TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote: I believe if it is a shooting attack, Bloomberg should be arrested and face criminal charges because as Mayor he disarmed everyone and prevented them from defending themselves.

Not to defend Bloomberg, but the Sullivan Act was passed over 100 years ago.

CleverNickname wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: I believe if it is a shooting attack, Bloomberg should be arrested and face criminal charges because as Mayor he disarmed everyone and prevented them from defending themselves.

Not to defend Bloomberg, but the Sullivan Act was passed over 100 years ago.

Another example of a law that targeted a minority, in this instance Italians, that wound up infringing the rights of all. The anti-immigrant rhetoric of the day made it clear that the Police would deny the immigrant applications and approve those of "Real Americans".
The first prosecution was an Italian immigrant, Marino Rossi. Upon his conviction the New York Times opined that "this warning to the Italian community is both timely and exemplary." Statistics compiled by Myles Kelleher and published in his book "Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities" showed that after the act passed, murders committed with guns in New York City rose by 18 percent.

Dadtodabone wrote:<SNIP> Statistics compiled by Myles Kelleher and published in his book "Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities" showed that after the act passed, murders committed with guns in New York City rose by 18 percent.

Not surprising, increase gun control laws, increase violent crime. That's the formula isn't it?

CleverNickname wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: I believe if it is a shooting attack, Bloomberg should be arrested and face criminal charges because as Mayor he disarmed everyone and prevented them from defending themselves.

Not to defend Bloomberg, but the Sullivan Act was passed over 100 years ago.

How many years was Michael Bloomberg Mayor (12 years)? He went well beyond his duties as mayor in attempting to ban guns. On his accord he established “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” as a tool to further his personal agenda in spite of the Second Amendment.

Qualified immunity protects government employees for things they during the performance of their job. I submit that it was not part of his job to disarm New York and the United States while breaking the law in doing so.

That arrogant elitist made it so difficult for people in New York to own a gun that he has left them defenseless in the event of a shooting attack by terrorists. I’d like to see him try to make a case that it was part of his duty as mayor.

I would like to see him convicted on criminal charges then sued into bankruptcy.

"On the video, Farah Shirdon — also called Abu Usamah Somali — said: “[We] will make some attacks in New York soon,” VICE News reported. “A lot of brothers there are mobilizing right now. … Mobilizing for a brilliant attack, my friend.”"

Mr. Shirdon also had a message for President Obama: “I hope Barack Obama listens to this message. I swear you infidel, I swear to almighty Allah, we will fight you until the end.”

I wonder if they mention New York because they know the people don't have guns?

VoiceofReason wrote:<SNIP>

"On the video, Farah Shirdon — also called Abu Usamah Somali — said: “[We] will make some attacks in New York soon,” VICE News reported. “A lot of brothers there are mobilizing right now. … Mobilizing for a brilliant attack, my friend.”"

Mr. Shirdon also had a message for President Obama: “I hope Barack Obama listens to this message. I swear you infidel, I swear to almighty Allah, we will fight you until the end.”

I wonder if they mention New York because they know the people don't have guns?

You didn't hear him say, "We will make attacks in Texas soon," did you?

Do you think they are actually going to tell us when an where they are going to attack? By making these threats, they accomplish their goal without doing anything.

When they do attack, it will not be what or where they warned about. Just my $.02!

Mel wrote:Do you think they are actually going to tell us when an where they are going to attack? By making these threats, they accomplish their goal without doing anything.

When they do attack, it will not be what or where they warned about. Just my $.02!

No Sir, I don't, but I do think the greater percentage of it being somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago or D.C. is better than someplace like Texas, Arizona or another "gun-friendly" state. IMHO. Let me add, this does not make me let my guard down any less than if I was in say...New York.

I also wouldn't tell a stranger I met in a bar that I was carrying.

mojo84 wrote:I also wouldn't tell a stranger I met in a bar that I was carrying.

There you go. Or that I even had a CHL. The other guy may have said it first, but just because he shared doesn't mean I'm also going to share.

C-dub wrote:That was my point. This time it really was Bush's fault, or at least it began under his watch, but it continues under BO. Many good and bad things Bush started have continued under BO.

I don't care where it started. Obama and his appointees have had 6 years to modify or change the rules and have made no attempt to do so. They have even pushed to make it worse. In the first year or two, you might give the guy in charge some leeway, but after that, he is the one in charge.

jmra wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Yet another great reason to stay away from there.

or any other large city.

If there is any justice they will attack New Jersey. It might cause a sea change in that states attitude toward self defense.