SAF Goes After Mayor Bloomberg

Ominivision1 · Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:11 am Post subject: SAF Goes After Mayor Bloomberg

The second amendment foundation went after bloomberg and his MAIG group by posting an ad on their website and boy it's a doozy. Very Happy

saf.org/images/maig.pdf

cbsweeney · Member Joined: Jun 18, 2010 Posts: 197 Location: New York

It's amazing to me that someone could be convicted of ANY of the crimes listed, and be elected to public office.

TRBLSHTR

Why would you be amazed CBS?Look at the following our potus has-snakes and rats like to follow the pied piper!

cbsweeney · Member Joined: Jun 18, 2010 Posts: 197 Location: New York

Good point TRBLSHTR. I just thought as Americans, we would draw the line at voting for someone convicted of Meagan's Law violations.

MacD

If we were to get every elected official's records regardless of party or group affiliation I bet there would be no relationship between the two. Then there are those whose lack of ethics/morality was legal or not yet discovered.

It is all grist for propaganda which is to say that the plain, complete truth is nowhere to be found. Half truths, innuendo and pairing unrelated facts to create explicit or implicit slander and character assassination are all done with ulterior motive, usually power or money. The strategy, as practiced by everyone from politicians to priests is to find a group and demonize them. This "we" and "them" gambit unfortunately has led to murder and mayhem throughout human history. It destroys nations not builds them. That it is still being used to divide the people is abhorrent.

People who are not firearms owners or users are scared of them. They aren't any more stupid or uneducated than firearms advocates. Blame the mass media and the opportunists who exploit that fear usually to make a buck. The Pro side also uses fear to sell product and services, garner votes and gather influence.

On a personal level I experience fear of firearms all the time amongst friends and others who don't hunt or shoot. I take the time to explain what I do with firearms. I accept that they may not agree with me. That is the very basis of freedom, the right to have your own thoughts and opinions, to express them without censor and, except where they are detrimental to the freedom of others, to act upon them.

I am very obviously a firearms enthusiast. Owned responsibly they are no more dangerous than all the other things we use in everyday life that can injure or kill. A firearm can not in of itself be irresponsible. That takes a human. If I act responsibly then no one has the right to impinge my freedom to own a firearm. Laws and regulations which define reasonable parameters of responsibly to protect the life and freedoms of others are acceptable but beyond that they are an infringement of my freedom. The key to this debate is to find that threshold. Going to the extremes of either end of the debate means this will never happen. Instead of being a reasoned solution it becomes a perpetual tug of war.

Climbing down from pulpit now :-)

BigBlue

It amazes me that these criminal politicians get elected. Look at Mayor Marion Barry of Washington D.C. While Mayor, he was arrested and convicted on crack cocaine charges in 1990, served 6 months in a Federal Penitentiary and in 1994 was reelected as Mayor from 1995-1999.
Don

English Mike

Just think: These people aren't allowed to own, possess or even touch firearms but they ARE allowed to introduce & influence legislation that restricts law-abiding citizens' right to do the same.
That's just plain nuts.

PaulS

Well they can't vote - felons aren't allowed to vote, so they have to do it through legislation - Should they be allowed to legislate if they are a felon?
That sounds like a new law that needs to be put in place.