Bloomberg's gun violence group launch...

Bloomberg's gun violence group launches $12 million major ad buy

There are 86 comments on the KIDK CBS 3 story from Mar 23, 2013, titled Bloomberg's gun violence group launches $12 million major ad buy. In it, KIDK CBS 3 reports that:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun violence group will launch a $12 million ad buy next week, the group's largest buy yet in the effort to influence the debate over gun-control measures.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KIDK CBS 3.

shameless-li

United States

#57 Apr 15, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788.
time to join the 21th century...
nac

Piscataway, NJ

#59 Apr 15, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
years ago people rode horses and drove carriages and model t's...
today people drive monster trucks, suv's, hybrids, trains, buses, etc...
years ago people lived in wooden cabins and tents...
today people live in cement condo's and brick mcmansions....
years ago when people had guns, they were not as dangerous as they are today...todays weapons are much more powerful with killing in mind.
the right to bear arms is to protect one's self (and rightfully so), not to go out and committe mass murders...no need for anybody to have any kind of assault weapons unless you are in the military or police dept...
You are using your 1st Amendment right to attack the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. You have the right do so, obviously. But when the Constitution was written, there was no internet.

So that begs the question... if the 1st Amendment is allowed to evolve with the times for its intended purpose, why shouldn't the 2nd Amendment evolve with the times for its intended purpose?
Local

Nicholasville, KY

#60 Apr 15, 2013
Ronald wrote:
Bloomberg never goes anywhere unless he is surrounded by heavily armed gun toting cops. If he is really serious about disarming "the common folks", shouldn't he lead by example and first disarm the cops who are protecting him?
Ronald
I tried to tell the almighty mayor weeks ago that disarmament should start with his police department. Now one of his own has killed her son, her boyfriend and herself. See, Mr. Almighty Mayor, I was right. If you had disarmed her, three New Yorkers would still be alive.
shameless-li

Denver, CO

#65 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
"If the whole country be in arms, the prosecutor for the commonwealth can get a good jury, by challenging improper jurors. The right of challenging, also, is sufficient security for the person accused. I can see no instance where this can be abused. It will answer every purpose of the government, and individual security."
- Gov. Edmund Jennings Randolph, Saturday, June 21, 1788. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.[Elliot's Debates, Vol 3].(August 10, 1753 – September 12, 1813.Gov , Randolph was an American attorney, the seventh Governor of Virginia, 2nd Secretary of State, Delegate to the Virginia Convention, and the first United States Attorney General).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-donahue/the...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#67 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>My only problem with Mr. Paul. Is that he made a statement, if I remember correctly. To the effect that gun control laws should be rolled back to the 1968 gun control act.(Which is also unconstitutional). While in reality, they should be rolled back to 1791.
I would agree with that.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#68 Apr 16, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>years ago people rode horses and drove carriages and model t's...
today people drive monster trucks, suv's, hybrids, trains, buses, etc...
years ago people lived in wooden cabins and tents...
today people live in cement condo's and brick mcmansions....

years ago when people had guns, they were not as dangerous as they are today...todays weapons are much more powerful with killing in mind.

the right to bear arms is to protect one's self (and rightfully so), not to go out and committe mass murders...no need for anybody to have any kind of assault weapons unless you are in the military or police dept...
You drank the Cool-Aid didn't ya?
Does a gun being more powerful make a victim any more dead? Look at the list of criteria that qualifies a rifle as an "assault weapon". Right now, only two of the listed criteria are needed to qualify a rifle as an "assault weapon". Proposed legislation would reduce it to one. The list is basically cosmetic appearance. What is the difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger 10/22? One is considered an "assault weapon" the other, a squirrel rifle. They both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Actually, the right to keep and bear arms is to prevent tyranny by government. Do you propose we go up against that police or military you think should have the only "assault weapons" with single shots and revolvers? With the second amendment intact, The People will likely never have to fire a shot to thwart tyranny. Infringe it in direct defiance of the wording, and we can never get that protection back.
There are no Mulligans in dictatorships and tyranny.
shameless-li

Fairfield, CT

#70 Apr 16, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the right to keep and bear arms is to prevent tyranny by government.
correct....but the way most people here feel, they think it's their right to go shoot and kill anyone they chose by having the biggest weapon they can find.
they're not worried about tyranny from the gov't, they're worried about protecting themselves from other people.
a total misconception of what the second amendment is about...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#72 Apr 16, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>correct....but the way most people here feel, they think it's their right to go shoot and kill anyone they chose by having the biggest weapon they can find.
they're not worried about tyranny from the gov't, they're worried about protecting themselves from other people.
a total misconception of what the second amendment is about...
Lol, people thinking the biggest weapon wins or the most powerful gun makes someone more likely to kill, is part of the problem. People are well known for debating, and adding their 2 cents about subject matter they know little to nothing about. A poster last week wanted to limit gun chambers to less than 4 or 5 rounds. Funny, considering a gun chamber holds one round at a time.
Politicians are voting our rights away without being knowledgable about the subject they are voting on. I read a quote the other day from a congresswoman stating, "if high capacity magazines are banned, as people shoot them, they will become less available". She thought high capacity magazines come with ammo installed, and are tossed after shooting all the ammo out of them. That's who has a say in the future of our second amendment rights! It's ridiculous!
nac

Piscataway, NJ

#73 Apr 16, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
correct....but the way most people here feel, they think it's their right to go shoot and kill anyone they chose by having the biggest weapon they can find.
they're not worried about tyranny from the gov't, they're worried about protecting themselves from other people.
a total misconception of what the second amendment is about...
You're basing your opinion on emotion. Not rational thought, but seething emotion. No one thinks that they have the right to kill anyone. That is just absolute nonsense.

There is a law against MURDER already on the books. Do you honestly believe someone will think to them self, "I'm willing to break the law against murder... but I won't break the law against the gun?"

Since: Jan 13

Anderson, IN

#75 Apr 17, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
correct....but the way most people here feel, they think it's their right to go shoot and kill anyone they chose by having the biggest weapon they can find.
they're not worried about tyranny from the gov't, they're worried about protecting themselves from other people.
a total misconception of what the second amendment is about...
Could you please show posts made by "most people here" that shows they have a right to shoot and kill anyone they choose?

That may be a talking point from Bloomingnanny but nowhere near factual. Or as others had indicated you may be speaking from the emotional side rather that the logic side.
shameless-li

Fairfield, CT

#76 Apr 17, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you stopped to consider that perhaps that thought exists only in your own mind?
mine, and everyone else who is in support of some kind of gun control....you can try to defend your thought of what you think the second amendment is, and others have the right to disagree.

all your "quotes" from the 17th century might have served well back then, but they don't fly in todays world...just take a look around you.
do you really think someone today is safer than they were 400 years ago...i think not.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#79 Apr 17, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
time to join the 21th century...
Did you join the communist party, this century ?

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#80 Apr 17, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
mine, and everyone else who is in support of some kind of gun control....you can try to defend your thought of what you think the second amendment is, and others have the right to disagree.
all your "quotes" from the 17th century might have served well back then, but they don't fly in todays world...just take a look around you.
do you really think someone today is safer than they were 400 years ago...i think not.
We're supposed to give up our freedoms and privacy because its the 21st century ?

Freedom has become archaic because you say so ? Or because you're a communist ?
shameless-li

United States

#81 Apr 17, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>We're supposed to give up our freedoms and privacy because its the 21st century ?
Freedom has become archaic because you say so ? Or because you're a communist ?
try keeping up to date:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

the minutemen of yesterday are gone...paul revere isn't going to come to your town to let you know when your govt is coming to get you....

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#83 Apr 17, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>mine, and everyone else who is in support of some kind of gun control....you can try to defend your thought of what you think the second amendment is, and others have the right to disagree.

all your "quotes" from the 17th century might have served well back then, but they don't fly in todays world...just take a look around you.
do you really think someone today is safer than they were 400 years ago...i think not.
You are correct in stating you and others have the right to be wrong.
nac

Piscataway, NJ

#85 Apr 17, 2013
shameless-li wrote:
<quoted text>
try keeping up to date:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
the minutemen of yesterday are gone...paul revere isn't going to come to your town to let you know when your govt is coming to get you....
I honestly believe that your anti-liberty posts do not come from tyrannical views that you unwittingly support. Rather, I believe that you are well intentioned in your posts that come across as pro-authoritarian, anti-freedom. I think you are simply misinformed and your emotions have been exploited to further an agenda.

You want guns banned... for safety. I'm sure you honestly believe that if guns were illegal, people wouldn't get shot. It's simplistic... but that's why the idea sells.

Let's look at two places close to home that you can identify with that have banned guns: Chicago and Mexico

Gun free zones, just like the authoritarians want... for safety, wink wink.

You and I both know that you're far more likely to be shot in Chicago or in Mexico than anywhere else in North America.

So, while I believe that your intentions are to see a reduction in gun violence... the method that you advocate has historically increased gun violence....And tyranny, if you're interested in history.

I'm not trying to convince you to stop your anti-liberty rhetoric... that's not going to happen with a few paragraphs. All I'm trying to do is plant a seed of Liberty somewhere in your brain that might someday sprout into a beautiful flower with petals of liberty and freedom for all.

Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#88 Apr 19, 2013
I wonder how many people who were cowering behind locked doors in the Boston area for the past 24 hours wished Massachusetts had more lenient gun laws, so that they could protect themeselves and their families from the threat of fugitive terrorists seeking to hide in their homes?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#89 Apr 20, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
I wonder how many people who were cowering behind locked doors in the Boston area for the past 24 hours wished Massachusetts had more lenient gun laws, so that they could protect themeselves and their families from the threat of fugitive terrorists seeking to hide in their homes?
Oh, that's taboo, we can't discuss that.
XDM

Boca Raton, FL

#90 Apr 20, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
I wonder how many people who were cowering behind locked doors in the Boston area for the past 24 hours wished Massachusetts had more lenient gun laws, so that they could protect themeselves and their families from the threat of fugitive terrorists seeking to hide in their homes?
Bingo!
nac

Piscataway, NJ

#93 Apr 21, 2013
Just Saying wrote:
I wonder how many people who were cowering behind locked doors in the Boston area for the past 24 hours wished Massachusetts had more lenient gun laws, so that they could protect themeselves and their families from the threat of fugitive terrorists seeking to hide in their homes?
Exactly right. Those of you that advocate giving up the right to defend yourself should consider the fact that it is quite possible that you may have to defend YOURSELF one day. You'll wish you hadn't given away your Second Amendment rights when you need them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Truth About Reloading 42 min Here Is One 65
News Treating Firearms Like We Do Cars? Yeaha Lets D... (Feb '12) 2 hr payme 22
News St. Louis Zoo Court Order against the Exercise ... Thu True facts 8
News Why assault rifle sales are booming Jul 2 okimar 102
News Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because t... Jul 2 Here Is One 47
This is the NRA’s worst nightmare: Jul 2 Here Is One 18
News No wedding for Bristol Palin Jun 30 General 39
More from around the web