Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Bloomberg leaves office today! YEAH!
Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 01/02/14 01:05 AM
Bloomberg leaves office today, protected by firearms When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves office today he will enter civilian life protected by firearms. The same man who has spent much of his career and personal fortune trying to render good, law-abiding men and women defenseless, will now surround himself with a team of armed bodyguards. Bloomberg'��s security detail will be comprised of former police officers that he purchased away from the NYPD with the promise of early retirement, six-figure salaries, and other perks that go along with protecting America's most notorious anti-gun zealot. Bloomberg's hypocrisy validates what five million NRA members and tens of millions of gun owners already know: The freedom to own and carry firearms is essential to our fundamental right of self-defense. If this weren'��t true, then Michael Bloomberg would eschew his security team and walk about town unarmed and defenseless like so many of his former constituents. To be sure, the threats he faces as a former public official are legitimate and should be taken seriously. However, they are no more legitimate or serious than the threats that many American men and women face every day – and that's especially true for many folks who live and work in New York City. <more> http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/31/bloomberg-leaves-office-today-protected-by-firearms/#ixzz2p4rQuC77 Why doesn't he declare a GUNFREE ZONE around himself? The Sick Bustard!

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Thu 01/02/14 07:09 AM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Thu 01/02/14 07:22 AM
People do not need 300 horse power corvettes. People do not need Luisville sluggers to play baseball. People do not need 300 dollar Gucci handbags to carry their personals. People do not need 100 dollar dinners. People do not need high speed internet. People do not need unlimited long distance. People do not need disposable diapers. I could go on, but i think you get my point. What people need is a government, fair and impartial, who will secure the best interest of the American people, and do so in accordance with the the Constitution of the United States of America, as it was written cars have regulations , baseball has regulations on its equipment so the game is consistent and fair, handbags are an accessory that there is no reason to put a regulation on,, people are free to eat whatever and however they can afford to eat AS LONG AS THAT FOOD HAS MET REGULATIONS TO BE SERVED, internet providers even have regulations they must follow to provide service, it is written that: 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. again, the fathers specifically mentioned REGULATED it can be argued all over the place (and it is) what regulated means or how it should be applied, but it cant be IGNORED That regulate is actually a part of that amendment You use the 1900's perverted definition, and not the old world definition the Constitution was written under. Regulated then meant "well maintained", not limited! All men were ordered to have a functioning, well equipped weapon, on par with the military of our or any gov't. They were subject to the laws of the state, not the corporation of states (USA). Well regulated actually meant "trained, functioning, and on par with", not "limited to"! And regardless how you may feel about the age of our Constitution, it is the law of the land, it does state our right to be "unalienable" not "inalienable" (as some are) http://unalienable.com/unalien.htm and includes the words "shall NOT be infringed"! What part of that liberals don't understand, is beyond me anyway,,, 'inalienable rights' is part of the Declaration of Independence not the constitution and, as I said above, people will and HAVE continue(d) to debate what was meant by 'well regulated' the amendment itself was edited from other STATE amendments that came before it,,, Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (TRAINED,,,,not just any john/jane doe carrying around any weapon regardless of skill ) An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person (well armed AND WELL REGULATED) people also debate what was meant by 'arms' when the constitution was written George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable' (rifles and pistols,, not uzis,,,) and finally, the SUPREME COURT INTERPRETED the second amendment in DC v Heller (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtâs opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millerâs holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those âin common use at the timeâ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54â56. WRONG!!! “As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.” Wrong. The term well-regulated, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant functioning properly, functioning as expected, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means tightly controlled, and is at odds with the shall not be infringed phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it's explicit prohibition. http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13494-a-libertarian-case-for-manchintoomey Gungrabbers try pulling a fast one,and People fall for it! Based on the writing in the Bill of Rights, they have as much right to own one as I do, but their right to gun control ends where my freedom to own one in my pursuit of happiness begins.... as is my UNALIENABLE right! It is law that has been perverted, NOT the Constitution! If you want proof, let's compare...... This..... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html to this...... Buildings of the Library The Thomas Jefferson Building Madison Building Packard Campus (Culpeper, Virginia) The Library of Congress is physically housed in three buildings on Capitol Hill and a conservation center in rural Virginia. The Library's Capitol Hill buildings are all connected by underground passageways, so that a library user need pass through security only once in a single visit. The library also has off-site storage facilities for less commonly requested materials. Thomas Jefferson Building Main article: Thomas Jefferson Building The Thomas Jefferson Building is located between Independence Avenue and East Capitol Street on First Street SE. It first opened in 1897 as the main building of the Library and is the oldest of the three buildings. Known originally as the Library of Congress Building or Main Building, it took its present name on June 13, 1980. John Adams Building Main article: John Adams Building The John Adams Building is located between Independence Avenue and East Capitol Street on 2nd Street SE, the block adjacent to the Jefferson Building. The building was originally built simply as an annex to the Jefferson Building. It opened its doors to the public on January 3, 1939. James Madison Memorial Building Main article: James Madison Memorial Building The James Madison Memorial Building is located between First and Second Streets on Independence Avenue SE. The building was constructed from 1971 to 1976, and serves as the official memorial to President James Madison. The Madison Building is also home to the Mary Pickford Theater, the "motion picture and television reading room" of the Library of Congress. The theater hosts regular free screenings of classic and contemporary movies and television shows. Packard Campus for Audio-Visual Conservation Main article: National Audio-Visual Conservation Center The Packard Campus for Audio-Visual Conservation is the Library of Congress's newest building, opened in 2007 and located in Culpeper, Virginia.[21] It was constructed out of a former Federal Reserve storage center and Cold War bunker. The campus is designed to act as a single site to store all of the library's movie, television, and sound collections. It is named to honor David Woodley Packard, whose Packard Humanities Institute oversaw design and construction of the facility. The centerpiece of the complex is a reproduction Art Deco movie theater that presents free movie screenings to the public on a semi-weekly basis.[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress#Buildings_of_the_Library

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Thu 01/02/14 07:23 AM Edited by alleoops on Thu 01/02/14 08:06 AM
People do not need 300 horse power corvettes. People do not need Luisville sluggers to play baseball. People do not need 300 dollar Gucci handbags to carry their personals. People do not need 100 dollar dinners. People do not need high speed internet. People do not need unlimited long distance. People do not need disposable diapers. I could go on, but i think you get my point. What people need is a government, fair and impartial, who will secure the best interest of the American people, and do so in accordance with the the Constitution of the United States of America, as it was written cars have regulations , baseball has regulations on its equipment so the game is consistent and fair, handbags are an accessory that there is no reason to put a regulation on,, people are free to eat whatever and however they can afford to eat AS LONG AS THAT FOOD HAS MET REGULATIONS TO BE SERVED, internet providers even have regulations they must follow to provide service, it is written that: 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. again, the fathers specifically mentioned REGULATED it can be argued all over the place (and it is) what regulated means or how it should be applied, but it cant be IGNORED That regulate is actually a part of that amendment You use the 1900's perverted definition, and not the old world definition the Constitution was written under. Regulated then meant "well maintained", not limited! All men were ordered to have a functioning, well equipped weapon, on par with the military of our or any gov't. They were subject to the laws of the state, not the corporation of states (USA). Well regulated actually meant "trained, functioning, and on par with", not "limited to"! And regardless how you may feel about the age of our Constitution, it is the law of the land, it does state our right to be "unalienable" not "inalienable" (as some are) http://unalienable.com/unalien.htm and includes the words "shall NOT be infringed"! What part of that liberals don't understand, is beyond me anyway,,, 'inalienable rights' is part of the Declaration of Independence not the constitution and, as I said above, people will and HAVE continue(d) to debate what was meant by 'well regulated' the amendment itself was edited from other STATE amendments that came before it,,, Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (TRAINED,,,,not just any john/jane doe carrying around any weapon regardless of skill ) An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person (well armed AND WELL REGULATED) people also debate what was meant by 'arms' when the constitution was written George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable' (rifles and pistols,, not uzis,,,) and finally, the SUPREME COURT INTERPRETED the second amendment in DC v Heller (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtâs opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millerâs holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those âin common use at the timeâ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54â56. WRONG!!! “As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.” Wrong. The term well-regulated, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant functioning properly, functioning as expected, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means tightly controlled, and is at odds with the shall not be infringed phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it's explicit prohibition. http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13494-a-libertarian-case-for-manchintoomey Gungrabbers try pulling a fast one,and People fall for it! Based on the writing in the Bill of Rights, they have as much right to own one as I do, but their right to gun control ends where my freedom to own one in my pursuit of happiness begins.... as is my UNALIENABLE right! It is law that has been perverted, NOT the Constitution! So we can call Bloomberg a "pervert". Yea!

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 01/02/14 08:02 AM
it always boils down to this:"Don't trample my rights to obtain your version of security. I will provide my security myself. You worry about yours."