Skip to comments.Massive gun control march across the Brooklyn Bridge planned
Posted on 06/14/2014 8:16:36 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Hundreds of demonstrators are expected to march across the Brooklyn Bridge to call for tougher gun control laws.
Saturday's demonstration, which comes after a wave of mass shootings across the US, is being underwritten by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most visible gun control advocates.
The marchers who will include relatives of some of those slain in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting will gather in downtown Brooklyn and then march across the bridge to City Hall. They will then hold a demonstration outside the building's gates and chant "Not one more," the rallying cry uttered by Richard Martinez, whose son Christopher was shot to death in Santa Barbara, California, last month, according to organizers.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.csmonitor.com ...
how much is this stunt going to cost ?
I had a neighbor as a kid who jumped off that bridge and survived. Wonder if any of these will try the same.
Astroturf ‘grassroots’. All hat and no cattle.......it’s how the Dems roll!
“Hundreds” in NYC does not equal “Massive.”
Plus, it is NYC. What would one expect? The city’s leaders are broadly anti-gun, anti-constitution, especially the resident socialist mayor.
Gotta love the stupid names of Bloomberg’s “grass roots” orgs
In the first place, ‘hundreds’ is not ‘massive’.
In the second place, why do they demonstrate in a city where guns are illegal?
I’d much rather confront them on my home ground.
why can’t they do like the Buddhist monks did in Vietnam and protest by burning themselves to death...would show more conviction of beliefs.
Bloomberg to set the example.
No thanks. Too much risk of the government classifying whatever they find threatening to their desire to expand their power as "crazy."
Please to not insult our dear Fascist Bloomberg.
Not his fault he is a self-centered, “money gives me brains”, wannabe Pol Pot type tyrant.
Sun spots Bushes fault too.
(need to fart...also Bush’es fault)
Zombies are on the move
I’ve been thinking about the problem of mentally ill people with guns.
Maybe a small ankle bracelet that works in conjunction with a sensor near the cash register in gun shops. Something very short range (6 to 10 feet maybe) Just to alert the cashier.
Obviously it wouldn’t solve the whole problem since many mentally ill people kill with means other than guns or they don’t always buy from gun stores.
As far as felons are concerned, Keep truly dangerous felons locked up.
They have more people waiting in line for iPods.
But way to tell some drudged-up loon with a mental illness (which all of those shooters seem to be), where a huge mass of unarmed people are going to be.
Where a million 2nd Amendment folks should be waiting for them.
maybe some will jump, others will naturally follow, and thin the herd
Why don’t we really see how brave they are when the bridge is declared a no-gun zone.
No Bloomberg no Deblasio...guess it’s not REALLY all that important to them, besides they have a few hundred sheep to do it for em, and yes pimp the Hollywood morons too.
Must be anticlimactic though once they reach...city hall?
what a joke
“How ‘bout we do a better check for crazy”
Communists would like that. They’re fond of declaring their opponents “crazy” and incarcerating them in mental hospitals. Long history of it; notice that our own Leftists have been heading in the same direction.
That million left the state.
I thought the bozos in New Yawk already had a bunch of “gun control.” What the hell are they whining about? It’s nice to see the Sandy Hookers still squeezing everything they can out of their 15 minutes.
Worked so well for the cartels and the people of Mexico who are not allowed guns.
Made the violence just go away, right? NOPE!
The word is out to all the muggers and knockout-players; a huge group of unarmed citizens will be easy pickin’s for them!
That is the darn truth!
Their timing is awful, we have ISIS claiming they intend to be in direct conflict with the U.S. I know, lets just wait until they get here and stand around defenseless, what a great idea! I know, I know, the LIV’s will want the government to protect them.
Branding "mentally ill" people like cattle with ankle bracelets is not going to solve anything. If anything, it will stigmatize mental illnesses even more than they already are. The solution is not to stigmatize mental illnesses; that will only make people less inclined to seek treatment.
If I were suffering from depression, I would be inclined to see a psychiatrist for help. However, considering that doctors are being told to ask their patients whether they own firearms, I would be a bit less inclined, just in case I accidentally let something slip and the cops come to break down my door and take away my guns for no other reason than because I told the psychiatrist I was depressed. Now you're suggesting that even if I don't say anything about owning guns, the psychiatrist should be required to pin me down and force me to wear an ankle bracelet declaring that I'm a "crazy"? Sure it's "Just to alert the cashier," but then you can't wear shorts again or it will be "just alerting everyone who happens to glance down at your ankle." And that's not just for those who are gun owners or want to be gun owners; it would have to affect every single person in the country who ever sees a psychiatrist for any reason. And if that were the case, then there's no way I--or anyone else for that matter--would ever even consider going to a psychiatrist.
And that's without even considering the fact that someone without the "scarlet letter" could just as easily walk into the store and buy a firearm for someone who has been unjustly labeled and stripped of their Second Amendment rights. Say that my wife were forced to wear that stupid ankle bracelet because she takes psychiatric medication. Say that I think it's stupid for her to be barred from having a gun for her own protection (I'll just come out and say it: I think it would be stupid for her to not be allowed to have a gun for her own protection, considering that she is NOT a danger to herself or others.). Now say that I go into a gun store and purchase a handgun. It is legally my gun since I'm the one who filled out the paperwork, but considering that we're married, we own everything in common, so it's just as much her gun as mine. And she's the one who carries it. The ankle bracelet didn't work. So now would you say that I should have to wear an ankle bracelet to let the cashier know that I live with someone who has a mental illness? Because if we're going to start playing that game, every single person in the country will be wearing an ankle bracelet within a year. To repeat: EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. IN. THE. COUNTRY!
Your father went to a treatment facility for alcoholism back before you were born? Sucks to be you. He now has a "mental illness" (alcoholism), and is barred from owning firearms. And since you might want to take him shooting with your guns one of these days, I guess you can't own any guns, either.
Your brother saw a psychiatrist three years ago? Too bad for you; he might come over to your house and find your gun.
Your grandmother has geriatric depression? No guns for you.
Your cousin was diagnosed with postpartum depression? Sorry, you can't have guns either, because you might give one to her.
Your daughter is seeing a counselor for help with depression resulting from bullying at school? She is too dangerous to be in the same zip code as a firearm, so you certainly can't own one!
Now, not only have you stigmatized mental illness to the point where no one will ever seek help again, you've given the government all the ammunition it needs to effectively eliminate a Constitutional right. Oh, and you personally have given up that right, too, because I bet you have at least 1 friend or relative who has seen a therapist, counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist, etc., at least once in their lifetime.
LOL I hope you didn’t waste too much time writing it because I don’t bother reading crap like that from people who prove their own instability in the first few sentences.
The monks don’t do that anymore. They figure buying Democrat politicians like Al Gore gets better results.
If the 6 dead adults at Sandy Hook could have a do-over, they would likely vote to have had their own gun to face Adam Lanza.
Instead of feeding Bloomberg’s ego you could actually try and do something to restore some morals and civility to our society which might actually save someone.
Until the toughest gun laws in the Nation (Chicago) actually reduce the number of murders in Chicago you do not have a leg to stand on...
Gun laws do not stop nuts from killing people.......
Oh, and how about that right to vote? Yes, they will eliminate that also
by installing the Dictatorship the Dems so desperately are working towards.
"Those People" have no idea what can of worms they're demanding to be opened.
If the Constitution is pushed to far a Civil war will happen.
Those sleeping giants are the American public, not our Government.
We are the Government, we are those sleeping Giants.
Those leaders will be crying in their closets when Americans come to hang them.
I was only a kid when I first saw the pictures of the monks on fire and felt really bad for them as I found out just before that what hemorrhoids are.
America would be better off without these commies.... Maybe the bridge will collapse. I have lost any empathy for these scum who feel they have the power to take away freedom. May they all rot in hades.
Hundred Man March?
And which agency of the government do you think should be given the great responsibility and authority of deciding who is "truly dangerous?"
More or less by definition, to prevent such attacks by loons, we would have to permanently lock up 10x or 100x or possibly 1000x that number of people who, left alone to mutter to themselves, would never have done such a thing. And then we will in all likelihood miss one of them and a mass murder occurs anyway.
Some the rhetoric used on FR would lead many people, especially liberals, to think the writers were dangerous and should be locked up.
Was looking at some statistics from Oz recently, where they haven't had a mass shooting since they put in drastic new gun control laws after the Hobart atrocity. The article was about mass murder in Oz, and it seemed to me that they'd had a lot of mass murder by arson since the new laws made guns largely unavailable.
Tried to find some way to compare mass murder by arson during this period between Oz and US, but was unsuccessful. If mass murder by arson went up in Oz while staying the same in US, all all Oz may have done is shift the methods, without saving actual lives.
Oz is much smaller than US, so one would expect fewer mass murders, by any means. Something that is often forgotten when discussing the number of mass murder incidents between the US and say, the Netherlands.
So you believe rapists and murderers should not be sentenced to a term of years in prison, but should be all given a default life sentence.
Would like to point out that this is quite different from our present practice and will require building much larger prisons.
Also, not everybody, perhaps not even most, convicted of a felony are particularly likely to commit another similar felony. So that gets us back to deciding which felons are “truly dangerous,” and I contend we don’t know how to make such distinctions accurately, and that giving the power to make such distinction to any group of humans is giving them too much power.
Sorry I’m just going to have to laugh at your absolutist stupidity themed strawmen.
Thank God the guy who ambushed firemen on Christmas 1n 2012 wasn’t given a life sentence for beating his grandmother to death in the 80s. He just needed another chance. LOL
Question: Who gets to define what a mental illness is? Who gets to define what a "truly dangerous criminal" is?
Answer: The government.
You may think that "truly dangerous" means rapists and murderers, and you would be right. But who's to say that the government won't expand that definition to include anyone who commits DUI? And then to include anyone who commits domestic abuse? And then to include anyone who has been accused of those things without ever being convicted? And then it could even include lesser crimes which are not violent by themselves but could somehow result in some sort of injury. And then it could even include those who never did anything, but merely "incited to violence" by posting pro-Second Amendment opinions online.
Your suggestions give far too much power to a government which has given us no reason to trust it.
Some days its like Thanksgiving with my liberal relatives around here.
So do you want ALL those convicted of serious felonies sentenced to life in prison or not?
If not, their term is going to end at some point and they’re going to be released.
And you call me absolutist. You’re the one claiming ALL dangerous felons should be locked up forever.
BTW, the Constitution prohibits us from doing that for anbdy already convicted, though we could change the law for those convicted in future.
For years the liberals lobbied to shut down insane asylums and release the inmates until they succeeded in turning them loose. Now we are reaping what they sowed.
“Ive been thinking about the problem of mentally ill people with guns.”
Me, too. There are far too many questions unanswered.
The biggest problem I see with this is WHO is going to define “mental illness”?
According to libs every gun-owner is mentally ill.
notice they march on safe streets. why not say ‘not one more’ in the heavy crime areas? why not confront the criminals carrying weapons they all know they have?
They could at least have had better security at Sandy hook. Someone to be on the lookout for crazy, and some one armed to respond to it - that’s what I meant.
Ive been thinking about the problem of mentally ill people with guns.
Me, too. There are far too many questions unanswered.
The biggest problem I see with this is WHO is going to define mental illness?
According to libs every gun-owner is mentally ill.
For me, this is the biggest issue of all.
For instance, cripplecreek is concerned with defining felons, right? We can all agree that pedophilia is a terrible thing. I’m pretty sure that we can all agree that statutory rape is a horrible felony. Statutory rape, in the cases of adults and young children, is driven by pedophilia.
Pedophilia is a mental illness. This is an indisputable fact. It also happens to be included as a mental illness in the APA’s DSM-IV.
Now, a funny thing about the APA. They are a bunch of liberals. And they are working to remove pedophilia as a mental disorder. Suddenly, something very wrong becomes “okay” because a bunch of liberals said it is.
This is the most important issue: THE LIBERALS ARE CURRENTLY THE ONES DECIDING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE MENTALLY ILL. They are trying to normalize pederasty. If they can do that, who’s to say that they won’t declare conservatism, or Christianity, or anything else like that a mental illness? Putting restrictions on mentally ill people is like handing the gun-grabbers a golden ticket to taking away the guns of ALL people, mentally ill or not.
LOL I hope you didnt waste too much time writing it because I dont bother reading crap like that from people who prove their own instability in the first few sentences.
People automatically assume that I mean a whole range and degree of mental illness. I don’t, I’m talking about serious mental illness like full on schizophrenia type mental illness. I’d like to see immediate family members have greater influence over making such determinations.
In the case of criminals, its a simple matter of putting some sense into trial and sentencing. Not everyone who commits an intentional act of murder necessarily deserves a life sentence but that’s what juries are supposed to be for. Other people are animals who have no place in society and never will. I have a cousin who got a “life” sentence for beating an old man to death with a baseball bat and my cousin will be out in about 10 more years. In my opinion he is the kind who should never get out. In another case we have a guy due for release this summer after nearly 50 years for the rape and murder of a 7 year old and 12 year old girl. He should never get out, I don’t care if he’s “cured” or served his time.
In the case of criminal negligence causing death or crimes of passion causing death, I wouldn’t be likely to give someone a life sentence for something they didn’t intend to do. Again this is something that can be handled with sensible juries and judges.
The simple fact is that background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All they do is record legal gun owners. We used to hand weapons back over to inmates upon release if the weapons were included in their property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.