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 ...
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.
That is an insult to other morons! Bloomberg is several rungs further down the ladder, I think.
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.
How do you “bear” a nuclear cannon?
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.
Only if the nuclear cannon was less than 16 oz. and contained no transfat, because those kill.
Blooming idiot doesn't know that. The NRA does say that people have a right to own firearms, which was my point.
“Mike Bloomberg really dislikes, among many other things, guns.”
EXCEPT the ones his body guards carry.
The founders didn't have a problem with citizens owning cannons. Those cannons are still legal to own under federal law today.
/johnny
Aw horseshit Bloomberg, you coward. Let’s see you dispatch your armed guards. You first, chickenshit!
I think they have a six-shooter version of the nuke cannon... for those times where just one nuke won't cut it.
Waiting to get mine until I have my concealed carry permit...
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.
.
Bloomie saw an RPG once and his imagination has been running wild ever since.
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
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.
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.
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
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.