Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was not a bad answer. If you get 40-50 threats a day and you are running for president, you can hire trained professionals to protect you. He also said no one is going to take guns away.
How many times does this have to be said. You are correct, know one is going to take the guns away. Instead they will legislate them away...making anyone that doesn't hand them in a felon. Like one poster said above. The anti gun group just lacks critical thinking.
In the meantime. What are his plans to reduce inner city / rural slum violence and address mental health issues ?
Every citizen should have the right to protect themselves in the same manner as Mr. Bloomberg.
He isn't entitled or deserving of special rights just because he's a billionaire running for President.
Every citizen has that right to hire trained pros to protect them. Why do you feel you dont have that right?
As for those who prefer to carry in person, according to what he said, his gun control measures are already in the books (mentally ill, criminals and kids).
Why do you insist on fearing he would confiscate your guns?
Every citizen should have the right to protect themselves in the same manner as Mr. Bloomberg.
He isn't entitled or deserving of special rights just because he's a billionaire running for President.
Maybe if we didn't have more guns than people in this country, and maybe if we didn't have crazies who think they can just go around shooting people, then he wouldn't need protection.
Private citizens are still subject to the laws about selling to people who are barred from purchasing, so it doesn't really happen much.
There's not enough incentive to justify the risk.
And the laws that exempt private transfers exist for a reason.
So you can buy your kid a .22 for Christmas without doing a background check on him for example.
Buying your wife a revolver for personal protection.
Inheriting your Grandpa's WWII firearm collection.
All things that would place an undue burden and red tape upon law abiding citizens, but would do nothing to decrease gun violence by forcing background checks on them..
These are the vast majority of private transfers.
Bolded is not entirely true. It depends on the state. More than half of states require NOTHING on a private sale for any firearm. That includes Montana.
Wrong, you can buy guns online without a background check, even class 3 guns, and this is not even including the 10s of 1000s of guns that are listed in private online classified ads! (this is how I sold 5 handguns a few years ago). no background check, no paperwork of any kind, it was cash and carry.
Even class 3? Do you know how wrong and stupid that is?
You think criminals are suddenly going to stop selling to each other because ...."Oh Crap....now I have to do a background check on my criminal friend before I can sell him this stolen gun" ??
It might help if some gun owners would protect their stashes so they don't get stolen in the first place. Notice I said Some.
Wrong, you can buy guns online without a background check, even class 3 guns, and this is not even including the 10s of 1000s of guns that are listed in private online classified ads! (this is how I sold 5 handguns a few years ago). no background check, no paperwork of any kind, it was cash and carry.
Again...one cannot legally purchase a firearm online from an FFL and have it shipped to him . You are completely wrong.
The rest of your statement, is dependent on the states laws. Here in Michigan one cannot sell/transfer a handgun without going through an FFL (and getting a background check), CPL to CPL or CPL to purchase permit (which is a background check)
Maybe if we didn't have more guns than people in this country, and maybe if we didn't have crazies who think they can just go around shooting people, then he wouldn't need protection.
The guns don't talk people into killing...just in case you didn't know. The "crazies" on the other hand is the problem. Why not address that ? Isn't part of problem solving going to the root cause ?
Ahh, the old "gun show loop hole". In many if not most states, only long guns (rifles and shotguns) can be transferred privately. However, if either the seller or buyer is legally prohibited from owning a firearm, then they will go to jail for a long time if caught. The vast majority don't take that risk. Only hardened criminals do that.
In free states, long guns and handguns can be privately sold, in a face-to-face sale. Both the buyer and seller must reside in the state where the sale takes place.
I find it disingenuous when Bloomy talks about keeping felons from getting guns-while insisting on letting criminals run free, with no bail when caught. (TBH, the blood from this foolishness may be on the hands of Cuomo and de Blasio more than Bloomy)
40-50 threats a week. Sure, Bloomy, sure. Have the decency to tell the truth and admit you don't give a crap about the lives of the peasants.
Every citizen has that right to hire trained pros to protect them. Why do you feel you dont have that right?
As for those who prefer to carry in person, according to what he said, his gun control measures are already in the books (mentally ill, criminals and kids).
Why do you insist on fearing he would confiscate your guns?
The "trained pros" he hired have access to weapons and magazines that the Left and Mr. Bloomberg wants to ban.
Every citizen should have access to the same weapons/magazines etc.
And it''s not a fear of confiscation as much as a legislating out of existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.