Comments on: Bloomberg the Political Radical http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:54:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SayUncle » Bloomberg the loon http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/#comment-49752 SayUncle » Bloomberg the loon Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:06:00 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=13053#comment-49752 [...] Gun owners are terrorists: This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists [...] [...] Gun owners are terrorists: This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists [...]

]]> By: Carl in Chicago http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/#comment-49732 Carl in Chicago Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:32:14 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=13053#comment-49732 K-Romulus, I agree. And it's pretty good when that's the best they've got. K-Romulus, I agree. And it’s pretty good when that’s the best they’ve got.

]]> By: K-Romulus http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/#comment-49730 K-Romulus Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:00:07 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=13053#comment-49730 "This has nothing to fo with the right to bear arms' and everything to do with X" seems to be the gem that the MAIG media consultant produced. I think that mantra was rolled out during the fight against the interstate CCW law. Expect to see more of it. “This has nothing to fo with the right to bear arms’ and everything to do with X” seems to be the gem that the MAIG media consultant produced. I think that mantra was rolled out during the fight against the interstate CCW law. Expect to see more of it.

]]> By: Cemetery's Gun Blob http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/#comment-49728 Cemetery's Gun Blob Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:36:30 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=13053#comment-49728 They don't even pay attention to what they say, they admit that there is no current security measures in place to review passengers, and luggage, for anything, let along guns, and yet they don't want to put security measures in place. How can they be concerned with passenger safety? They don’t even pay attention to what they say, they admit that there is no current security measures in place to review passengers, and luggage, for anything, let along guns, and yet they don’t want to put security measures in place.

How can they be concerned with passenger safety?

]]> By: Carl in Chicago http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/09/21/bloomberg-the-political-radical/#comment-49722 Carl in Chicago Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:20:35 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=13053#comment-49722 I seriously suspect the man is delusional on this issue. Assuming he actually made these statements ... "This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists," and "The legislation allowing guns on Amtrak was passed because of ideological politics - not public safety." First, via the second statement, he is ignoring the fact that the people have a substantive (if not fundamental) right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Certainly we have the right to check them in our luggage should we chose to travel by train. Second, he is flatly denying that a flat-out prohibition on the transport of lawfully owned arms violates the constitution. Indeed ... if he's going to get more extreme than even the Bradys et al., he has chosen the quick road to his political and public oblivion. I seriously suspect the man is delusional on this issue.

Assuming he actually made these statements …

“This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists,”
and
“The legislation allowing guns on Amtrak was passed because of ideological politics – not public safety.”

First, via the second statement, he is ignoring the fact that the people have a substantive (if not fundamental) right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Certainly we have the right to check them in our luggage should we chose to travel by train. Second, he is flatly denying that a flat-out prohibition on the transport of lawfully owned arms violates the constitution.

Indeed … if he’s going to get more extreme than even the Bradys et al., he has chosen the quick road to his political and public oblivion.

]]>