Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Gun Control - Equal protection under the law and Michael Bloomberg?

  1. #1

    Question Gun Control - Equal protection under the law and Michael Bloomberg?

    1. Is Michael Bloomberg deserving of special or equal protection under the gun control laws he pushed?

    2. Is Michael Bloomberg going to have special or equal protection under the new York City gun laws enacted before and during his time as Major?

  2. #2

    Default

    im not sure how bloombreg is doing it but my two cents. gun control is a myth. it can not be achieved in the USA no matter how many laws you make there will always be gun related crime the only thing your laws do is unarm the innocent and tip the power to the criminals. don't believe me go to LA California and southern Arizona. for every one legally owned firearm there are 3-4 unregistered/blackmarket firearms. just because you say NO GUNS criminals are still going to buy them and have access to them and with USA Bordering Mexico in as many states as we do thats alot of area that illegal firearms can enter the southwest and our border patrol isn't near large enough to handle the job of patrolling the border. Texas State Police actually have spent big $ on millitary grade weapons and boats just to keep the cartels out of texas.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    1. Is Michael Bloomberg deserving of special or equal protection under the gun control laws he pushed?

    2. Is Michael Bloomberg going to have special or equal protection under the new York City gun laws enacted before and during his time as Major?
    Assuming you are asking if he should receive armed protection, I would say yes. I'm going to be blunt here and state that as an elected official, or rather former elected official, he's a high profile individual and thus requires more protection that an average citizen. Secondly, this would be especially so during his tenure, as the ramifications would be more severe if he were killed than if a private citizen were killed. In short and whilst sounding rather callous, his life is more important than others.

    If I'm on the wrong track disregard this message entirely.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    Assuming you are asking if he should receive armed protection, I would say yes. I'm going to be blunt here and state that as an elected official, or rather former elected official, he's a high profile individual and thus requires more protection that an average citizen. Secondly, this would be especially so during his tenure, as the ramifications would be more severe if he were killed than if a private citizen were killed. In short and whilst sounding rather callous, his life is more important than others.

    If I'm on the wrong track disregard this message entirely.
    I agree. Compare the protection of US Senators and Representatives to that of the President. The President receives extreme personal security, as does his family, and that security continues even after he leaves office. Members of Congress? None. In spite of this, American Presidents have roughly a 10% assassination rate. I have no idea what the rate at which members of Congress are assassinated, but I can guarantee it's significantly less than 10%. That would be about 25 assassinations per year. On which note, if members of Congress start getting assassinated at a rate of 2/month, you can pretty well be they'll start to be afforded Presidential-levels of protection.

    And the point about the ramifications is also relevant. If a Senator is murdered, the Senate will still function. Losing one senator won't impact the ability of the rest of the senate to do its job (insert jokes here). The death of the President, by contrast, would cause major upheaval through the executive branch of the government.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    1. Is Michael Bloomberg deserving of special or equal protection under the gun control laws he pushed?
    I know nothing of the laws you're referring to, so bear with me.

    Are the gun laws he pushed limited to private gun ownership? If so, I don't see any reason they would apply. I'm assuming that his security detail are public employees, presumably a division of the NYPD.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by AEsahaettr View Post
    I agree. Compare the protection of US Senators and Representatives to that of the President. The President receives extreme personal security, as does his family, and that security continues even after he leaves office. Members of Congress? None. In spite of this, American Presidents have roughly a 10% assassination rate. I have no idea what the rate at which members of Congress are assassinated, but I can guarantee it's significantly less than 10%. That would be about 25 assassinations per year. On which note, if members of Congress start getting assassinated at a rate of 2/month, you can pretty well be they'll start to be afforded Presidential-levels of protection.

    And the point about the ramifications is also relevant. If a Senator is murdered, the Senate will still function. Losing one senator won't impact the ability of the rest of the senate to do its job (insert jokes here). The death of the President, by contrast, would cause major upheaval through the executive branch of the government.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, when Obama pledged to curb gun crime, the NRA ran a campaign with an ad that asked "are the president's children more important than yours"

    And in the grand scheme of things, one would say yes. Of course, to oneself, one's kids are the most important thing in the world. But objectively, not more than the presidents or the president himself. I'm kinda paraphrasing Charlie Brooker from this video, but I think he made a valid point nonetheless.

    A British Viewpoint on American Gun Control - YouTube

  6. #6

    Default

    In all reality I don't care what they think across the puddle. Or for that matter any where else in the world.
    This is my country. I fought for it. I bled for it. And the constitution is to be upheld at all costs. If you don't like it go somewhere else or change the constitution.

  7. #7

    Default

    The reason I am asking about Micheal Bloomberg is because, as a private citizen, he will be guarded by a private security detail paid 6 figures each by him to provide armed security in a city where private citizens basically cannot be armed. I understand police security details for threatened elected officials and former Presidents. Additionally, New York City Police Commisioners have been police guarded for a while after leaving office in the past. Publicly funded security for special instances are not in question. What is in question is private armed security purchased by the same person who forbid it for almost everyone else.

    The laws enacted in New York City have exceptions for a select few which is why I am asking if this is reasonable or hypocritical. For private citizens lawfully allowed to posses firearms, should not the Gun Control Laws apply equally to everyone? What make Michael Bloomberg so special that he should be exempted from the laws he pushes for the rest of America?

  8. #8

    Default

    I have a very sour opinion about Bloomberg but I'll leave it at that. While he gets to strut around with his armed security detail, the common citizen in NYC has to rely on the police for their safety. I'm glad I live in a place where I can legally be responsible for my own security. What makes a politician any more important than the next Joe Blow on the street? Just because he or she wears a fancy suit and tie, and writes words on a piece of paper and calling it law, suddenly they have the right to armed protection while nobody else does? Its obvious these politicians are scared which is why they need armed guards 24/7 because they're too much of a pussy to protect themselves. Yes there are a lot of pissed off people who would love to get at them and rightfully so. They have no choice but to have armed guards if they want to stay in power. The Chinese dictator Mao Tse Tung said it best "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun." Without the threat of deadly violence held by the state, they would have no power.

  9. #9

    Default

    New York City has very strict gun control laws. I believe being caught with a gun is an at least, one year in jail sentence. In that regard, I'm glad I live in Virginia where I can protect myself and my family. The sad truth as I see it is that extreme gun control, not allowing law abiding citizens to possess a gun, only arms the criminals and disarms the innocent.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlf View Post
    What makes a politician any more important than the next Joe Blow on the street?
    Let's take the extreme example, the death of the president at the hands of an assassin would have much greater repercussions than say a average citizen. Such as questions about the efficacy national security, external and internal terrorist cells. Secondly, he is a figurehead known around the world, his death would surely be felt on such a scale.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlf View Post
    Just because he or she wears a fancy suit and tie, and writes words on a piece of paper and calling it law
    Well yes, as above, his or her death has wider implications



    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlf View Post
    The Chinese dictator Mao Tse Tung said it best "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun." Without the threat of deadly violence held by the state, they would have no power.
    I don't know what relevance this has to the discussion at hand...

    Just to clarify, I'm completely in favour of people arming themselves for protection.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    What make Michael Bloomberg so special that he should be exempted from the laws he pushes for the rest of America?
    Probably because he isn't that popular?

Similar Threads

  1. Doubling up does not equal double performance
    By Soakingboy in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-Apr-2013, 06:43
  2. enjoyment/shame in equal measure?
    By beeeblebum in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2011, 09:45
  3. We're all equal, right?
    By d4l in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-Sep-2010, 04:14
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-Feb-2010, 04:10

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.