Idiot Bloomberg Doesn’t Know What A Gun Would Have Done

image

Is he really that stupid or is he just in his typical totalitarian lying mode?  Hard telling with that little tyrant. 

America’s littlest tyrant is displaying his idiocy, once again.

Within hours of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Bloomberg moved to politically exploit the incident.  And, has pretty much continued non-stop ever since. 

Bloomberg just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert’s comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun.  Bloomberg responded by saying,

“There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements…..I don’t know what the gun would have done.”

He’s right!  There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.  He doesn’t know what the gun would have done?  Well, the gun would just sit there.  The gun wouldn’t do anything.  But, if a capable person familiar with the weapon had use of it, then something like this could have happened…….

San Antonio Security Guard Shoots Would-Be Massacre Suspect Four Times

A would-be shooter in San Antonio, Texas, was stopped yesterday by an off-duty police officer working as a security guard at a movie theater. The off-duty police officer shot the suspect.

The shooting suspect, Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, opened fire at a restaurant in a mall in San Antonio. His former girlfriend worked at the restaurant, and he had worked there as well. Garcia apparently chased employees out of the restaurant, then began shooting at a police car outside. When he ran to the Santikos Mayan Palace Movie Theater, he was quickly shot four times by a security officer. According to Louis Antu of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, the deputy saved “a lot of lives.”

This is the third shooting attempt in a populated area in a week stopped by another gun-owner or security guard. In an Oregon last week, Jacob Tyler Roberts opened fire at a mall, killing two people and wounding another, before a conceal and carry permit holder pulled a gun. Roberts then killed himself. A shooting attempt at Fashion Island in Southern California was foiled when bicycle officers on scene stopped the suspect and arrested him.

Bloomberg and the rest of the totalitarian nuts are in denial of the basic fact that guns, in the hands of rational and capable people prevent far more deaths than if they didn’t not have them. 

For a seemingly endless list of examples of how people have used firearms to defend themselves against criminals, go hereGuns Save Lives.

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Idiot Bloomberg Doesn’t Know What A Gun Would Have Done

  1. Me says:

    That guy is done, he maybe needs to be checked to make sure he doesn’t have any weapons that he is preaching about, Not one.

    • suyts says:

      No doubt. I’m betting he has a collection of them. I think it would also be a little more convincing if he publicly showed his body guards and security detail turning their weapons in. If he can’t do that, then we know he’s just another nutty little hypocritical tyrant wannbe.

  2. gator69 says:

    “LePaul Gammons, the man who was shot by NYPD officer and Bloomberg security guard Leopold McLean, is filing a $5 million suit against the city. McLean, who has been charged with attempted murder, allegedly shot Gammons as he was running away but later said he shot in self defense.”

    http://gothamist.com/2010/12/15/bloomberg_bodyguards_shooting_victi.php

    I’m sure Bloomberg has since disarmed his bodyguards.

  3. gator69 says:

    Likely, had it been known there was a gun present, the shooter would have found a different target. Guns are great deterrents.

  4. leftinbrooklyn says:

    The very reason were given the 2nd Amendment. To keep these tyrants from becoming oppressive. Just got back from filing my paperwork for ownership. 100% by the book. If they gain the power to change the book, I’ll go 100% illegal.

  5. DaveG says:

    I’m no gun owner, but if I lived in America I would. I recognized the ulterior motives of Bloomberg and is elk. Socialist to the core and an urgent desire to control every aspect of our lives. He epidermises George Orwell’s book the Animal farm of a nasty all controlling pig at the top and rotten to the core.

  6. Bruce says:

    Maybe the Republicans can pass a law in the House that NYC teachers must carry tasers.

    Could be a win-win – not only would the crazies with guns be deterred but quite a few ADHD faking little blighters making teachers lives a misery could use a taste of 50,000V!

    I’m not being serious, just fantasizing on a sunny summer afternoon…

  7. DirkH says:

    For Bloomberg and the other liberals humans are instinct-driven irrational machines . Adam Lanza is in their eyes not an aberration but typical. Therefore – the less guns are owned by these irrational beings, the less deaths will occur.

    Bloomberg and the rest of the liberals do not think about personal responsibility. In their eyes, every human is incapable of acting responsibly. The number of gund deaths is a simple function of the number of humans times the number of guns; take away some guns, you get some less deaths.

    “Animal Farm” describes this mindset indeed very well. Orwell was capable of describing it so well because he was a Fabian Socialist himself. He wrote about his peers.

    Of course, when politicians like Bloomberg think of their voters like the molecules in an expanding gas volume; statistical; not individually – which Bloomberg does; he is the hearder of 17 million such exchangeable beings – then obviously personal responsibility loses any meaning.

    I could imagine him to crack down on crime by just sending out x number of NYPD officers to arrest y number of people somewhere close to where n crime happened; this should lead to z probability that you catch a perp (but that’s not important) and m deterrance effect, the only important number.

    As for Bloomberg, a human is NOT an individual, he is completely incapable of understanding what individuals can or can’t do and it should be the easiest thing to get away with ANYTHING in NYC.

  8. philjourdan says:

    Massacres only occur in gun free zones. Anders Breivik knew that. So did Lanza and Holmes.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      The solution is to get responsible individuals a CPL and allow them to carry while children are present. That will end this sad, stupid nonsense. My wife, a retired teacher, says most teachers wouldn’t do it, but she thinks school custodians would. According to her, they are usually hunters anyway, so handling guns wouldn’t be something out-of-the-ordinary for them.

      In my book, if we could save even one life, it would be worth it. I’ve argued this with liberals. They want 100% perfect results. They think gun-free zones are the answer, and are willing to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the pursuit of this faulty concept.

      Jim

  9. kelly liddle says:

    ‘‘Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy,’’ Mr Murdoch said.

    Just wondering what the opinion is on the Fox boss.
    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/turnbull-targets-murdoch-over-guns-20121217-2bii3.html#ixzz2FTwFCkKV

    • Bruce says:

      I don’t agree with him this time, the horses have bolted. They bolted in 1776, its rather late to try and catch them again.

      In Oz we had relatively few guns pre the Port Arthur massace, and PM Howard’s buy back and semi-automatic rifle ban further reduced the number by half a million. We have no equivalent of the 2nd Amendment, which makes sense as Oz started as a penal colony.

      Most crimes where guns are used are due to illegally smuggled guns, especially handguns. But the typical robbery, eg of a gas station, is by guys armed with knives, clubs, machete’s, screwdrivers or even blood filled syringes.

      I agreed with Howard’s action then, and I still do now (I don’t own a gun, but I was a good shot in the Reserves, I know which end has the hole in it.)

      So gun control does pretty much work in a society with few guns.

      That is not what the US is. How do you substantially prune 300 million guns in circulation, such that it’d make any difference? And with long borders with Canada and Mexico how could you keep the illegal ones out?

      Better to arm the school teachers, like Israel (see photo). They don’t have any massacres like this. I wonder why?

    • kelly liddle says:

      Bruce I think he meant semi-auto. I think a semi-auto ban could work. Whether or not it is a hand gun or rifle they are the dangerous weapons. According to the NRA they represent about 15% of fire arms. This is still a very large number but if there was public support I think most Americans could come around and in most cases it would not affect them. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/semi-automatic-firearms-and-the-%E2%80%9Cassaul.aspx Given some of Suyts examples a gun that was not semi-automatic would act just as much of a deterent and be just as useful and the police etc. would still have semi-automatics like they do in Oz. The second ammendment could only be considered by a very small minority to be absolute.

      • cdquarles says:

        Semi-auto weapons are no more dangerous than a match, a gallon of gasoline, a live electrical outlet, or a bathtub with 3 inches of water in it. Do you even know what semi-auto means, or that crack bolt action riflemen or revolver artists can spew as much, if not more lead than your typical klutz with a semi-auto weapon?

  10. David says:

    Mr Turnbull replied to a tweet by Mr Murdoch.
    ‘‘Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapon…”
    ——————-
    Hum? I am fairly certain automatic weopons are banned.

  11. gator69 says:

    “Another point to make is guns are not normally used in rape.”

    That’s the wrong end of the barrel again Kelly, I’m surpised you are still standing. :lol:

    Guns stop and prevent crimes. But I guess a man does not really have to worry about rape, right Kelly?

    Switzerland all day long.

    Violent crime is primarily an urban issue, where I live we all have guns, and sleep with our windows open. That would not be the case if we were all disarmed.

    You gun haters can consume all the propaganda you like, I’ll keep my guns.

    • kelly liddle says:

      US has the most privately held guns of any country in the world on a per capita basis and more than Switzerland. It does not prevent crimes unless you are saying that the homicide rate in the US would be even worse than it is if there were less guns. You have the highest homicide rate of any wealthy country.

      Gator do you have a semi-auto gun?

      • gator69 says:

        Your other comment gave you away Kelly…

        “I think most Americans could come around and in most cases it would not affect them.”

        Spoken like a true un-American. America was founded upon individual liberty Kelly, so it does not matter what the mob wants, you are protected here.

        I have many firearms Kelly, and I do not advertise what I have and do not have, that would be naive. Like depending on another to save my life in a crisis.

        Are you naive Kelly? :lol:

        Don’t bother responding directly, your regular posts are answer enough.

      • kelly liddle says:

        America was founded on democracy. Individual liberty is a nice concept but democracy comes above it whether you like it or not.

        • gator69 says:

          Kelly, please stop talking about things about which you are ignorant.

          America is NOT a democracy, or what is better described as “mob rule”. America is a representative republic whose constitution protects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, and not the COLLECTIVE.

          Naive much! I told you that you would not have to respond directly. :lol

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator you are talking about theories not reality. The constitution does not protect the rights of the individual. It might aim to and if followed it might be closer to that aim than current reality. Locking people up who in my eyes have not committed a crime is the antithesis of this, drug taking I am talking about. This hard line is somewhat unique in rich western countries.

        • philjourdan says:

          YOu present a false premise. Like it or not, taking illegal drugs IS a crime, so people being locked up for it are not locked up for “no reason”.

        • gator69 says:

          Kelly, I think you are ON drugs.

          As far as my constitution, you could not be more wrong, stop embarrassing yourself.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Yes I am on drugs but only legal ones. Alcohol, nicotine and the occasional caffeine. We seem to be talking about 2 different things here I am talking of reality, you are talking about theories. I said US drug laws were the antithesis of individual liberty but that is your current reality.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, America was founded on liberty and freedom, but not on democracy. The founders knew that to be unworkable. So they created a republic.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil
          They either created a democratic republic or a dictatorship. Seems you have a democratic republic to me.

        • philjourdan says:

          A democratic republic is NOT a democracy. You perhaps misspoke?

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil
          no real idea what you mean the US is a democracy. The form of democracy may differ to say Australia but don’t know what republic has to do with it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Plain and simple – it is NOT a democracy. Period. Majority does not rule. It is a representative republic. We cannot vote to strip minorities of rights based upon a majority of votes (a democracy can). We elect representatives by majority. But they are not bound to the voters desires.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil then we have a different definition of democracy.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Gator do you consider the second ammendment to be absolute?

        • gator69 says:

          Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………

        • kelly liddle says:

          A simple yes or no would do and much less letters.

        • gator69 says:

          I’m through casting pearls before swine Kelly.

          Zzzzzzzzzzzzz……

        • kelly liddle says:

          You can’t answer it because you would know what that means and if you claimed it was absolute you would be with maybe 1% of the population.

        • philjourdan says:

          If you mean absolute in the sense that no law can abridge it in America, it is. If you mean absolute as in no one can deny themselves the right to own guns, then no. People forfeit their rights all the time – by committing crimes. But no law can deny Americans who have not forfeited their rights from owning a gun.

        • gator69 says:

          Kelly, I’m not sure if you are a liar, or just ignorant. Either way a discussion with you is pontless.

        • kelly liddle says:

          The second amendment states “to bear arms” if you believe this to be absolute then it is any weapon you can carry. This is unnacceptable to 99% of the population.

        • philjourdan says:

          Not 99% of this country – based upon if you have not forfeited your rights.

        • gator69 says:

          STRAWMAN ALERT!

          OK, I’ll just call you dishonest.

          Have a nice day Kelly.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator then you admit that the second amendment is not absolute. This is important because if you take the second amendment to mean any weapon available at the time the amendment was written then it does not cover semi-automatic weapons or other types of weapons which you would consider unacceptable. So any interpretation that is not absolute is only an interpretation. Of course you can make your case but so can any other American, but you can’t claim that you are holier than thou because you have the constitution on your side.

        • kelly liddle says:

          “If you mean absolute in the sense that no law can abridge it in America, it is.”

          This means that an RPG or surface to air missile or grenade is acceptable along with all chemical, radioactive or biological weapons. If not then it is not absolute.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, as the constitution was interpreted (which I did indicate) to mean personal arms. The founders knew of none of that, and that is why we have SCOTUS – to interpret the intent. And while canons were common back in those days, they did not include canons in the amendment.

          You need to be more specific in what you mean. I tried to help you define it, but you still are not defining it. So the answer is “it depends upon what you mean”.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil
          Well if you only mean weapons available at the time of the amendment then it is only a musket or something like that. Semi-automatic is definately off the table. RPG or grenade or a one man missile or mortar etc. can all be carried or “beared” along with more soffisticated non conventional weapons. So the 2nd amendment can’t be used as an argument directly unless all other weapons that were not around are accepted. It is a decision that your country has to make about where to draw the line but the 2nd amendment as written is definately obsolete.

  12. kelly liddle says:

    “The founders knew of none of that, and that is why we have SCOTUS – to interpret the intent.”

    If I was a judge I would interpret it as written. The intent I believe is not in question. Would the people who drafted it now change it, yes I am sure they would but this does not change the original intent.

    deterring tyrannical government;
    repelling invasion;
    suppressing insurrection;
    facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
    participating in law enforcement;
    enabling the people to organize a militia system.

    Here are some reasons listed in Wiki in no particular order that may have supported the idea of the law. If the top 3 are to still be considered you will need every type of weapon available.

    • leftinbrooklyn says:

      The 2nd Amendment was mostly about the first one you listed. And if it really came down to it, we would have every weapon available. The vast majority of the military would side with the people. Their duty is to defend the constitution also.

      Not to mention the illegal arms market. When’s the last time a rebel didn’t have an RPG?

      Of course weapons have changed. The founders didn’t know this would happen? They also knew the need to defend liberty would not change. With all resources available. That’s what’s intended to be clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s