Michael Bloomberg Wants To Ban Minority Males From Gun Ownership
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 10 months ago
Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.
“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”
At one point, the former mayor brought up New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices, which gained national attention in 2011. Bloomberg said that during his last year in office, a minister at a Baptist church in Harlem invited him to speak.
“While I’m sitting there waiting for him to introduce me, he said to his congregation, ‘You know, if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn’t have to do it,’” Bloomberg said. “And so I knew I was going to be okay with that audience.”
Well, this is just rich, isn’t it? The state is acting as mommies, or daddies, in place of the non-existent mommies or daddies (can you say in loco parentis?). What a hell the progressives have created for the black man and themselves! They have pressed for policies that impoverish the black man and make him dependent upon government largesse, incentivizing fatherless families, and then step in to act as the parent.
And take note that this, in the view of the collectivist, is the rightful place of the state. Add to this the fact that progressives are racists, and you have a witches brew of ugliness for the inner cities that usually displays itself in crime against the middle class, the militarization of police, and class animosity.
Bloomberg doesn’t want those horrible black boys to have guns, any more than he wants them to have a father. And all Jim Crow gun laws – such as in my own state where CLEOs get to make the final call on gun permits – are in place to keep those “horrible Negros” from getting their hands on guns.
Bloomberg is a racist. It’s nice that he openly admitted it rather than us having to drag it out of him. But in order to appear that he isn’t, his proposed gun laws (like I-594 in Washington and so-called “assault weapons ban”) hits only law abiding citizens. Or in other words, the innocent and law abiding suffer for the sake of the special class of people he is trying to redeem. In Bloomberg’s view, the state has a salvific role in the policies it implements, and everyone must make atonement for the sins of a few.
On February 9, 2015 at 1:19 am, Daniel Barger said:
Come on…let’s be honest….Bloomberg wants to ban guns from EVERYONE….but like most gun grabbers he’s happy to start with a smaller group and work from there.
On February 9, 2015 at 9:38 am, J.E.Walker said:
I actually find this strangely encouraging… because if you read it backwards, BloomingCommie is finally admitting for the first time that the problem with “gun violence” is not out in the suburbs and countrywide. It’s all in the inner city. Like him or not, this is a fact and, as a first baby step, he is finally acknowledging it. Now, we just have to convince him that it’s not the tool that is the problem… but rather, it’s violent criminal behavior that needs to be punished severely and stopped.
On February 9, 2015 at 10:46 am, Ned Weatherby said:
When Prozis cite bogus statistics regarding “gun violence,” and someone has the audacity to cite the numbers of inner-city gang bangers who kill each other with impunity, thus driving up the numbers of so-called “gun deaths” in a given area, they are immediately painted with the “rascist” brush. But when Bloomberg calls for gun control amongst same, he is given a pass by main stream urinalists.
Herschel nailed this guy for the true racist he is.
Prohibiting guns based on skin color is a time-honored tradition. See, for instance, The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer over at JPFO: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/cramer-racist-roots.htm
On February 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm, yaz reggae said:
People, these are LIES. There is no doubt that the many petty criminals are “black” but elsewhere outisde the inner citties’, they are obviously white. 75-85% of all crime is committed by those of the same racial/ethnic category (whatever that may entail). Additionally, when you examine the statistics ‘white on white” crime is as pervasive as “black on black” crime, where the category of crime is the punishing factor and not the ethnicity/colour of the perp. All crime is evil and white on white crime is not better than any other crime. Who shot MLK,? Who shot President Kennedy? Who shot President Reagan? WHo was responsible for Columbine? Who shot up Sandy Hook? Be real, people!
On February 9, 2015 at 2:34 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Who said crime isn’t crime if it’s committed by white people? Did you miss the point much? Me thinks so. Go back and read the article after taking a long, deep breath.
On February 9, 2015 at 2:59 pm, Archer said:
Nice cherry-picked stats!
Yes, in 75-85% of violent crime committed, the victim and offender are the same race/ethnicity. And yes, “white on white” crime is as pervasive as “black on black” crime.
Here’s the part you’re missing, the metaphorical “elephant in the room”: Why is “black on black” crime as pervasive as “white on white” crime (source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls), if blacks make up 13-14% of the population versus whites’ 77-78% (source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)? There are six (6) times as many white people, yet blacks are responsible for nearly half of all violent crime. Why is that?
Don’t focus on the high-profile events – look at the overall picture, including the inner-city crimes in Detroit, Chicago, and NYC that don’t make the national news cycle. Why should Detroit, MI (pop. ~700,000) have over 300 murders (rate of 45.1 per 100,000) – FYI, that’s 10 times the national rate – while Sterling Heights, MI (pop. ~130,000) has zero (source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-8/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_michigan_by_city_2013.xls)?
The updated links for the URLs shown above are as follows:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
And there is this helpful link:
http://backgroundchecks.org/us-census-guide-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-census-gov.html
On February 9, 2015 at 3:42 pm, yaz reggae said:
the Media only reports crime as black on black crime or minority crime but the opposite white on white crime is never mentioned. As stated, all crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. In all statistical representations of “crime” social inequity will always be seen as the “trigger” and that, olbviously is no excuse for committing crime. Instead, let us correct social inequities and I am sure we will see a corresponding decrease in crime statistics.
On February 9, 2015 at 3:59 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You still missed the point of the article. You want to discuss one thing, the article discusses something else. Stick to the point for all future comments or be banned.
We have no business trying to meddle in social engineering land to “correct social inequalities.” That’s what the collectivists do. That’s one reason we are in the fix we are in the first place. Social “engineering” (and BTW, it’s obscene when people use that term, social planners aren’t engineers).
On February 10, 2015 at 10:19 am, Ned Weatherby said:
“(T)he Media only reports crime as black on black crime or minority
crime
but the opposite white on white crime is never mentioned.” What? You
really believe that? It’s more like the opposite is true. Ethnicity of
minority on white crime is often neither released by either the police
or the media. And white on white crime is “never mentioned?” I’m
wondering where you live. Because few black citizens live in this area,
most crime is white on white, or Latino-white, white-Latino, etc.
Remember the
Knoxville Horror? What, never heard of it? How about the “knockout
game?” Ethnicity of the perps is rarely mentioned – and in some
jurisdictions, police go to pains not to report it. Remember “White
Latino” George Zimmerman? To maintain the pretense of white guilt, and
that whites target blacks, KKK style, black on white crime is often only
revealed after a photo of the arrested suspect is released to the
public. Despite Zimmerman being acquitted, MSM urinalists can’t release
the “unarmed youth shot dead by “White Hispanic” George Zimmerman.
Flash-mob
riots and thefts – many recorded and posted to FB and YouTube, were
merely perpetrated by “bored youths” – no mention of the ethnicity of
these “bored children.” When a Caucasian woman chased down a black boy
who robbed her of her cell phone, she was smeared by media. Here’s a
link to a V dare archive of news stories where the ethnicity of minority
perpetrators is either ignored or downplayed: http://www.vdare.com/?s=black+on+white+crime&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Here’s a link to an American Renaissance page with page after page of minority on white crime: http://www.amren.com/search/?q=black%20on%20white%20crime
You can also check out Colin Flaherty’s book White Girl Bleed a Lot, recommended by Thomas Sowell: “Reading Colin Flaherty’s book made painfully clear to me that the
magnitude of this problem is greater than I had discovered from my own
research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political
evasions in dozens of cities.”
Media and political evasions.
After
reading your posts, I can only presume you are addressing the comments
section, and not Hershel’s post, since he clearly calls out the racism
and boorishness of Oligarch Bloomberg. As to “correcting social inequalities,” I’m hardly responsible for that, and have no duty to anyone to “correct” anything but my own mistakes. My grandmother on my father’s side was Choctaw. Does that get me a pass to claim victim status and social inequality? Or is that reserved solely for a special class of citizens?
“Colin
Flaherty’s White Girl Bleed A lot is a real masterpiece.” – See more
at: http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/#sthash.IR1xrfRu.dpuf
“Colin
Flaherty’s White Girl Bleed A lot is a real masterpiece.” – See more
at: http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/#sthash.IR1xrfRu.dpuf
On February 11, 2015 at 9:23 am, yaz reggae said:
Of course, I do because that is the objective reality. In a 3 month analytical survey conducted by my group (you don’t have to believe me, do the exercise yourself) x news expose explicitely mentioned “black on black crime” but they never and rarely mentioned crime as “white on white”. The sources explicitely used the words “black on black” crime while refusing to even state the words “white on white”. Choose any newspaper expose on crime. As the rule they will never or rarely print “white on white crime” as part of headline while as you see they will always use “black on black crime” My main point is that crime should be punished, regardless of who the perp. is! I am not sure what you mean by white guilt though I can guess but a person is guilty only by the crimes they have committed. Any insinuation that someone is guilty when they have committed no crime is, well baseless, ignorant. and unAMerican
On February 11, 2015 at 11:01 am, Herschel Smith said:
What you see over the “news” (I don’t admit to the existence of such a thing anyway) has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The only thing that matters is the numbers. On the numbers, Archer and Ned are right and you are wrong.
On February 11, 2015 at 11:30 am, yaz reggae said:
I re-iterate that any citizen who has been found guilty of any crime, regardless of whatever, should and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Nothing less should be considered. I believe all citizens, who have not been convicted of a felony, should own a gun,
On February 11, 2015 at 11:41 am, Herschel Smith said:
And the sky is blue on a clear day. And all of that has nothing to do with anything.
Now. You’ve reiterated quite enough on something that has nothing to do with anything.
On February 11, 2015 at 11:47 am, Pat Hines said:
You’re posting a non sequitur. The Bloomberg proposal is to disarm blacks as a group BEFORE crimes are committed. No discussion herein is about equal treatment in a court of law.
My position is that blacks do, in fact, commit a larger portion of crimes in relation to their percentage of the population of the US, therefore those who are charged with crime prevention, within the scope of the 4th Amendment, must act to deal with that reality. That is to say, blacks must be profiled to a much greater extent than whites, who make up 65% of the population. It is fair for that to be the case because it is a response to facts.
Nevertheless, I do not propose disarming a complete group the way Bloomberg has suggested, at least partially because it’s blatantly obvious that this is a “foot in the door” action for which Bloomberg would then propose that the rest of the US population be treated the same.
Someone needs to propose to Bloomberg that all Jews need to be prohibited from participation in the stock market or banking, so see how much he likes that idea.
On February 11, 2015 at 11:52 am, Herschel Smith said:
“My position is that blacks do, in fact, commit a larger portion of crimes in relation to their percentage of the population of the US …”
It isn’t just your position, Pat. It’s factual. And as for the idea to inform Bloomberg of your prohibition on Jews, I like it. Of course Bloomberg wouldn’t because he is more special than you or I. He’s elite.
On February 12, 2015 at 9:34 am, Ned Weatherby said:
“My main point is that crime should be punished, regardless of who the perp. is!” Agreed.
On February 10, 2015 at 8:41 am, Pat Hines said:
55% of all murders are committed by just 4% of the population in the US, all of them black males between the ages of 14 and 25 years. That is a hard, cold fact.
Stating this fact and stating that they need to be watched much more closely isn’t racist, it makes sense. Do I want all blacks disarmed? No. However, when you have a group that is demonstrably more violent than others, you must react to that appropriately.
On February 11, 2015 at 9:25 am, yaz reggae said:
I agree but I also state that the same 45% of whomever should also be reacted to in the same equity before the law.. All I am saying!
On February 11, 2015 at 9:34 am, Pat Hines said:
I’m sure you meant 96% and I agree. Thing is, whites accused of murder have a higher conviction rate than blacks so accused.
On February 11, 2015 at 9:41 am, yaz reggae said:
Doesn’t it make sense (equity before the law) that all who committ crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law? Make America beautiful! Punish those who disobey the law.
On February 12, 2015 at 5:56 pm, Bob Blaylock said:
With this, the gun control movement come full-circle.
I wonder if Mr. Bloomberg knows—or even cares—that the very first gun control laws in this nation were overtly racist in nature and purpose. Much to the chagrin of the Ku Klux Klan and other similar violent racist groups, black men were exercising their Second Amendment rights in order to defend themselves and their families against attacks by such groups. The first gun control laws were specifically enacted for the benefit of violent racist thugs, to allow them greater safety and ease in attacking black families.
Gun control remained exclusively the real of violent racists until the Sullivan Act, in New York, which is the progenitor of all modern gun control laws, and the first to be driven by a motive other than racism. Timothy Sullivan was a criminal gangster,, who got elected to public office. He crafted the Sullivan Act to benefit himself and allied criminals, against rival criminals and honest citizens.
Gun control has always been about serving the interests of violent criminals, against those of honest citizens. It was born in racism, and now, Mr. Bloomberg seeks to return it to its racist roots,.