Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bloomberg Making Sense: The NRA Would Defend Your Right To Own A Nuclear Cannon
Mediaite ^ | December 18, 2012 | Noah Rothman

Posted on 12/19/2012 9:00:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

By now, if you have been paying attention to the pronouncements of Hizzoner, you know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg really dislikes, among many other things, guns. He also appears to have engaged in a one-man crusade to convince politicians that, if the President of the United States can be reelected without the support of the National Rifle Association, so too can the most rural Congressman or Southern Senator. The logic of that belief is debatable, but what is not debatable is the logic that the NRA would go out of their way to defend the indefensible – even the personal ownership of a small cannon designed to fire nuclear-tipped artillery shells. Or, at least, so sayeth the mayor.

“The U.S. Army has a rifle — they call it a rifle, I would call it a cannon; it’s attached to the front of a tank or a moving vehicle,” Bloomberg said on Tuesday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC. “It shoots a nuclear warhead. The NRA would say, ‘Oh, that’s a gun. And people have a right to have that.’”

“Where is the limit here,” Bloomberg asked to co-host Mika Brzezinski as she nodded sagely in resigned disapproval.

I’m no expert on fire arms, but I would venture that “the limit” of what the NRA would defend in terms of an individual’s Second Amendment rights ends several miles before “nuclear cannon.” But we are now deep into the hyperbole phase of national tragedy – when those with axes to grind or pet projects to advance have already made their case many times over, and flail in search of new and more resonating arguments. Next, we enter the long-anticipated terrible analogy phase.

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloomberg; bonglist; guncontrol; idiot; looneylooneylooney; michaelbloomberg; nra; nuclearcannons; nyc; rifletanks; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
Video in original.
1 posted on 12/19/2012 9:00:59 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Living proof that money does not confer intelligence.
I wonder if he has ever actually been outside of NYC?

I just wish he’d leave the country and live somewhere else.


2 posted on 12/19/2012 9:03:37 PM PST by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084; Lazamataz; SheLion; Gabz; Hank Kerchief; 383rr; libertarian27; traviskicks; ...
Bloomberg Making Sense: The NRA Would Defend Your Right To Own A Nuclear Cannon

Mike Bloomberg is . . .

. . . and that's all, folks!

Nanny State PING!

3 posted on 12/19/2012 9:05:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Whats a Davy Crockett going for these days ... great conversation piece ... BTW Bloomberg is a “blooming idiot”


4 posted on 12/19/2012 9:06:22 PM PST by clamper1797 (I mourn for the America I grew up in ..fought for ..and loved ..July 4 1776- June 28 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084; Lazamataz; SheLion; Gabz; Hank Kerchief; 383rr; libertarian27; traviskicks; ...
Bloomberg Making Sense: The NRA Would Defend Your Right To Own A Nuclear Cannon

Mike Bloomberg is . . .

. . . and that's all, folks!

Nanny State PING!

5 posted on 12/19/2012 9:06:48 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

at least he didn’t threaten to kill anyone. yet.


6 posted on 12/19/2012 9:06:49 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The drawback of a nuclear cannon is that each one can only be used once.


7 posted on 12/19/2012 9:07:16 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The price alone is a deterrent for a nuclear cannon. Only the wealthy could afford one.

Back in DaVinci’s time, only the very wealthy could afford cannons or guns.........that’s why he was, among other things, a weapons designer....paid pretty well.......


8 posted on 12/19/2012 9:07:49 PM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

At a bare minimum people should have the right to bear the same arms as those they pay to keep law & order (the police). In England the cop doesn’t have a gun, and the subjects don’t either. In the US our cops are acting more as a paramilitary (helicopters, armored vehicles, and such); whatever they’re packing their employers (us, the taxpayers who pay them and buy their equipment) should have the right to pack as well.

Ayone who doesn’t understand why a government would want to disarm its citizenry really has their head up their arse; we were born of a revolt, and have never forgotten that.


9 posted on 12/19/2012 9:08:09 PM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The NRA would say, ‘Oh, that’s a gun. And people have a right to have that.’”

You aren't correct very often blooming idiot, but this time you hit the bullseye.

10 posted on 12/19/2012 9:08:09 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Wow. Bloomscum is not illiterate, so he knows what “arms” means. So he is using classic communist propaganda. What a shock. NOT.

BTW, I believe Letter of Marque are still good law (look it up). Of course obastard would never sign one, but if a Constitutionalist ever recaptued the White House (unlikely), wouldn’t that blow this statist’s gaskets...


11 posted on 12/19/2012 9:12:30 PM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“The U.S. Army has a rifle — they call it a rifle, I would call it a cannon

Technically, some cannons are still lawful to build and own without federal approval.

The federal government actually borrowed civilian owned cannons back when it was just barely started.

See letters of marque and reprisal in the Constitution.

/johnny

12 posted on 12/19/2012 9:12:42 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Doesn’t this guy have a disaster to clean up?


13 posted on 12/19/2012 9:13:01 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

Too bad that Asian fellow pushed in front of the train didn’t have a cannon; he could have at least hidden under the carriage while Obama’s son was ranting & raving (because everyone knows that the NYPD, which might give shoes to homeless people, won’t stop them from killing you for fear of losing their badges, pensions, and freedom).


14 posted on 12/19/2012 9:13:12 PM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Dear Mayor Bloomberg :

There is no safer person with whom to trust a “nuclear cannon” than little ol’ me. You, on the other hand, can’t even be trusted with a ball point pen. You’ve hurt more people with your signature than have ever been killed by “nuclear cannons.”

Sincerely,

piasa


15 posted on 12/19/2012 9:13:16 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Depleted uranium is a bit beyond his comprehension.


16 posted on 12/19/2012 9:14:53 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

Um, no. Cannons (nuke shells or not) are munitions. Riffles are arms. Big difference.


17 posted on 12/19/2012 9:15:32 PM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
New York City Mayor Moron Mike Bloomberg
18 posted on 12/19/2012 9:16:00 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I assume he just wants them to be under 16oz.


19 posted on 12/19/2012 9:16:03 PM PST by mykroar (BAD-ANON: One Game At A Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The NRA Would Defend Your Right To Own A Nuclear Cannon

As opposed to a commie, New York fag who won't defend a person's right to have a salt shaker or a Big Gulp. FUMB!

“The U.S. Army has a rifle — they call it a rifle, I would call it a cannon; it’s attached to the front of a tank or a moving vehicle,”

Sorry Mikey. I think you've got the U.S. Army confused with Mikey Dukakis. I've never heard of or seen a "rifle" attached to the front of a tank. You're right. You don't know anything about firearms.

20 posted on 12/19/2012 9:16:03 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (U.S. elections have become nothing but another cheap ripoff of American Idol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Bloomberg would make it illegal to have any rights, period, if he could, that good little commie that he is. He knows best what you need, screw thinking for yourself in his little demented world.


21 posted on 12/19/2012 9:17:51 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa

That is an insult to other morons! Bloomberg is several rungs further down the ladder, I think.


22 posted on 12/19/2012 9:20:33 PM PST by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
In England the cop doesn’t have a gun, and the subjects don’t either.

Have you been to London recently? The last time I visited (and this was before 9/11 here and 7/7 in London), the cops had guns and body armor.

23 posted on 12/19/2012 9:21:36 PM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

How do you “bear” a nuclear cannon?


24 posted on 12/19/2012 9:22:45 PM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

BTW, it would be a cold day in hell the day our mayor told me I couldn’t buy a certain size soft drink with my own money! In fact, there is no way he would even try that. He would be hanged by his balls downtown on the square by people much crazier than me. We don’t like being dictated to by some prissy little nanny stater.


25 posted on 12/19/2012 9:24:33 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Only if the nuclear cannon was less than 16 oz. and contained no transfat, because those kill.


26 posted on 12/19/2012 9:25:05 PM PST by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Um, no. Cannons (nuke shells or not) are munitions

Blooming idiot doesn't know that. The NRA does say that people have a right to own firearms, which was my point.

27 posted on 12/19/2012 9:31:31 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
What's the fuss? We took this snapshot at our last weekend backyard shoot.


28 posted on 12/19/2012 9:34:43 PM PST by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“Mike Bloomberg really dislikes, among many other things, guns.”

EXCEPT the ones his body guards carry.


29 posted on 12/19/2012 9:36:48 PM PST by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Cannon in the early colonies were sometimes owned by civilians. The early US government borrowed some, and conscripted some, and some ships during the Revolutionary War.

The founders didn't have a problem with citizens owning cannons. Those cannons are still legal to own under federal law today.

/johnny

30 posted on 12/19/2012 9:37:43 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Aw horseshit Bloomberg, you coward. Let’s see you dispatch your armed guards. You first, chickenshit!


31 posted on 12/19/2012 9:50:25 PM PST by glock rocks (Pro Deo et Constitutione - Libertas aut Mors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The drawback of a nuclear cannon is that each one can only be used once.

I think they have a six-shooter version of the nuke cannon... for those times where just one nuke won't cut it.

32 posted on 12/19/2012 9:57:51 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Waiting to get mine until I have my concealed carry permit...


33 posted on 12/19/2012 9:59:30 PM PST by 867V309
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Mister Bloomberg is lying, and is libeling and slandering all us NRA members, and this I believe is actionable.

I have never, ever known anyone who wants an atomic cannon.

Many existing laws would prevent such an ownership, and these happen to be good things.

History will view Bloomberg as a combination of desperate power mania with a side-show, grifter mentality.

I'm not an expert, but a thorough brain scan could be a valuable diagnostic tool for Mister Bloomberg.

.

34 posted on 12/19/2012 10:06:17 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Hyperbole gross exaggeration at it's best.
35 posted on 12/19/2012 10:14:20 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Bloomie saw an RPG once and his imagination has been running wild ever since.


36 posted on 12/19/2012 10:35:46 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner
Many existing laws would prevent such an ownership

No, they don't prevent it. They make it unlawful. Besides, it's easier federal time to have unlawful possession of a nuke, than to get caught with crack cocaine.

Look it up.

Laws don't prevent things. They put a price on things.

That's what happens when you base your government on the gang shakedown model.

/johnny

37 posted on 12/19/2012 10:46:36 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Sorry Mikey. I think you've got the U.S. Army confused with Mikey Dukakis. I've never heard of or seen a "rifle" attached to the front of a tank. You're right. You don't know anything about firearms.

The terms "rifle" or "cannon" are used to describe arms with rifled barrels (helical groovers inside the barrel) vs. smoothbore barrels, which are cannon.

I have seen 20-inch naval rifles (20 inch diameter, rifled bore) which many would call "cannons" and be wrong.

It is not at all uncommon for rifles to have 4" or 5" bores, and be 10+ feet in length. Some tanks mount rifles, some mount cannon.

38 posted on 12/19/2012 10:50:18 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Argus
You are off on a tangent leading nowhere. The complete term, 'keep and bear arms' has a very long history that goes WAY BACK ~ possibly to the dawn of time, and most likely to the dawn of Indo-European time at a minimum.

In the beginning there were two classes of people ~ the warriors who owned everything and everybody, including all the armaments, sharp sticks, knives, garottes, whatever. The other class consisted of everybody else. They had no rights.

Over time members of the under class were taken up into the ruling class as warriors themselves ~ possibly with a rank system.

When you entered that class you had the right to 'keep arms' ~ which included armor, a warhorse, a chariot, arms bearers, folks to tend to the manufacture of weapons (black smiths, sword makers, arrow makers, bow makers, etc.) .

That wasn't the end of things. The second half is 'bear arms' and that meant you can bear arms on your behalf, the benefit of your family, for your friends, for the neighbors, for your estates, for your liege lord, or cappo di tutti cappo, or other high noble, right on up to the king. You could walk out there with your sword, spears, bows, arrows, baggage trains, helpers, weapons makers, sword bearers, war horses, and USE THEM. Plus, being a gentleman and all you had the privilege of using the king's own courts of law to settle disputes ~ and the way higher nobles, like kings, enforced their decisions was through 'force of arms'. This one little tidbit ~ right to go to court, meant you could make criminal and civil charges against others ~ testify ~ maybe participate as a judge or as a baliff! Without that right to bear arms you couldn't go to court.

Jews living in early Medieval Christian or Islamic states around the Mediterranean had no right to keep and bear arms until about the 1700s when the king of France opened the ranks of his White Coats to Jewish soldiers. Actually, Jews had no military caste from some time in the 200s until well into the 1700s ~ it had to be rebuilt little by little, a right at a time, in baby steps ~ and those folks were well aware of what the right to keep and bear arms meant.

BTW, it doesn't mean just the right to carry around a weapon ~ you could have a ship of war, you could have a chariot and war horses ~ you certainly wouldn't tote them on your back, but if you had no right to a chariot and war horses they'd probably hunt you down and slaughter you should you show up with such a thing!

Those who know their European and Middle Eastern history can read through the Constitution and pick out every last single item that was, at one time or the other, a 'privilege' of the nobility!

Those who were not nobles had no 'privilege'. With the United States of America we had a novus ordo seclorum ~ where ALL had the rights and privileges of kings and nobles ~ certainly an outcome worth rejoicing!

So, back to the 'right to keep and bear arms' ~ it's about all your rights. This one declaration means you are not a peasant, but you can go to court and use the armed might of the state to protect your interests against everyone else ~ you can serve in the army ~ you can defend yourself ~ you can protect your children from being seized and sold as slaves ~................ and you can bear arms however big they are, or however small, without questioning by any other authority. You are free.

This is not something any Democrat can ever understand, particularly not a dunderhead like Obama and his crowd.

39 posted on 12/19/2012 10:57:04 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

Thanks for the heads-up. If I need an organization to defend my
right to own a nuclear cannon I will keep the NRA in mind. In
the mean time can you please direct me to an organization that
will defend my right to purchase and consume a 32 oz soda?

Regards,
Sivad


40 posted on 12/19/2012 11:03:04 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Thanks for your post. Mark Levin was saying today he hates the term “Gun Control” - it isn’t gun control - it is CITIZEN Control. Goes right with your post - thanks again, will be sharing it with my kids.


41 posted on 12/19/2012 11:08:27 PM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Mensa would defend Bloomingidiot’s right to use his brain.


42 posted on 12/19/2012 11:59:47 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

They should re-name Gun Free Zones to Free Fire Zones too.


43 posted on 12/20/2012 12:01:04 AM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

And I know where I would point it.


44 posted on 12/20/2012 12:56:11 AM PST by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

This from a man who attached a full-sized room air conditioner to his limo lest he break a sweat? Really?


45 posted on 12/20/2012 2:21:16 AM PST by MestaMachine (It's the !!!!TREASON!!!!, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

If we all had a davey crockett, the aliens would NEVER think of invading our planet... well at least not the north american continent....


46 posted on 12/20/2012 3:11:42 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Agreed, I think that is a good rule of thumb for the limits placed on ciilian arms ownership, the civilians should have access to the same equipment used by ANYONE in ANY goverenment agency who has the potential to interface with them.

It would also give the goverment EXTRA INCENTIVE to actually enforce posse comitatis...


47 posted on 12/20/2012 3:14:27 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
...when those with axes to grind or pet projects to advance have already made their case many times over.

Seems to me the "axe grinders" are all liberals like Dumberg, Feinswine, and Chucky Schmucky Schumer, and the biggest axe grinder of all, Barack Sheik Obama, mmmm mmmm mmmm.

48 posted on 12/20/2012 3:27:58 AM PST by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Nuclear weapons are built by private sector defense contractors. In other words, they start out "in private hands."

They only become a threat when governments take possession of them.

49 posted on 12/20/2012 3:35:20 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“The U.S. Army has a rifle — they call it a rifle, I would call it a cannon; it’s attached to the front of a tank..."

"Rifles", by definition have spiral cut grooves in the barrel to impart a stabilizing spin to the projectile. Our tanks use smooth bore cannon with fin-stabilized projectiles.

50 posted on 12/20/2012 3:40:12 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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