Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massive gun control march across the Brooklyn Bridge planned
CSM ^ | June 16, 2014 | Jonathan Lemire

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 ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: antigunners; bloomberg; guncontrol; nyc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: Citizen Zed

( homicide + accident + suicide = self defense)

(U.S. SUPREME COURT SILENTLY STRIPS INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! GUN CONTROL IS THE ISSUE AS WE ARE BEING LED INTO THE GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP - Part 2 of 2)

21 posted on 06/14/2014 8:42:40 AM PDT by yoe (I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

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.


22 posted on 06/14/2014 8:43:15 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Worked so well for the cartels and the people of Mexico who are not allowed guns.
Made the violence just go away, right? NOPE!


23 posted on 06/14/2014 8:43:41 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

The word is out to all the muggers and knockout-players; a huge group of unarmed citizens will be easy pickin’s for them!


24 posted on 06/14/2014 8:46:02 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed
Hundreds? This is massive? You can have hundreds at an average church picnic. Talk about hyperbole.
25 posted on 06/14/2014 8:46:30 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne ("How long, O Lord, holy and true?" - Rev. 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

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.


26 posted on 06/14/2014 9:02:39 AM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Absolutely. That would definitely work. /s

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.

27 posted on 06/14/2014 9:03:26 AM PDT by lcms rev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lcms rev

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.


28 posted on 06/14/2014 9:05:49 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

The monks don’t do that anymore. They figure buying Democrat politicians like Al Gore gets better results.


29 posted on 06/14/2014 9:09:33 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

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.


30 posted on 06/14/2014 9:11:06 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Pretty lame..
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.......


31 posted on 06/14/2014 9:15:23 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (I am an American Not a Republican or a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed
And if by alien life on other planets chances they get those laws they
want it will not be enough and they'll demand more. Then they'll come after
the 1st Amendment. The mindless idiots will then realize that the 2nd protects the 1st.
And the Gov will not let them demonstrate unless it supports their agenda.

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.

32 posted on 06/14/2014 9:16:48 AM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

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.


33 posted on 06/14/2014 9:30:31 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

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.


34 posted on 06/14/2014 9:32:27 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Hundred Man March?


35 posted on 06/14/2014 9:32:53 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Keep truly dangerous felons locked up.

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.

36 posted on 06/14/2014 9:34:54 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
And which agency of the government do you think should be given the great responsibility and authority of deciding who is "truly dangerous?"

What kind of brain damage does it take for FReepers to struggle with simple questions? If you think there's some kind of ambiguity over issues like rape or murder, maybe you should give your guns to someone who can be trusted with them.
37 posted on 06/14/2014 9:39:07 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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.


38 posted on 06/14/2014 9:49:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

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


39 posted on 06/14/2014 9:53:23 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
You don't seem to understand what Sherman is talking about or what I'm talking about, so let me make it a little clearer for you.

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.

40 posted on 06/14/2014 9:56:57 AM PDT by lcms rev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson