Online users
???: Message   

The ipstinkingness of Bloomie, et al -
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/04/2020, 11:23:56

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Candidate Bloomberg Says He Wants to Take Away Americans' Guns

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
5-7 minutes

At a campaign stop in Montgomery, Alabama, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told the crowd that he did not want the average person in America owning and using weapons.

In response to a question about Jack Wilson, the man in the congregation of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, who shot and killed an armed assailant who threatened the lives of over 200 congregants, Bloomberg said: “It’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and decide when to shoot. We just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

So, billionaire Michael Bloomberg — who himself is protected by armed guards — pretends that his support of gun control is about saving lives, but when confronted with the irrefutable fact that a civilian with his own weapon saved over 200 lives, Bloomberg is forced to reveal his true agenda: disarming the people of the United States.

That’s right. Gun control is all about control. And it isn’t even about controlling guns, it’s about controlling who gets to use them.

In Michael Bloomberg’s world, he and his fellow statists will decide who can and cannot possess a firearm, and he has now made it very clear that if you are an “average citizen” you would not make the cut.

This is the reality in which we live. We have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbidding the federal government from infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, yet national leaders of both parties have infringed on that right for decades.

The events at the West Freeway Church of Christ make it evident to anyone of sound and impartial mind that true safety is only found in a society of armed men. The simple fact is that there will always be mentally ill or angry, uncaring men or women who will not be dissuaded by law or logic from murdering their fellow beings in cold blood. Therefore, if the innocent are to have any chance of being protected from armed sociopaths, there must be good men who will use their weapons only in defense of the otherwise defenseless.

The saddest part about that previous paragraph is that Michael Bloomberg and all the other anti-gun activists know that it’s true. They know for a fact that a disarmed people is a vulnerable people, and they don’t care. Why?

They don’t care because they’ve all read Tyranny for Dummies and they know that Chapter 1 is called “Get Control of the Education” and Chapter 2 is “Disarm the People.” Of course, the first paragraph in Chapter 2 explains how the easiest way to accomplish this otherwise impossible feat is to create some danger — foreign is best, but domestic will do — and convince the people that they will only be safe once guns are “out of the hands of crazy people.”

Bloomberg and all those working to use “law” and regulations to wrest weapons out of the hands of “average citizens” know that there is no law, regulation, or executive order that could ever dissuade someone from committing murder in cold blood. The very premise is laughable. Such acts are the result of mental instability and are the product of a perversion of purpose inscrutable to most regular folk.

Moreover, even the most discerning minds in the fields of medicine and psychology are now, and are likely to remain, woefully ignorant of the vortex of abnormalities that combine in one's mind to produce such anti-social behavior. Inside every cranium there is a universe, and no explorer has successfully navigated the myriad spheres of influence that orbit therein. While the attempt is noble, the presumption that there are explanations to be found in this or that shooter’s mad scribblings or self-aggrandizing videos is naive at best and purposefully misleading at worst.

Furthermore, even if scientists could map the mind, there is no constitutional authority given to the federal government to restrict purchase of firearms, ammunition, or component parts. In fact, as I stated above, the Second Amendment explicitly proscribes any such attempt.

Temperate appeals to right reason will instruct the thoughtful person that a propensity for such an act is not born of opportunity, but of instability.

Let us not dishonor the memory of those killed and of the massacre of children (or any person) by allowing congressmen, judges, presidents, or those such as Michael Bloomberg, spending billions to become president, to take away the right that protects enjoyment of all the others: the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of one’s life, one’s liberty, and one’s property.

I will close with this warning penned in 1803 by Founding Era jurist and Revolutionary War hero, St. George Tucker:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

We would do well to resist any all attempts “under any color or pretext whatsoever” by politicians — those in office and those trying to get there — to restrict our right to buy, sell, own, and use firearms, for if we do not resist, then our liberty may be, as Tucker warned, on the brink of destruction.

Image of Michael Bloomberg: Screenshot of


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message