‘Does Your Life Matter More Than Mine?’
An audience member called out former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg for “pushing for more gun control” when he has “an armed security detail.”
“How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that’s likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines that you seek to ban the common citizen from owning?” the man asked at a Monday evening Fox News town hall in Manassas, Virginia. “Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these peoples’?”
The audience applauded before Bloomberg’s answer.
“Look, I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, ok, and some of them are real,” Bloomberg responded.”That just happens when you are the mayor of New York City or you are very wealthy, and if you are campaigning for president of the United States you get lots of threats.”
Insisting he pays for his security detail, the Democratic presidential candidate stressed that they are “all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”
“Let me talk about firearms for a second,” he continued. “The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. Nobody suggests that we’re gonna change the Constitution, even if you wanted to I don’t think you’d get it done, so nobody’s gonna take your right to bear arms. The Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions. The only restrictions which I’m in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals or people that are minors.” (RELATED: Gun Control’s Godfather Is In)
Bloomberg went on to explain why he believes federal law should apply to gun shows. “And what I tried to do is to just to get every state, because the federal government doesn’t seem to want to do it, to just check before they sell anybody a gun to make sure they are not in one of those categories …”
Poster Comment:
Video at source.
#1: Darkwing To: Horse (#0)
Darkwing posted on 2021-06-11 07:52:56 Reply Private Reply
#2: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt To: Horse (#0)
These people should be pressed to define their terms. And who gets to define "people with psychiatric problems", which can be pretty open-ended by any stretch of the imagination.
Note his security is okay, by God, because they are former police officers.
Yet they passed or tried to pass [I can't remember which] a law that would disarm many vets.
"Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.
How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list. ...
...two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans' gun rights.
One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.
The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist)..."
rense.com/general78/vett.htm
And he still didn't answer the question. Now they threaten whites, conservatives, Christians, Trumpers, and nonjabbers with assault and murder. Hasn't it been claimed they have "psychiatric problems"? If not, when? For these folks, whether threats come in at 40 or 50 a week, or only once, assault or murder could happen any time, anywhere. It only takes one time to end a life. Why should the peasants play Russian roulette with THEIR lives, Bloomie? What's good for the goose IS good for the gander.
AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt posted on 2021-06-11 19:15:39 Reply Private Reply
#3: Esso To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, 4um (#2)
Surely, you can't be referring to the fine, upstanding psychiatrists that have abandoned the DSM-V definitions of gender dysphoria and are claiming that transvestitism is "natural, normal and healthy?" Certainly not the ones who are actively promoting that 5 y/o boys are little girls?
Regardless, good post.
Esso posted on 2021-06-11 19:40:36 Reply Private Reply