TomServo92 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 LINK The ad does not specify if the man is an actor, but he violates all three gun safety rules taught by the National Rifle Association (NRA). If Mr. Bloomberg is sincere in wanting to save lives, he should consider spending his billions on TV ads that showcase people demonstrating basic gun safety measures. Bloomberg is such an ignorant douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 LINK Bloomberg is such an ignorant douche. You underestimate him. And his money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 You underestimate him. And his money. Wait, let me rethink my post....naaaaaaaa, he's still an ignorant douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Wait, let me rethink my post....naaaaaaaa, he's still an ignorant douche. I disagree. He is skilled at talking to the easily persuaded with promises from a multimillionaire promising to defend the poor by taxing the rich, taking actions ostensibly to help the helpless, controlling more and more of their lives, just to make them more dependent on him for their daily bread. Perhaps you meant he is a dildo, instead. Edited March 26, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 I disagree. He is skilled at talking to the easily persuaded with promises from a multimillionaire promising to defend the poor by taxing the rich, taking actions ostensibly to help the helpless, controlling more and more of their lives, just to make them more dependent on him for their daily bread. I'm not actually saying he's stupid. I'm expressing my intense dislike for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I'm not actually saying he's stupid. I'm expressing my intense dislike for him. Not so ignorant. Demented? Dangerous? Devious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 Not so ignorant. Demented? Dangerous? Devious? You have to add arrogant to that list. Dangerous combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Lol. See gun nuts demonstrate lousy gun safety all the time. Guns left where kids can get them, where thieves can find them, lack of safes etc. We even had a post put on here by a conservative about a guy who didn't clean the bag he used at the range and walked into a federal building with ammo in the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Lol. See gun nuts demonstrate lousy gun safety all the time. Guns left where kids can get them, where thieves can find them, lack of safes etc. We even had a post put on here by a conservative about a guy who didn't clean the bag he used at the range and walked into a federal building with ammo in the bag. But those people aren't talking down to us about how guns kill and should be restricted (or even banned). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Lol. See gun nuts demonstrate lousy gun safety all the time. Guns left where kids can get them, where thieves can find them, lack of safes etc. We even had a post put on here by a conservative about a guy who didn't clean the bag he used at the range and walked into a federal building with ammo in the bag. Thinking outside the box..... Maybe we need federal legislation, similar to Obamacare, requiring all citizens participate and be qualified in the proper use and safe operating of firearms. Ownership may be optional, but skill required. Or not stop there, force all citizens to purchase and carry firearms. That way we can save so many police officers from being sent into danger to protect victims from armed assailants. Everyone could be compelled to intervene on the pain of taxation for failure to save the government from hiring more police, freeing them to complete the proper paperwork recording the facts as they collect evidence, just as usual. Citizens would be responsible for their own safety at the time of attack. Police pursue for the purpose of arrest and trial... Easy peasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But those people aren't talking down to us about how guns kill and should be restricted (or even banned). Its on par with a drunk driver killing someone using a car, you never see the outrage against the vehicle manufacturer/s yet substitute a vehicle with a firearm people get mad at the object, not the operator. Stupidity has no boundaries for what is being used or misused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 No. Its even worse. Those people doing stupid things with weapons are the ones saying they should have them. Which is worse a guy who believes in gun control and doesn't handle them correctly or someone who doesn't and handles them incorrectly? I'm going with #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Cal, that might be because we have state registration of vehicles, licensing to use a vehicle, judges can order your vehicle to require a breathalyzer to start. All the things that you would not let happen to guns. The laws covering vehicle ownership and use are the ones the NRA opposes. The state knows what vehicles I own, they might come and take them away. Why don't you and other gun nuts fear this? You can't fight a dictatorship without transportation. Guns don't mean nothing when your all on foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 This add show just how far out of touch Bloomberg and his goons are out of touch with reality of gun ownership in the real world. Its mind bending that they dont take time to research things before they stick their foots in their mouths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 Cal, that might be because we have state registration of vehicles, licensing to use a vehicle, judges can order your vehicle to require a breathalyzer to start. All the things that you would not let happen to guns. The laws covering vehicle ownership and use are the ones the NRA opposes. The state knows what vehicles I own, they might come and take them away. Why don't you and other gun nuts fear this? You can't fight a dictatorship without transportation. Guns don't mean nothing when your all on foot. I forget, where in the Constitution does it state that car ownership is a right that shall not be infringed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 More Bloomberg hypocrisy: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/26/nycs-michael-bloomberg-accused-hypocrisy-arming-se/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) No. Its even worse. Those people doing stupid things with weapons are the ones saying they should have them. Which is worse a guy who believes in gun control and doesn't handle them correctly or someone who doesn't and handles them incorrectly? I'm going with #2. I am saying we must hold people responsible for their actions. Including the deaths that could have been averted if firearms were allowed more freely. Mis-use a gun, you are facing serious jail term and/or loss of your rights to carry outside your home. But how would you feel if you were shot in a store with a "No Guns Allowed" sign on the door. You didn't carry because you obeyed the sign. The criminal did not abide the restriction. Cal, that might be because we have state registration of vehicles, licensing to use a vehicle, judges can order your vehicle to require a breathalyzer to start. All the things that you would not let happen to guns. The laws covering vehicle ownership and use are the ones the NRA opposes. The state knows what vehicles I own, they might come and take them away. Why don't you and other gun nuts fear this? You can't fight a dictatorship without transportation. Guns don't mean nothing when your all on foot. Driving on public roads is a right granted by the government. Carrying firearms is a right recognized as god-given, superior to the Constitution and the government. A right that exists regardless and despite government. You choose to operate a vehicle on public roads in exchange for being subject to the states right to limit such operation. They require registration as a way to subsidize roads, police or other tax demands. Traffic tickets are another revenue source. You are welcome to cede your responsibility to defend your's and your family's safety to the government. I won't interfere. I will only pity your children when harm comes while you stand there with a cellphone. Edited March 28, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 The fact that LH refers to anyone owning a firearm as a "gun nut" pretty much says it all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 No. Its even worse. Those people doing stupid things with weapons are the ones saying they should have them. Which is worse a guy who believes in gun control and doesn't handle them correctly or someone who doesn't and handles them incorrectly? I'm going with #2. If I can unscramble your statement. I might be in agreement with you. "someone who doesn't (believe in control, sic) and handles them incorrectly". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Mayor Bloomberg is playing into a stereotype to try and scare legislators into action.....He is a reverse racist creep....What if you began an anti-drug campaign with a minority smoking crack? Or maybe a campaign to convince more savings and investment of personal income with a person of Jewish persuasion counting stacks of money?The outrage would be huge!! But, since he is using a Caucasian male dressed as a backwoods hick driving a pick up truck and being irresponsible in his handling of a LEGAL weapon that US VP Joe Biden has urged Americans to buy is offensive at the very least. The irresponsibility is Hizzoners alone..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 No. Its even worse. Those people doing stupid things with weapons are the ones saying they should have them. Which is worse a guy who believes in gun control and doesn't handle them correctly or someone who doesn't and handles them incorrectly? I'm going with #2. Show us any video or photo of a pro-gun advocate handling a firearm incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Nick, I own firearms. I'm not a gun nut. Many owners here are. I don't believe that we have an all encompassing right to firearms. I've expressed that opinion many times. I'm not against a national registry fir firearms like many here are. It's a pragmatic approach. Supposedly I'm allowed to keep weapons without a registry because if the Constition but since cars weren't invented when the Constitution was created there can be a registry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 If our elected leaders want us to have a right to automobiles which shall not be infinged, they can amend the Constitution for it to say such. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I'm not against a national registry fir firearms like many here are. It's a pragmatic approach. Supposedly I'm allowed to keep weapons without a registry because if the Constition but since cars weren't invented when the Constitution was created there can be a registry? The purpose of a registry of vehicles is taxation. I can turn in my tags at any time, and have no registration on my vehicle. Speaking pragmatically, how would a registry prevent either recent tragedies--or future tragedies--involving mass shootings? Tie it together. Please, explain how a gun registry would be used to prevent illegal gun use. Edited March 28, 2013 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I'll go one better. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120930/METRO02/209300313 NRA pays settlement after NRA certified instructor discharges weapon and student is struck in face. Better than a picture. http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/06/28/charges-expected-in-gunfire-at-gibraltar-trade-center/ Seller at gun show offers buyer loaded weapon to inspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.