• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

The FBI knows where they are coming from. the single largest source are gun owners within New York State. Pretty pathetic when the mayor of NYC feels like he needs to travel to Arizona to make a pathetic point when all he has to to is travel to Albany.

How do you know that? Are you in the FBI? I checked it isn't on their web site that's for sure.
 
There are several things wrong with what Bloomberg did here, not the least of which was to send NYC law enforcement into another state's jurisdiction without coordination, or even infoming them that they were there. Then there is the state and federal gun laws that now already exist that these idiots broke. Then, there is the fact that Bloomberg is a damned mayor, not the exhaulted supreme ruler of every place in America. His foray into this head long was a massive blunder, and highlights liberals arrogance in what they believe is proper use of authority, and power.


The sad thing is that New York City is so predominantly populated by Thunderously-stupid people that Bloomberg's corrupt antics will probably help get him reelected.
 
How do you know that? Are you in the FBI? I checked it isn't on their web site that's for sure.
I posted the article from the NYT with the BATF (corrected...BATF and DoJ...not the FBI) data included. Read back a half a page. Its on the same link where mayor Bloomberg addressed the media ADMITTING that the sale was not illegal.
 
Last edited:
There are several things wrong with what Bloomberg did here, not the least of which was to send NYC law enforcement into another state's jurisdiction without coordination, or even infoming them that they were there. Then there is the state and federal gun laws that now already exist that these idiots broke. Then, there is the fact that Bloomberg is a damned mayor, not the exhaulted supreme ruler of every place in America. His foray into this head long was a massive blunder, and highlights liberals arrogance in what they believe is proper use of authority, and power.


j-mac

Funny I thought it highlighted the sorry state of gun control in this country, especially at "Gun Shows". That couldn't be the REAL reason you object, could it? Surely you don't approve of the behavior of those gun sellers so why would you object to any means that may correct the problem? Stings are the brread and butter of law enforcement nationwide, would you want them outlawed?
 
Last edited:
If the guns are comming from somewhere else you are suggesting they don't have a right much less a duty to establish where they are comming from? That makes no sense.


The 2nd amendment says shall not infringe. Its none of the New York city's mayor what constitutional rights someone chooses to exercise,especially in another state.
 
The 2nd amendment says shall not infringe. Its none of the New York city's mayor what constitutional rights someone chooses to exercise,especially in another state.

Oh so my right to own Ryder truck filled with c4 shouldn't be infringed?
 
You:







You:







"well Regulated" isn't what you stated, you can come up with a dumb "they say" retort, but it's wrong. Your continued arrogance and willful ignorance is on full display, like a peackock in full plumage!






Only you disagree, because well, you are being dishonest. Feel free to provide evidence other than a snotty "cause I posted it" type of response, I mean really boo, if you are going to act this way, you should at least, not lie, and proffer up a little evidence.....


My car is here, we are off to the game, I am sorry you chose to stick to your guns with this dishonest argument, but that call is yours. It's transparent to all but one. You have a nice day,

rev, that's only part of what I stated. Argument have to read in their entirity to be understood. When you slectively pick part of it, ignoring the context and the rest of it, it is you who are trying to obscure the argument. I'm sorry, but that is the way it is. I know people disagree concerning the words well regulated. But the point is, it doesn't matter, as the fact is they are regulated and the courts have upheld them being so. Now, you can continue to obfuscate, your word, or you can address the point. I've been around you long enough to have a fair idea what your choice will be, but the point is still that they are regulated, even if the interpretation of the words well regulated is wrong.

:coffeepap
 
The amendment starts out with A well regulated Militia. Not a well regulated people's right to keep and bear arms.The militia is the only part that can be well regulated., not the peoples right to keep and bear arms. These are separate rights. Just like religion,free speech,freedom of assembly, are all separate rights in the first amendment. What you are doing amounts to someone saying the 1st amendment says "peaceful", you speech can have anything violent in it.

Just as I point out to rev, it doesn't matter. They are regulated,and this has been upheld. And even free speech has limits. Yell fire in a crowded theater for example. Do you deny that wepaons are regulated, and that the courts have allowed this?
 
Oh so my right to own Ryder truck filled with c4 shouldn't be infringed?


You do not have a constitutional right to own a vehicle.
 
Just as I point out to rev, it doesn't matter.
Actually it does matter.A well regulated militia is a well regulated militia. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a totally separate right. So it is blatantly dishonest to say the first words in the 2nd amendment is "a well regulated" as though it applied to the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
 
Actually it does matter.A well regulated militia is a well regulated militia. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a totally separate right. So it is blatantly dishonest to say the first words in the 2nd amendment is "a well regulated" as though it applied to the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
I'll stand by Ted's perspective on the matter...
 
This is nothing new. Bloomberg and his cronies have done this before in several different places, if I understand it correctly. Bloomberg is one of the biggest anti-gun politicians in the United States and has been for years. Nothing will come of this except that he gets a little bit of press for himeslf (I'm assuming it's an election year), and everyone forgets about it in two weeks.
 
Do I have a right to fill it with a Uranium dirty bomb?
did you find that link yet? Did you read where New York state is the SINGLE LARGEST provider of illegal firearms being seized in New York city?
 
did you find that link yet? Did you read where New York state is the SINGLE LARGEST provider of illegal firearms being seized in New York city?

Oh I'm sorry I wasn't looking for one. Why are you so butt hurt that hillbillies and gang members got busted selling guns to people they shouldn't have at gun shows?
 
Actually it does matter.A well regulated militia is a well regulated militia. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a totally separate right. So it is blatantly dishonest to say the first words in the 2nd amendment is "a well regulated" as though it applied to the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

It would not be in the amendment if it had not meaning (I do think it is poorly worded). Now, it is true people disagree on the meaning. I accept that. But the fact remains, they are regulated, and the courts have upheld the idea of regulating.
 
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't looking for one. Why are you so butt hurt that hillbillies and gang members got busted selling guns to people they shouldn't have at gun shows?
I take it that you DID then find it and realize how stupid your position is so you simply retreated. Probably the smartest thing you have ever done.

And if you saw that first post you would see very clearly where 1-I stated i have no problem with busting people selling guns illegally and 2-Bloomberg admitted...they did nothing wrong or illegal. Bottom line...maybe Mikey ought to worry about his own kid ****ting in his backyard swimming pool before he worries about someone pissing in a river two counties away.
 
If the guns are comming from somewhere else you are suggesting they don't have a right much less a duty to establish where they are comming from? That makes no sense.

Aw Bull ****! You don't establish anything by going out like you have authority anywhere in the nation. This is what cooperation is all about...If Bloomberg has reason to believe that guns from Arizona are being used in NYC to commit crimes, then he needs to bring in AZ, and Federal authorities on the issue. NOT conduct a dishonest smear campaign on another state because he doesn't like their laws.


j-mac
 
Aw Bull ****! You don't establish anything by going out like you have authority anywhere in the nation. This is what cooperation is all about...If Bloomberg has reason to believe that guns from Arizona are being used in NYC to commit crimes, then he needs to bring in AZ, and Federal authorities on the issue. NOT conduct a dishonest smear campaign on another state because he doesn't like their laws.


j-mac

I don't disagree that he was out of his jurisdiction, but I also believe there is a legal process to deal with this. if AZ really didn't approve of this, I suspect it will come back on Bloomburg, or it was only show with nothing really happening.
 
It would not be in the amendment if it had not meaning (I do think it is poorly worded). Now, it is true people disagree on the meaning. I accept that. But the fact remains, they are regulated, and the courts have upheld the idea of regulating.


I don't think there is anyone including responsible firearms owners including myself that would say that regulation on guns is all together a bad thing as a blanket statement like you are trying to portray here Joe. But, there is such a thing as 'over regulation' to the point of infringement also. So let's take a look at the actual sentence in question shall we? And remember punctuation matters.

the US Constitution said:
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

If you will notice the comma's in this sentence, notating a break in the thought for a purpose.

First part: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Meaning that the founders saw the need for an actual standing army, regulated, and uniform as being necessary to remaining free.

Second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Denoting also that the people had the right to own, and on occasion as needed bear their own firearms.

Lastly: "shall not be infringed."

Notice the wording here, it isn't vague at all. Shall not is pretty clear. So while I can agree that some regulation of gun ownership is absolutely necessary in today's society, such as in the case of felon's, registration, and so forth. I do not get your particular misunderstanding of such a clear, and easy amendment of our constitution.

j-mac
 
The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.

More idiocy in that claim the ability to regulate that dishonest or cowardly judges discuss comes from the COMMERCE CLAUSE

try again your analysis is without any credibility
 
Oh so my right to own Ryder truck filled with c4 shouldn't be infringed?
that is not an "Arm" within the meaning of the second amendment. Try again
 
I don't disagree that he was out of his jurisdiction, but I also believe there is a legal process to deal with this. if AZ really didn't approve of this, I suspect it will come back on Bloomburg, or it was only show with nothing really happening.


It was absolutely a stunt by Bloomberg, and a dishonest one to boot. And I can't speak for the AZ AG, or Gov. but if I were them, I'd file suit against the city of NY, and Bloomberg for what ever they can throw at them, and cost them a bundle, then I would call Dumb ass Bloomberg, and tell him if he EVER tries to pull this again, and they are caught, that his henchmen will be arrested on the spot and charged to the fullest extent of the law.


j-mac
 
Why is New York wrong? Guns purchased in States with lax laws end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them in NY and are used in crimes against NY citizens. Seems rational to try and put a stop to it.


MOre silliness. its already illegal to do all of that
 
Back
Top Bottom