Bloomberg crowd attacking Wyoming

Status
Not open for further replies.
First you occupy friendly territories; the Rhineland, Sarr and Austria [New York].

When you succeed with no real cost, you then start looking farther, say Sarr [Connecticut].

Then you get bolder, and look at a 'neutral' Memel [Colorado]

As you learn you can storm over the rights of free societies, you now set your sight on actual military conquests, Czechoslovakia [Wyoming].

Which state will be Poland?

And who will eventually stand up, USA [ Texas etc ].

History repeats. It always does.

Just waiting for them to finally get too bold and run into the brick wall of the Soviet Union (which state would that be I wonder?) that just pummels them into oblivion and finally shuts them the hell up once and for all.
 
They're liable to git dinged a little in Wyoming..:evil:

Highest concentration of guns per person in the U.S.:cool:
 
I suggest the people of Wyoming decide what's best for the people of Wyoming.

Truth.

I don't know why they're always butting into other peoples' businesses.

And, trying to get guns outlawed in Wyoming is like trying to get antelope declared an endangered species.
 
I suggest the people of Wyoming decide what's best for the people of Wyoming.
That's pretty much how we roll out here. I think Iggy and other Wyomingite forum members would all agree that Bloomberg and his cronies will be met with nothing but contempt outside of a few isolated pockets of like thinkers. Even many of the ultra liberal folks have moved here to hunt, fish, and shoot stuff. Not taking any thing for granted, just stating the way it is...
 
They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

Serious question: How much do you know about mental illness, or the DSM?

Next question: Who do you think should decide what mental problems should be "on the list"?
 
There shouldn't be a criteria of "which diagnosis" that makes the list, but whether or not the person, for whatever reason or diagnosis, poses a danger to themselves and others.

There should also be an appeal process of some sort in place so that we don't have issues of, say, someone in their teens or 20s having a major depressive episode and suicidal ideation translate into a 40 something year old healthy adult who went through a rough time a couple decades ago but is now well adjusted but still considered prohibited.
 
That awkward moment when you realize Wyoming only had 11 gun related homicides in 2011 versus New York's 445 despite the enormous discrepancies in gun laws.
Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.
 
Really. So if someone has mental problems, he or she doesn't have rights? You assume that because some of the 11,000 homicide deaths each year are caused by people with mental illness, all mentally ill people are dangerous. But is that true? The same could be said for people who drink alcohol. Some of them get violent and are more likely to commit a gun homicide, so by your logic anyone know to drink should be denied his 2nd amendment rights. Some drugs just make some people more violent and alcohol is one.

What other right is denied before someone commits a crime? We don't require a background check and deny printing presses to those mentally ill, or take away a mentally ill persons right to freely exercise his religion. You need to first commit an act of aggression that is defined as a crime or demonstrate yourself to be a danger before your rights can be restricted through due process. How is taking your 2nd amendment right away due process if you have committed no crime and haven't been determined in court to be a danger to yourself or others because of your behavior.
 
Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.

WE'RE SORRY: YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT!

According to the most recent state-by-state FBI figures I have (2010), the population of New York State is 34.26 times larger than that of Wyoming. In that year, New York State had 446 firearms homicides; Wyoming had 11. Adjusting for the difference in populations, Wyoming's figure would rise to about 378, 16% lower than New York's. New York's handgun homicides totaled 394. Wyoming's came to 7. With the same adjustment, Wyoming's number would rise to about 240, nearly 40% lower than the Empire State's.

The leveling factor is normally x number of incidents per 100,000 people. By this measure, New York State had a higher handgun homicide rate than not only Wyoming, but 29 other states, as well.
 
Divide population of NYS by population of Wyoming x 11 and the numbers will probably be quite similar.

NYC has about 8.3 million inhabitants, WY has about 576K, or NYC has 14 times as many residents as WY. It has 40 times as many murders.

Really. So if someone has mental problems, he or she doesn't have rights?

Assuming this response was aimed at my reply up thread, I would say this:

If someone has mental health issues of such severity that they are having police contact and being referred into the court system because of them, then they should be evaluated to determine if their rights should be limited because their particular issues do or do not pose a risk to themselves or others.

It's a pretty big straw man to get from that line of thinking to claiming mental problems = suspension of rights.

The same could be said for people who drink alcohol. Some of them get violent and are more likely to commit a gun homicide, so by your logic anyone know to drink should be denied his 2nd amendment rights.

In many jurisdictions, it is a crime to be intoxicated in possession of a firearm, or to carry a firearm in places which serve alcoholic beverages, or similar.

What other right is denied before someone commits a crime?

Drivers licenses are revoked or suspended with pretty boring regularity when persons demonstrate that their driving poses a risk to themselves or others based on patterns of behavior and minor infractions.

You need to first commit an act of aggression that is defined as a crime or demonstrate yourself to be a danger before your rights can be restricted through due process.

Adjudicated mentally defective = due process.

The previously referenced Cho, for instance, had a lawyer present and representing him at the competency hearing that determined he was subject to court ordered outpatient treatment.

How is taking your 2nd amendment right away due process if you have committed no crime and haven't been determined in court to be a danger to yourself or others because of your behavior.

See above. A magistrate and a special justice, in two separate hearings, both determined that based on the totality of the circumstances in front of them that Cho should be involuntarily subject to mental health treatment.
 
Bloomberg and his cronies are using the same tactic that many have before "divide and conquer " they are going after one state at a time. Due to small populations and proximity to California, western states will be the first targets and creep eastwardly.
 
Bloomberg has all ready stated that after he stops being Mayor of NYC, he is going to spend his fortune on his pet projects...

...this means years and years more of him trying to influence the gun control debate all over the country with LOTS of money.
 
WE'RE SORRY: YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT!

According to the most recent state-by-state FBI figures I have (2010), the population of New York State is 34.26 times larger than that of Wyoming. In that year, New York State had 446 firearms homicides; Wyoming had 11. Adjusting for the difference in populations, Wyoming's figure would rise to about 378, 16% lower than New York's. New York's handgun homicides totaled 394. Wyoming's came to 7. With the same adjustment, Wyoming's number would rise to about 240, nearly 40% lower than the Empire State's.

The leveling factor is normally x number of incidents per 100,000 people. By this measure, New York State had a higher handgun homicide rate than not only Wyoming, but 29 other states, as well.
You forgot to include "undocumented beings" many of whom reside in places like NYC. The numbers would be very similar if you were able to use actual figures to do the math.
 
I'm just going to throw this out there so y'all have something else to think about.

Let's pretend you have a daughter, and the worst happens: she gets raped.

Odds are she's going to get some level of PTSD from that, just like combat vets do, and abused children, and abused dogs for that matter. If she's smart she'll get counseling and will come through it OK.

Now, do you want her to be able to get a CCW, train with it, and make herself a much harder target for the predators of modern society? Of course you do.

But if you make a diagnosis of PTSD something that prohibits gun ownership, then she never will.. Nor will a 3 year old pulled out of an abusive home, placed with a loving family and given appropriate counseling, when he comes of age. Because, you know, he had PTSD when he was a pre-schooler even though he made it out of childhood unbroken. Should he be forever denied the use of arms to defend his family?

Mental health issues are harder than many seem to think from an "is this a good thing" perspective. It's worse when you look at the services that are available (or completely unavailable) in society and start talking about big changes and greater responsibilities placed on organizations that are seriously underfunded as it is.
 
Truth.
And, trying to get guns outlawed in Wyoming is like trying to get antelope declared an endangered species.

Ever heard of the well funded terrorist group HSUS? They are trying to get coyotes (by way of) hybrid wolfs on the protected list.

You have no idea the power people have over the uneducated when fear is their weapon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They do have a point. People with mental problems should not have access to firearms.

When I read that, I read someone with absolutely no understanding of mathematics and the human condition.

"Mental Problems" in a population is normally going to have a bell curve type of distribution. EVERYONE has mental problems... the only question is to their nature and intensity.
 
There's no way we should be tolerating the name of the NYC mayor being mentioned in connection with gun control legislation in Colorado or Wyoming. Free speech is what it is, and Bloomberg can spend his own money as he chooses, but the people in those states need to recognize the source of the influence and be encouraged to ignore it. Pro-2A legislators and candidates should run ads exposing the source of the anti's money, thereby exposing the antis for selling their votes to the highest bidder. Then the people of those states can just say, "Thanks, Mike, for infusing money into our local economy. Now go away."

Eventually New Yorkers will tire of Bloomberg's blatant overreach, and more importantly the utter ridiculousness of his ideas. Once that happens, and he gets voted out or just plain run off, his position will be weaker since he won't have the power of the NYPD to enforce his lunacy. Money talks, to be sure, but with only money and no office to push his agenda, he'll be weakened. Let us all hope he won't manage to buy his way into some higher office like he did a third term as NYC mayor.

His latest ideas are to limit the volume of earbuds and force merchants to keep all tobacco out of public view. How many of these ludicrous new nanny rules will New Yorkers tolerate before they say to Bloomberg, "Shut up and go away!"
 
I skimmed the thread so if someone has already stated this sorry. Now the only way someone can lose a right is from a COURT of LAW having decided. Having a doctor or other person decide is going against due process and the 14th and 20th amendments period. :neener:
 
Ever hear of this?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-and-are-crazy-so-shouldnt-own-modern-rifles/

Here are her exact words:

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.
I think we have to – if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon.
Yeah take a minute and read that and let her determine who is "Crazy".
I know this is The High Road, but we continue to be polite and they continue to restrict our Rights. I think, no I wish Senator Cruz would have called her out on these lies She cpontinues to spread.
This is Fascism and it will get worse if we and our Elected Representatives don't take off the kid gloves when dealing with these people and their lies.
 
Having lived in Colorado for several years, I was at once shocked, and then not so shocked by the current gun and mag ban frenzy, and political climate coming from statist control. Knowing Hick from being Mayor of Denver like I do, I have no doubt he will gleefully sign any more restrictive gun legislation when it reaches his desk.

That being said, I am worried about states like Wyoming, and Montana. Their population centers have also received an influx of more statist thinking people from both coasts. Nothing wrong with transplants, but when they try to change the new place to resemble the old place, that's when the trouble begins. They do not have the intelligence to realize what made them move to the new state in the first place.

We are being assaulted at every level of government. Fed, State, and local. We can no longer be complacent, and need to start using the tactics of the statists against them. It is time to take the gloves off.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top