers like Sarah Palin and went on a shooting rampage, wounding Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others and killing six, including Federal Judge John Roll. Following that tragedy, many leaders in this nation including the President called for a civil dialogue and for common sense regulations that will save lives, like closing the "gun show loophole". Still the extremists in the NRA refused calls for even minor improvements in the nation's safety. A year later, the American public remains at as much risk of being shot to death as they were a year earlier. Mike Bloomberg, the last guy anyone would call a "liberal", has some straight and sound advice to the gun nuts.

Article excerpt follows:

Bloomberg: ‘You'd Think That If A Congresswoman Got Shot In The Head,' That Would Change Congress' Views On Guns
By Ian Millhiser
Feb 5, 2012

Appearing on Meet the Press this morning, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed bewilderment at the many lawmakers in Washington who continue sabotage existing gun laws:

BLOOMBERG: You'd think that if a congresswoman got shot in the head, that would have changed Congress' views. I can tell you how to change it, just get Congress to come with me to the hospital when I've got tell tell somebody that their son or daughter, their spouse, their parent is not going to come home again. This past, this week, even though the murder rate in New York is so much lower than almost every big city, we still had a cop shot last week with a gun that somebody had even though the federal laws prohibited that person from having a gun.

You know, the federal laws say you can't get a gun if you have a drug problem, psychiatric problems, criminal record or [if you are] a minor. And yet Congress doesn't give moneys to make sure we can have a background check. They have too many loopholes. The background databases aren't up to date. Private sector sales of guns are something like 40 percent and they don't do background checks, I don't know who has to get killed for people to start saying ‘wait a second, this is enough.'


If anything, the picture in Congress is even bleaker than Bloomberg suggests. In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to make the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) a Senate-confirmed position. Since then, the Senate has been unable to confirm anyone to serve as the chief enforcer of firearms laws due to the combination of gun lobbying and the nearly-unbreakable filibuster. President Obama's nominee was blocked because he opposes allowing civilians to purchase a weapon capable of punching a baseball-sized hole in 2.5 inches of bulletproof glass.

Not content simply to erect barriers to enforcing federal firearms laws, much of Congress also wants to strip states of their power to enforce reasonable gun regulations. The House recently passed the "National Right To Carry Reciprocity Act," which forces nearly every state to honor concealed carry licenses issued by the states with the laxest licensing rules. Half of North Carolina concealed carry permit holders with felony convictions have been allowed to keep their permits, and Florida issued 1,700 concealed carry permits to people with "criminal histories, arrest warrants, domestic violence injunctions and misdemeanor convictions for gun-related crimes." Under this NRA-sponsored bill, all of these permit holders who be allowed to carry concealed firearms in 49 of the 50 states.

Nor are federal lawmakers the only ones looking for new and more creative ways to arm the nation. Several states are pushing efforts to force colleges to allow concealed firearms on campus — because clearly what America needs are rooms full of fraternity members packing heat right after they each consumed a case of Milwaukee's Best. Not to be outdone, Colorado lawmakers are pushing a bill to allow firearms in elementary schools.

As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in D.C. v. Heller, respecting the Second Amendment does not mean filling every building with firearms, or eliminating concealed carry rules, or placing guns in the hands of convicted felons or the mentally ill. Sadly, far too many lawmakers have let the NRA convince them that the myth of the Second Amendment far exceeds the reality.

Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/05/419083...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • VoteOut 2012/02/06 13:07:33
    VoteOut
    +3
    maybe he should set an example and disarm his personal bodyguards. Or is hiring guns still ok in his book

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • seattleman 2012/02/06 23:34:12
    seattleman
    Man, this subject hits real close to the bone, for me. Someone very very close to me was shot and killed a few years back. The slimefu** that pulled the trigger had no business owning a gun. He was mentally ill, had a criminal record and was a chronic alcoholic. He was also a gun collector.

    The second amendment protects every Americans' right to own a gun. But what I always go back to when I say this is that a "gun" in the time of the writing of the second amendment is far different than what a 'gun' is in current day. "Gun" meant "musket" back then, right? It took like, five minutes to load up a bullet, and wasn't nearly as accurate as it needed to be...where today's sofisticated weapons have laser-sights and all the high-tech gadgetry ya need to be pinpoint accurate. Not to mention the automatic weapons that can fire off enough bullets to kill a baseball team in three seconds flat. So, I think we need to update our way of thinking about guns.

    To drive a car, one must first be liscenced to do so. In order to do this, a motorist must pass a written test. After passing this written test, you then must take a "driven" test - that is, you have to demonstrate your ability to safely operate a vehicle, and follow the rules of the road. All this is done in the name of ...
    Man, this subject hits real close to the bone, for me. Someone very very close to me was shot and killed a few years back. The slimefu** that pulled the trigger had no business owning a gun. He was mentally ill, had a criminal record and was a chronic alcoholic. He was also a gun collector.

    The second amendment protects every Americans' right to own a gun. But what I always go back to when I say this is that a "gun" in the time of the writing of the second amendment is far different than what a 'gun' is in current day. "Gun" meant "musket" back then, right? It took like, five minutes to load up a bullet, and wasn't nearly as accurate as it needed to be...where today's sofisticated weapons have laser-sights and all the high-tech gadgetry ya need to be pinpoint accurate. Not to mention the automatic weapons that can fire off enough bullets to kill a baseball team in three seconds flat. So, I think we need to update our way of thinking about guns.

    To drive a car, one must first be liscenced to do so. In order to do this, a motorist must pass a written test. After passing this written test, you then must take a "driven" test - that is, you have to demonstrate your ability to safely operate a vehicle, and follow the rules of the road. All this is done in the name of public safety. I mean, we don't want everybody driving around crazy, so we put in some common sense rules and regulations to make it both safe for the general public, and accessable to responsible drivers to be able to drive. Makes sense, right? I think so. I think gun ownership should be much the same. It is a right that must be earned, not given freely. At least, that's how it SHOULD be....
    (more)
  • Sgt Major B 2012/02/06 17:13:56
    Sgt Major B
    +1
    Time for Mayor Bloomberg to concern himself with enforcing current US Law such as Title 8, USC. The Second Amendment has been addressed time and again with SCOTUS and it still stands.

    The good Mayor is, however, in violation of Federal law for aiding and abetting illegal aliens and deserves to be prosecuted (Title 8, USC, § 1324).

    "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens."

    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 29

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US

    SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
  • say what? 2012/02/06 15:47:45
    say what?
    +1
    He should turn his concern to unregistered and untraceable illegal aliens.
  • elijahin24 say what? 2012/02/06 17:10:17
    elijahin24
    Strawman.
  • MichaelJ 2012/02/06 14:36:18 (edited)
    MichaelJ
    Have you ever seen someone stop on the interstate hiway, hopp out of their car and start beating some dead deer? That's what this is, beating a dead issue. These people will use a terrible crime like, Congresswoman Gifford's shooting and try to portray it as a true epeidemic in crime and a reason to restrict gun rights. One of the problems they have pushing this idea is that violent crime is not going up in the country but is and has been in a steady decline for many years.

    You don't try and strip people of their rights in a calm atmosphere. As our current president has shown us, the best way to influence people to agree to things they don't actually agree with is creating an atmoshere of panic and hopelessness.
  • elijahin24 MichaelJ 2012/02/06 17:13:47
    elijahin24
    +1
    Not just Giffords. Columbine, VaTech (twice), Dr. Tiller, 5 assassinated presidents, attempts on the lives of almost all of them, Dr. King, Malcolm X, several civil rights activists, and 85 gun-deaths every day. Sooner or later, if you have the least bit of intellectual integrity; you have to stop pretending that they're ALL isolated incidents.
  • MichaelJ elijahin24 2012/02/06 18:24:24
    MichaelJ
    +1
    elija, I'm not rtying to minimize those tragedys. What I am illustrating is fact that gun violence has been decreasing, not increasing, In any population of 325,000,000 million people, it is virtually impossible to NOT have all manner of bad things happening every day.
    Did you read the story bout the father that killed his two young children this morning?

    It may not support your cause but the facts are that in every area of the country that has passed concealed weapons permits, crime has gone down not up.
  • elijahin24 MichaelJ 2012/02/06 19:26:55
    elijahin24
    +1
    Yes I read the story. The problem is that we don't need individual states or cities to pass gun-laws. I could drive to Chicago right now, or Washington DC, with a gun, and the gun laws would not prevent me from doing that. They would punish me if I got caught with them, but they would not make it physically impossible to do it, because they don't have a wall around those cities to prevent them from getting in. We need national laws. State and municipal laws are relatively impotent, if there are no national laws. You really don't need to worry. Our country is so gun-crazed, that I don't think we'll ever pass significant gun-laws, and people will keep bringing guns to the areas in which they are illegal, and committing crimes, so that you can keep your statistic.
  • Bingo's Faddah 2012/02/06 14:02:25
    Bingo's Faddah
    +1
    The problem isn't guns but people. If someone wants a gun they'll get it, even if they have to wait a few days. Parents are the problem in most cases. You don't own your kids but you are responsible for teaching them to be good members of society. How about a waiting period before conception is permitted?
  • VoteOut 2012/02/06 13:07:33
    VoteOut
    +3
    maybe he should set an example and disarm his personal bodyguards. Or is hiring guns still ok in his book
  • elijahin24 VoteOut 2012/02/06 17:15:10
    elijahin24
    +2
    This is the idiotic argument that people like to make. When the gun fanatics, disarm, those pushing for the disarmament can too. Otherwise, we're begging you to kill us. And you will, because violence is currency.
  • VoteOut elijahin24 2012/02/06 21:04:21
    VoteOut
    so violence is the issue not guns?
  • elijahin24 VoteOut 2012/02/06 22:27:43
    elijahin24
    +2
    Both are issues. Without violence, why would we need guns?
  • VoteOut elijahin24 2012/02/06 22:33:23
    VoteOut
    Sport, Hunting, prevent repressive government to name few.
  • elijahin24 VoteOut 2012/02/07 00:07:10
    elijahin24
    +1
    Preventing repressive government by violent overthrow? Yeah, i'm convinced, that you need guns.
  • VoteOut elijahin24 2012/02/07 13:27:32 (edited)
    VoteOut
    no, did not say anything about 'violent' overthrow. But the right to bear arms is an obligation to protect yourself family and friends cummintiy and country, and has prevented government repression as well as invasions. (Why do you really think govenrment want ot take away gun rights)Look to Switzerland gun laws where it is require that citizens make up their militia and own guns. http://www.theblessingsoflibe... But they also have respect for guns and are educated and trianed with them at an early age. Something lacking in the US which is part of the gun problem here. They have one of the lowest crime rates and gun incidents

    I am not a big gun person and really have no fasination of them I think its old technology and somewhat neanderthal but i dont take the right from others to have.
  • elijahin24 VoteOut 2012/02/07 16:19:59
    elijahin24
    +1
    I don't own a gun. I have one assigned to me, through my unit, but I don't own a personal firearm. I will not be joining any militia. I think Americans like guns, because we are a violent culture. We are an entitled culture, and guns are a useful tool in taking by force, that to which we think we are entitled. It is a very clear symbol of the very worst in our culture.
  • VoteOut elijahin24 2012/02/08 14:02:30
    VoteOut
    I know many people with guns that are the kindess,most giving and least violent people I know. so I guess martial arts is out of the question?

    entitlement is the "clear symbol of the very worst in our culture" ?

    People mistake rights and entitlements as they are NOT they are obligations like your obligation to the pursuit of happiness that no man can/should impede. Happiness does not come to you it comes from you
  • elijahin24 VoteOut 2012/02/08 14:23:34

News & Politics

2013/05/23 07:46:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals