@lovelanguagesll: The second segment of my post which you quoted and the rest of it that followed after was in response to this statement made by Imyirtseshem:
“There are already limits but it’s amazing how some people are better armed than soldiers in a war-zone!”
This is far from reality (our soldiers vastly out-tech & outgun our citizen militias), and my comment about “real Americans” was a suggestion that people investigate that claim further by speaking with actual Americans or people more familiar with the American situation (and in particular people who are able to clearly differentiate between military-level armaments and civilian-level armaments), before believing those words at face value.
The person who believes this either has no idea how well-armed soldiers in war zones are, believes that Americans possess the same arms that the military possess (which is false), or they’re purposefully lying about the situation to make it seem worse in order to support their argument. I don’t know which reason was Imyirtseshem’s, but I just wanted to make it clear to him and everyone reading that that this isn’t the situation in the US.
I was not trying to say that people shouldn’t judge the US, form their own opinion, or anything like that. I’m very outspoken about things that my government does and I think it’s only sane to bounce ideas off of each other because this serves as our barometer to tell us whether or not what we’re doing is a good idea. The US is constantly meddling in the affairs of other countries, so it’s only fair that they should accept criticism and I encourage people to always criticize policies and governments.
Speaking of Bloomberg, the man is an incredibly wealthy billionaire and is part of a social and financial class far removed from the life experiences of most average Americans (as in, he’s probably in the top 20 list of richest people in the world, and if not, he’s close). He has well-armed body guards who follow him everywhere, and his life will always be like this, so why should he have any interest in my constitutional rights as an average American, when he is adequately protected and will always have access to arms and rights he needs due to his great influence? I’m quite certain that Bloomberg’s henchman will meet all the exemptions required to retain the ability to use any weaponry they desire (as lawmakers and lobbyists are good at creating laws in a manner that benefit them alone) to protect Bloomberg from any possible assault, whether or not those weapons are available for the normal peon citizenry or not.
Bloomberg has openly criticized average Americans like me for exercising their constitutional rights, while maintaining armed guards who follow him everywhere. Why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is and ban government ownership of firearms in NYC and disband his armed guards if he really wants a firearm free state? I don’t believe that’s what he wants. He does not want a firearm free city (his actions prove this). He wants a small arms monopoly in his city. He wants to disarm the peasants and make sure all of the ultra-affluent retain their rights. He and his rich friends (who are very good at influencing government with their wealth) will retain their guns, while the ordinary citizens relinquish theirs.
In fact, I consider Bloomberg quite hypocritical because he has not even shown the slightest concern about the fact that New York City officers have an infamous record of being dangerous, questionably trained, and misusing firearms. These mishaps haven’t shown any signs of slowing down under his leadership. The most recent accident, which media publicized as a “mass shooting”, was a result of overzealous NYC officers, who wounded 9 of the 10 victims shot during the incident.
“In 2008, Al Baker reported in The Times that the accuracy rate for New York City officers firing in the line of duty was 34 percent.” Quote from this article below:
Not the kind of guys I want “helping” me in a crisis. I think I’d rather just keep my constitutionally guaranteed rights intact and protect myself accordingly.
I don’t believe in stratifying society and creating a class of peons and a class of oligarchs to rule over them. History is replete with examples of this being the case; oligarchs like to gain control and then to prevent any usurping of their power, they disarm the slave populace. Slaves don’t own weapons. Disarming regular citizens and leaving government and select powerful families & groups who are very wealthy completely armed to the teeth creates a one-sided power monopoly.
Bloomberg never has to worry about the government turning against him, or trying to take his rights. He doesn’t have to worry about someone breaking into his house or a coyote killing his chickens; he’s got armed guards that will take care of him every day of every year, and he’s got plenty of money to pay off any government that might stand in his way. I and most average Americans do not have this kind of leverage, but we do have the constitution, which says we have a right to speak out about government or anything we desire (among other things) and a right to defend that right from those who might try to take it from us, foreign or domestic, by bearing arms (US Constitution Amendments 1 and 2).
From my perspective, you have in America two types of people who dislike the 2nd amendment: the enormously wealthy billionaires like Bloomberg who want to take your guns because they want a power monopoly for themselves and the governments at their disposal, or average people who mean well and who believe these wolves in sheep clothing when they say they simply love everyone and want to do it for our safety.
Nothing I’m saying here is an original idea, though. I’m just repeating what’s already been said before. People before me certainly understood that we should be careful about sacrificing freedom for security:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom. "
Dwight D. Eisenhower (who also warned America about the military industrial complex that we see today. You can listen to his farewell address here: Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube ]
Another recent bright idea Bloomberg had up there in New York City was to regulate what kind of drinks you’re allowed to have:
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP5594b27dd2c64e6785f0241fb1f534e7.html
I never drink soda (or pop as we call it where I live) and haven’t for many years because I never eat more than 15-20g of sugar in a day and a single 12 oz pop has around 40-50g of sugar (usually HFCS which has its own dangers), but I’m obviously against the government retaining the right to tell me how much of anything I can or can’t consume. It’s none of their business what I do with my own body. Ultimately it only affects me, and while I’m not a medical doctor, I do think that I’m smart enough to take care of my own body without a nanny state reminding me that sugar is bad.
Bloomberg disagrees with me. He believes that if I am living within the jurisdiction of New York City, I am subject to his whim and if he decides that I can’t order a 24 oz pop and split it with my girlfriend at home while we watch a movie, then that’s how it is and I should just accept it, even when the population disagrees!
“A New York Times poll last month showed that six in 10 New Yorkers opposed the rule.”
Here is where Bloomberg and I have different philosophies. He thinks that the government should tell you how to live your life, and I think it’s incumbent upon the individual to take personal responsibility in what he does. If he engages in risky behavior, like consuming copious amounts of sugared beverages, he should have the freedom to do so. He is the one who has to live with those decisions and health effects. Intervention into a personal matter like this is an issue for close friends and family, not bureaucrats who regularly capitulate to the demands of lobbyists, even when those demands are contrary to the popular opinion or view.
I think it’s very safe to say that what Bloomberg does in New York would not fly in the overwhelming majority of other places.
It sure makes for some interesting reading. Thanks for all the links and the background information. I, too, think that the regulation regarding the “super-sized” soft drinks is ridiculous. You can’t have a law for everything. Next might be a limit on the number of ice creams you are allowed to eat a day ;-).