A Call to fight Michael Bloomberg and 'No-Fly, No-Buy' DB

I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to voice such concern but I felt it would garner appropriate attention if placed here.

In essence, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is very anti-gun. And what he wishes to do is to create a 'No-Fly, No-Buy' database wherein the 700,000 US citizens and residents on the 'Terror Watch Database' would be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Please remember that this is the same database that prevented the late, great Senator Kennedy from boarding commercial airliner flights, as well as calling small children, Federal Air Marshalls, and US soldiers who have and are still fighting overseas, 'suspected terrorists'.

This proposal threatens not only potentially 1.3 million* American's 2nd amendment [not to mention unreasonably restricting their ability to use air travel] but also their 14th amendment rights as there is no legal way to contest one's place on the terror watch list.

Please, if you are a legal US resident or US citizen, contact your senators and ask them to oppose S. 1317 and S. 2820. We cannot let these gross molestations of the the constitution be allowed to progress any further then they already have.

Thank you for your time, I apologize to the mods if this is an inappropriate post.

Full story:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5238

Hmm, difficult call. I don't condone the terrorist watch list as it is. It is more of a burden in the current state rather than being beneficial to anyone. However, I don't support the Second Amendment as I'm avid that no one should be allowed to purchase a gun; and anything that prevents fewer guns out there has my support to at least some degree.

Already have, Johnny Isakson & Saxby Chambliss probably tire of me now. Too bad the only response you tend to get from a senator are those damn cookie cutter letters



Support it or not, it's there. Don't like guns, don't buy one but, don't support legislation that would prevent law-abiding people from owning one.

I can if I choose to. Who knows, it could be a catalyst that leads to "the right to bear arms" being taken away. It may be unpopular, but I desire that to happen. I'm not going to support or not support something just because it may be an unpopular decision. Not to say I support this because I don't support the Terrorist Watch list, but I do support an aspect of what it represents.

I actually have to agree with you on that. Back when it was put up WAAAAAAY back when. This country was still pretty lawless. The right to bear arms was simply a way of protecting ourselves back then. But now it's giving anyone the right to own a gun, and use it for whatever purpose and by any maniac or criminal. At the very least it should be a lot harder to get a gun. It's just too easy still for anyone to get a gun. I'm from Texas where this thinking is DEFINITELY not popular. But I do think that accessibility to guns is too easy.

Need I remind you gentlemen that the first act of every dictator in history is to ban the ownership of weapons. Please direct your attention to the .PDF in the link.

Genocide.

Without the threat of retaliation from it's people for obviously unpopular laws or actions the Government can do what it pleases. What if Bush decided that he didn't want to give up the presidency? At least if people were armed it would cause a large conflict that wouldn't be quelled easily but, without guns in the hands of people. He could have easily said "I'm going to be president for however long I feel." then declared martial law. What then? You can't even begin organizing a token guerrilla resistance.

Once the guns are removed from the hands of law abiding citizens, what is to stop the non-law abiding citizens from taking advantage of the law abiding ones? Remember the criminals get their guns outside of the system.

I wish to ask you gun control supporters on a personal level. Why do you insist on disarming the victims and aiding the criminals?

The right to bear arm is still the best way to protect ourselves right now. When the MS-13 in my area decide to wreck havoc in my neighborhood, what do you think can help me the most? My AR-15 or the local donut munchers that rather write speeding ticket for $$$ instead of fighting the gang problems?

Taking guns away from society won't keep weapons away from criminals, it just makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Oh come on FPOD, that is not inclusive of each other. That is an empty argument. Granted history is a great way to look at how present situations might unfold, but that isn't something you can rely on.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult or impractical, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I don't want anyone to have guns, period. I don't have to think it's logical. I know that it would cause more problems than it could solve, at least with our current mindset, but that doesn't mean I can't desire to overthrow the Second Amendment.

It's the pinnacle of idealism, but where did we get this idea that idealism is wrong now? I want a world where no one can have guns. Is it so wrong for me to think that way? So what if it isn't realistic, since when do I have to be logical about everything? Oh well, I digress I'm completely going off somewhere else now.

And all I'm talking about is making standards so the people that DOESN'T need a gun or misusing them for other reasons besides self-protection able to get a gun. If the laws we have in place works so well, how is it that 14+ gang members carry around guns all the time? Even nowadays, people needs guns for protection besides just thugs. I live in the country, and had a wolf wander into my yard. Thank god it didn't attack me. But that would be a validated reason for having a gun for protection. I'm simply saying to find better ways of keeping it out of hands that don't need it.

The problem with idealism is that it is impractical. You, and people like my father dream of a world that's as fanciful and happily clean as the top of a Candyland board. It is perfectly fine to wish for such a society, but the problem is that people like you try and apply that vision to real life, current day situations. Until we can get the human race to behave more like the Flood from Halo, we will always have selfish people, sociopaths, and people who are either lazy or just don't give a damn, until humanity becomes...inhuman, your happyland scenario will not come to fruition.

Nothing will change until "us people" keep insisting that such things become real world applications.

I recently saw a history channel documentary on MS-13 and I would definitely feel safer with an AR-15 at my disposal. Absolutely brutal people...

Someone should design a flier.

Tsurayu, I'd also like to add that your willingness to walk all over the fourteenth amendment just to work down the second really speaks to your character.

Not really, I don't think of guns as a civil right or a personal liberty. If you put it that way, then no one could ever make amendments to the constitution because it jeopardizes the Fourteenth Amendment's standing.

It isn't as though that amendment in infallible. Really it should be redefined. It says a lot, yet really doesn't mean anything either. Old and outdated while often taken out of context.

As for my character, I could say the same about people who want to carry guns around.

That we desire the right to protect ourselves from assault and robbery...

Yeah, if not wanting to make myself a doormat to criminals makes me a bad person in your eyes, then so be it. Just remember, there is alot of truth in the adage; "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

Plus, Warren vs. DC ruled that police have no obligation to protect the public (let alone be actually accountable for their actions), merely to enforce the laws. So they have no obligation to interrupt a murder in progress, just to catch and jail the person who did the murdering after the fact.

There alone is reason enough to arm oneself.

Meh, to be honest I don't trust the police department either, but that doesn't mean I think people should take justice into their own hands. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" isn't exactly my policy, but that's a different topic altogether.

Perhaps I'll feel differently when and if my possessions and/or life is in imminent danger, but until then I stand by what I feel.

Revenge is not why most people buy guns. It isn't justice in our own hands. It is defending oneself, one's familliars, and one's property from theft and/or harm. By far most of the time firearms are not even discharged, the presentation of force is enough to deter a would-be mugger/rapist/home-invader.

So if you don't trust the police...and you aren't willing to purchase a means to defend yourself/your loved-ones...d'you just get off from being vulnerable?

And that's really smart too; "Oh maybe when I'm faced with the armed intruder/thug gang, then I'll think guns are okay." ...... Expecting a gun shop to pop-up out of nowhere? And in a WROL (without rule of law) scenario...all the gun stores are going to be either closed or cleaned-out. Not leaving yourself with much option here man...

That's no excuse. That's like saying "Oh I own this biological weapon, but I promise I'll never use it." That certainly doesn't make owning a gun right (well to me anyway, but whatever.)

I don't plan on being in that situation. I don't trust the police for different reasons. I trust them enough to be capable of being helpful and protecting others, but I also trust them to be power-hungry dumbasses as well.

And I didn't mean it like that. I meant that if I'm not faced with that danger then I have no reason to feel differently. If I die as a result of my ignorance than so be it. I don't expect a miracle that would save me.

You know, if a dictator has control of the military, there's little mere civilians can do to stop them. Civilians don't have tanks or bombers after all. So really, all a person in a position of power has to do is decide to be a dictator and maybe persuade other powerful people, and civilians can't do a thing.


The problem is that a gun only helps if you can use before your foe can. Your gun is meaningless if you're shot when you're asleep. People who rob generally want cash and want it fast. If they have a gun, they are more likely to use it if you try to retaliate. Not to mention that there's a number of criminals who do drugs and will have quite the trigger finger. On the flip side, robbers are generally cowards and will start running at the first sign of danger. It comes down to "Is the increased risk worth it?"

It isn't the pinnacle of idealism, just your idealism. I own several guns. I don't think I need them for protection, and I am not going to fight in a milita. However, I want them, and what right is it for someone to take them away from me? Why can't I go out hunting for sport, or go to the shooting range for fun?

The only time you hear about guns being used in in war and in crimes. But the majority of guns being used is just for sport. This isn't elementary school where the one kid gets the whole class in trouble for being bad. Just because some people can't use them responsibly, it doesn't mean people like Bloomberg should have the right to take them away from the 99% percent of us that are responsible.