What does a liberal anti-gun nutjob like Bloomberg do with an inconvenient fact? He suggests we keep it in “perspective.”
NEW YORK (AP) – For New York City, it wasn’t an unusual sight: a possibly mentally ill woman pacing and mumbling to herself on an elevated subway station platform.
The woman eventually took a seat on a bench Thursday night, witnesses later said. Then, without any warning or provocation, she sprang up and used both hands to shove a man into the path of an oncoming train.
As police sought on Friday to locate the unidentified woman, Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged residents to keep the second fatal subway shove in the city this month in perspective. The news of the horrific death of 46-year-old Sunando Sen, who was from India and lived in Queens, came as the mayor touted drops in the city’s annual homicide and shooting totals.
“It’s a very tragic case, but what we want to focus on today is the overall safety in New York,” Bloomberg told reporters following a police academy graduation.
Hmm… two crazy people kill two innocent people minding their own business and he goes “ah come on, that’s just the way it is around here. Nothing to see, nothing to do…” Especially nothing to do because in his opinion the courts are clear and society as spoken as far as nutcases allowed to go free to kill normal people.
Bloomberg, asked earlier Friday about the episode at a station on Queens Boulevard in the Sunnyside neighborhood, pointed to legal and policy changes that led to the release of many mentally ill people from psychiatric institutions from the 1960s through 1990s.
“The courts or the law have changed and said, no, you can’t do that unless they’re a danger to society; our laws protect you. That’s fair enough,” Bloomberg said on “The John Gambling Show with Mayor Mike” on WOR-AM.
No folks, you really cannot pin down a liberal when it comes to principles, they have none. They live by the mantra “the ends justify the means.” Bloomberg and people like him want to be king forever. You can’t be king forever if your “subjects” are armed. Remember the old saying; “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.” There is great truth in that statement. Ask the Russians, ask the Nigerians, the Sudanese, the Chinese how relying on the “State” works out for them. Gateway Pundit makes a point of following all the massacres that occur in third world nations, usually between armed Muslims and unarmed Christians. His point is to show the madness and danger of Islam. The point I get is that being unarmed is just plain stupid. Speaking of the Russians read this from Pravda of all places.
Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. (Zinnfigur)
Pravda warns Americans today, “Never give up your guns.”
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Over at CNN, ex state representative Suzanna Hupp tried to communicate with the agenda driven talking head over the foolishness of “gun control.” Hupp is an expert in what happens when citizens are disarmed by the State. She was unarmed when a crazed gunman ran his truck through the window at Luby’s restaurant and then systematically executed over twenty people- including her parents. You could see the CNN anchor had an agenda, the same as Bloomberg’s, and didn’t really grasp what Suzanna was saying.
Often times the conservatives allow the liberals to control the debate. This is not about gun control, this is about tragedy control. How do we stop violence no matter what its source? Suzanna should have asked the host what her limit was for people getting crushed by trains after being pushed onto the tracks by crazy people? “How many people have to die before you will stand up for the reintroduction of institutions for the mentally insane?” “How many people have to die in gang violence before you stand up?” “How many have to die in drug related crimes before you demand life sentences for drug dealers?”
And on and on.
And as for Feinstein, for those of you who are younger, you have to realize the song she is singing about gun control wasn’t brought up by Newtown, she’s been after your guns for a long time. I saw a recent reminder of this in an old video from 1995. You have to ask yourself why? She’s not stupid, she’s not blind, but she still thinks guns are the cause of violence, and gun laws will solve it? Sounds like a Trojan Horse to me.
An honest statement by the St. Louis Police Chief points out the obvious and gets criticized. He simply stated the horse has left the barn on the issue of gun control. With three hundred million guns and a hundred million gun owners, enough ammo for twenty years of supply, the issue isn’t guns it is keeping violent acts limited. His suggestion is my suggestion- harden the freaking targets. You all have NO idea how “soft” America is. Like I’ve said before we are an open society and for being one very peaceful overall. As Britain’s violent crime rates go up (a diverse population growth issue mostly), ours are going down.
You think it’s fun now, wait until the Islamic terrorists who are “sleeping” in the country start up.