Bloomberg anti-gun ad drawing attention - New York News
...."do you have a restraining order?" ??!!!! What's the point of asking this? Was the woman supposed to wave it at him?
The people interviewed didn't seem to realize this was for gun control, or that it appeared to really be in favor of gun ownership. (Lame people only concerned with whether this should be on t.v. or not).
For once, Bloombutt did a good job. People have a right to defend themselves, and she chose not to. Consequences. (Also, from what I understand, if you've been charged with domestic abuse you cannot legally have a gun in your possession. Obviously the woman knew he was abusive, she has a child to protect...and she's willfully unarmed. She chose to pick up a phone instead of a gun. Brilliant.)
The people interviewed didn't seem to realize this was for gun control, or that it appeared to really be in favor of gun ownership. (Lame people only concerned with whether this should be on t.v. or not).
For once, Bloombutt did a good job. People have a right to defend themselves, and she chose not to. Consequences. (Also, from what I understand, if you've been charged with domestic abuse you cannot legally have a gun in your possession. Obviously the woman knew he was abusive, she has a child to protect...and she's willfully unarmed. She chose to pick up a phone instead of a gun. Brilliant.)
It sounds radical, but it's really not. I think people should have to join some kind of national militia where they get training either in defense, emergency repairs, or emergency medical. Law-abiding citizens would have to have a weapon, repair kit, and/or med kit in case of emergency.
Some (not all) of the taxes we pay for a huge standing army would be replaced by the militia. The rich have more wealth than the poor, but we all have the same amount of time per year. We would all have to dedicate the same amount of time; we would all pay the same amt of time. And anyone could use the training in her/his job.
Right. You wouldn't have to do defense; it could be medical.
We wish we could use no force and say what you said. If an enemies attacks or an emergency occurs, those who chose not to prepare will bear all the costs. Their segment of the country will get taken over. Their half of the city won't get power and communications restored in an earthquake. But we all live together. Keeping invaders out, fixing the power/com grid, policing the streets, etc are all non-excludable to those who didn't pay. We don't to make people pay or provide services to freeloaders. But some things are impossible to offer just to those who want them and to deny to those who don't.
Yes, CG, that's my point exactly... not being prepared and hoping to float off of others good will should have a risk to it...a cost...a consequence.
"We don't to make people pay or provide services to freeloaders. But some things are impossible to offer just to those who want them and to deny to those who don't."
What's so "impossible" about it? If you're not getting your able bodied ass out to do your part to fix things then why would they benefit from the efforts of others??? If you want it...then EARN it. Is this concept foreign to you?
2) The Swiss require every household to possess weapons.
3) The anti-gunners like Bloomberg always have armed guards (Minutemen?) nearby to protect them in an emergency.
Yes. I think we should have something along those lines, and for medical and repairs, not just defense. Maybe "mandatory" is too strong a word, but I reject the idea that security can be completely optional without having freeloaders. The most absurd response to this is we should let those households or neighborhoods that fail to prepare be invaded while those households who voluntarily support our defense will live in what's left of the US.
After your service in the IDF is done you keep your weapons and are "reserve" from then on.
The main impetus for the idea was rapists. How many rapists would commit the act, knowing it might very well be the last thing they unsuccessfully attempted on this side of the etheric divide?
Unfortunately, we were looked at as kooks by the local anti-gunners. Laughed off the phone by our representatives. Considering who one of our US senators was at the time (and still holds said seat for that state) - thinking about it a bit, make that BOTH senators - is it any wonder?
But that's not Boobbergs message - his was "see the innocent poor thing, and the evil bad guy with the even more evil GUN. We need MORE POLICE CONTROL so EVERYONE can feel like... HEY YOU! PUT DOWN THAT 20 OZ SODA - That's the one, arrest him! Now, where was I? Oh yeah, they're safe and secure under MY imperial watchful eye, in my fiefdom of control.... don't you feel SAFER and MORE SECURE, and all it costs you is a silly right I decided you don't need."
HE and his Reichskommando Minister of Propaganda Frau Feinstein need to get into the wooden shoe with Wynken, Blynken, and Nod...
Those birds of a feather deserve each other. And we don't deserve to be lorded over by the imperialistic likes of them...
Instead of worrying about the poor lil defenseless woman, maybe Bloomberg should worry more about doing his job and make sure gun-totting ex’s aren’t running rabid in his city. What about that?
Stupid commercial.
;)
I'm sorry, I missed this exception to the 2nd Amendment, as well as to the presumption of innocence...