• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Bloomberg: Ban guns that hold more than 3 rounds

If you wanna take on the US military in 2020, you'll need to have deep pockets to arm yourself adequately.

When it's been shown that in the last century Governments killed hundreds of MILLIONS of people, a huge portion of which were unarmed peoples, I'm just shocked at the stupid blind faith you would put in a Government. "Here you go, take all of our guns while you remain armed and make all of the laws! What could possibly go wrong?"

Just some thoughts I've posted before.

Professor R. J. Rummel discussed in his book, Death by Government:
  • governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone.
  • The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider "gun control" ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. "Gun control" laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively weak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

-------------------------------

Like I said, what could possibly go wrong?
 
Last edited:
obviously, by removing 2A, Tibs believes that his POTUS, Donald J Trump, would never attempt to become a tyrant, despite what he spouts on these here interweb pages

i-own-a-musket-for-home-defense-since-thats-what-31515402.png
 
If you wanna take on the US military in 2020, you'll need to have deep pockets to arm yourself adequately.

6bdbb4d1f1add4d1b4f6393742b88e34.jpg

Liberals trot out this idiotic trope as if it were never tested. Here, let me give you a couple of recent tests of your brilliant analysis:

  • Revolutionary War 1775-1783. Citizens beat the greatest army on the planet, founded something you may have heard of - the United States of America.
  • Vietnam. The United States at the height of the conflict had 600,000 troops in country, along with more than 10,000 aircraft, 250,000 mortars, etc. Result: Loss to a group of pajama-wearing nationals using outdated weaponry, but supported by the citizens. Oh, I guess that would never happen in the United States if our military attacked our citizens.
  • Afghanistan 1979-1989. Soviets had 100,000 troops in country, along with an estimated 500 fighter planes and bombers and hundreds of attack helicopters. The faced a ragged army with incredibly poor weaponry. Soviets would up controlling every major city and communications hub, the rebels the remaining 80% of the country. Rebels used guerilla tactics, bombs, and infilitrators into the Afghan army to kill the Soviets. Result: Loss by the 2nd best military in the world to a bunch of pajama-wearing rebels.
  • Afghanistan 2001-Present: United States repeats the exact same pattern detailed above. Lots of men and machines, controlled almost every major city by 2003, but the infiltrators, IED's, etc. have yielded the current **** sandwich. Result: Greatest military the planet has ever seen loses to pajama-wearing rebels.
  • Iraq 2003-Present: See above x 2.

Maybe the Pentagon should have our troops start wearing pajamas.

So to sum up, Tibs, your entire theme is bullshit, setting aside for the moment the fact that the military would NOT attack American citizens, and any President who ordered such attack would wind up being pulled out of a hole in the ground and hanged.
 
Last edited:
****, wasn't it Eric Swallowell that said he would use nukes on the citizenry.

He insists that he was just farting around.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eric Swalwell appears to drop a massive fart during live on television<br><br>Turn the sound on, this is real <a href="https://t.co/DyElNSwYog">pic.twitter.com/DyElNSwYog</a></p>— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1196593236392808448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Radio, television, internet, medically-induced abortions not in existence as of 1787, so why the hell does the 1st amendment protect political speech on radio, television, internet and why the hell does penumbral right of privacy extend to abortions?

Liberals on regulating speech and protecting the right to abortions: "The Constitution is a living, changing document."
Liberals on the 2nd amendment: "The Constitution does not protect any weapon developed after 1787 and should be read via strict construction!!"

If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.
 
obviously, by removing 2A, Tibs believes that his POTUS, Donald J Trump, would never attempt to become a tyrant, despite what he spouts on these here interweb pages

i-own-a-musket-for-home-defense-since-thats-what-31515402.png

Rapscallion karma.
 
Some Republican has to ball up and explain why the Second Amendment is there. It has nothing to do with hunting. Then the real debate can happen. Dancing around other reasons to justify it is counterproductive.
 
I'm for banning all firearms, besides muskets. Just like the founders intended, when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets would be readily available to anyone over 18 who can pass a background check. Hear ye, hear ye, muskets for all!


BlackEachIndigowingedparrot-small.gif

ban all forms of communication and free speech except those around when the Bill of Rights was created...
 
ban all forms of communication and free speech except those around when the Bill of Rights was created...

Tibs understanding of the Constitution belies the poliitcal indoctrination he received at the left wing propaganda factory where he as educated.
 
I have immediate family who have a civil war replica cannon. Its awesome.

That's great. I saw a bunch of them in Gettysburg last year. If I had one it would go right on my front porch, facing the street.
 
Bloomie is getting ***** slapped today. Now that he's made waves in the polls, people are digging up dirt. Looks like Mikey stepped in it not too long ago.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Share this far and wide. Unless the mainstream media picks it up, it will be isolated to twitter. <a href="https://t.co/Fm0YCi4ZRy">pic.twitter.com/Fm0YCi4ZRy</a></p>— Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1227067093692055553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Apparently Bloomberg tried to block this 2015 audio from release and it’s trending #1 today, primarily because he’s now polling 3rd nationally among Democrats. The knives are out.

“The way to get guns out of kids hands is to throw ‘em up against the wall and frisk them. These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed. So they just don’t have any longterm focus on anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

Michael Bloomberg representatives have asked the Aspen Institute not to distribute footage of his recent appearance in Aspen, where the three-term New York City mayor made pointed comments concerning minorities and gun control.

Both the Institute and GrassRoots TV, the organization that filmed the event, confirmed Thursday that they will not broadcast the footage online or on television as planned.

“We basically honor the wishes of our speakers, and Mayor Bloomberg preferred that we not use the video for broadcast,” the Institute’s chief external affairs officer Jim Spiegelman wrote in an email Friday. “He did not give a reason nor did we have any reason to ask for one. We often feature speakers who prefer that their presentations not be videotaped.”

EQdx8F3WoAImM5q

EQdx8F2XkAAYxZz

EQdx8F1WkAAtwV0

EQdx8F2XsAYEGGl
 
He insists that he was just farting around.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eric Swalwell appears to drop a massive fart during live on television<br><br>Turn the sound on, this is real <a href="https://t.co/DyElNSwYog">pic.twitter.com/DyElNSwYog</a></p>— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1196593236392808448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eric Swalwell appears to drop a massive fart during live on television<br><br>Turn the sound on, this is real <a href="https://t.co/DyElNSwYog">pic.twitter.com/DyElNSwYog</a></p>— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1196593236392808448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

They both have fart faces going on there.
 
Bloomie is getting ***** slapped today. Now that he's made waves in the polls, people are digging up dirt. Looks like Mikey stepped in it not too long ago.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Share this far and wide. Unless the mainstream media picks it up, it will be isolated to twitter. <a href="https://t.co/Fm0YCi4ZRy">pic.twitter.com/Fm0YCi4ZRy</a></p>— Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1227067093692055553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Apparently Bloomberg tried to block this 2015 audio from release and it’s trending #1 today, primarily because he’s now polling 3rd nationally among Democrats. The knives are out.

“The way to get guns out of kids hands is to throw ‘em up against the wall and frisk them. These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed. So they just don’t have any longterm focus on anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

Michael Bloomberg representatives have asked the Aspen Institute not to distribute footage of his recent appearance in Aspen, where the three-term New York City mayor made pointed comments concerning minorities and gun control.

Both the Institute and GrassRoots TV, the organization that filmed the event, confirmed Thursday that they will not broadcast the footage online or on television as planned.

“We basically honor the wishes of our speakers, and Mayor Bloomberg preferred that we not use the video for broadcast,” the Institute’s chief external affairs officer Jim Spiegelman wrote in an email Friday. “He did not give a reason nor did we have any reason to ask for one. We often feature speakers who prefer that their presentations not be videotaped.”
I don't think Bloomberg minds this getting out. He can have it both ways.

Gee, I wonder if the Aspen Institute would honor a similar request by Trump?
 
So, I'm still for the idea of banning all firearms and only allowing muskets to be owned by private citizens, in the spirit of the historical realities of the 2nd amendment when it was written. But as an added perk for the gun aficianados and pro-gun advocates out there, I think the feds should also look into allowing punt guns to be owned with a special permit. It would be limited to one musket and one punt gun per household, granted a rigorous background check is passed.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A punt gun; an extremely large shotgun used for duck hunting in the 19th and early 20th centuries. <a href="https://t.co/S5APkc9slt">pic.twitter.com/S5APkc9slt</a></p>— History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) <a href="https://twitter.com/historylvrsclub/status/1232611248547794944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>
 
Punt guns wiped out the passenger pigeon. That's why they were banned.
 
So, I'm still for the idea of banning all firearms and only allowing muskets to be owned by private citizens, in the spirit of the historical realities of the 2nd amendment when it was written. But as an added perk for the gun aficianados and pro-gun advocates out there, I think the feds should also look into allowing punt guns to be owned with a special permit. It would be limited to one musket and one punt gun per household, granted a rigorous background check is passed.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A punt gun; an extremely large shotgun used for duck hunting in the 19th and early 20th centuries. <a href="https://t.co/S5APkc9slt">pic.twitter.com/S5APkc9slt</a></p>— History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) <a href="https://twitter.com/historylvrsclub/status/1232611248547794944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

you know this argument is idiotic....why keep posting it
 
So, I'm still for the idea of banning all firearms and only allowing muskets to be owned by private citizens, in the spirit of the historical realities of the 2nd amendment when it was written. But as an added perk for the gun aficianados and pro-gun advocates out there, I think the feds should also look into allowing punt guns to be owned with a special permit. It would be limited to one musket and one punt gun per household, granted a rigorous background check is passed.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A punt gun; an extremely large shotgun used for duck hunting in the 19th and early 20th centuries. <a href="https://t.co/S5APkc9slt">pic.twitter.com/S5APkc9slt</a></p>— History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) <a href="https://twitter.com/historylvrsclub/status/1232611248547794944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

Honest question Tibs: So are you also for banning free speech on radios, televisions, telephones, and all types of digital media as the founders intended?
 
Just kidding around, fellas. Though that punt gun is pretty cool, could work well for home security, no?
 
Honest question Tibs: So are you also for banning free speech on radios, televisions, telephones, and all types of digital media as the founders intended?

And privacy rights, which did not exist as a Federally protected right until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1968. No privacy.

No privacy right means no right to medical privacy for abortions, so no Federal right to abortion.

Also, as of 1787, interstate commerce most certainly did NOT include automobiles, trucking, diesel trains, electric trains, or airplanes. Duh. So no Federal regulation of automobiles, trucks, diesel or electric powered trains (only steam driven), or aircraft, at all, since those things did not exist as of 1787.

Oh, and electrical generation, nuclear power, phone lines, power lines? No such thing as of 1787 so no Federal regulation, at all, of such items.

Radiation? Pffft. Madame Curie was not born yet, so no Federal regulation of radioactive emissions by x-ray machines (which did not exist), televisions, microwaves, indeed any electronic device. Hell, no regulation of any device using electricity since besides Ben Franklin, nobody used electricity as of 1787.

Tibs, should I go on??
 
Though that punt gun is pretty cool, could work well for home security, no?

I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but no, that would be a disaster for home security.
 
I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but no, that would be a disaster for home security.

I dunno, I could see one of these mounted on the front porch...


 
Top