Michael Bloomberg Advocates For Removing “Gun Rights” From Young Black Males Until After Age 25…

Typical Marxist.

07_bloomberg_lgAs New York Mayor, first he came for the Slurpees and Big Gulps, then came the restaurant table salt, finally the ban on donuts, cupcakes and baked goods in government buildings.

However, while no longer mayor, Bloomberg’s latest proposal to make things illegal might just wake up the BGI.

While in Aspen Colorado, Bloomberg advocated for a position to make it illegal for young black males to own firearms.

…”The Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown USA funder reportedly believes male minorities between the ages of 15 and 25 are responsible for most murders. That’s why, he argued, cities need to take guns away from that group.

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” the Aspen Times reported Bloomberg said to the audience. “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.” (link)

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Big Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, Culture, Death Threats, Dem Hypocrisy, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, Police action, Potus Gun Ban, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Michael Bloomberg Advocates For Removing “Gun Rights” From Young Black Males Until After Age 25…

  1. Sentenza says:

    What is it with leftists and racism?

    Like

    • 7delta says:

      Still the KKK after all these years…

      This is why the NRA was founded back in the day. Democrats haven’t changed a bit, except for no longer wearing sheets.

      Like

      • Stinky-Inky says:

        I thought the NRA was founded after the War of Northern Aggression because two Yankee soldiers were horrified at the poor shooting skills of other union soldiers. Especially compared to the good shots of the Confederates. From the NRA website:
        A Brief History of the NRA
        Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

        Like

        • 7delta says:

          After rereading my comment, I see I wasn’t clear. I was thinking irony and ended up just being muddy. You’re right. The NRA was founded to help improve skills. It wasn’t a negative response and was in no way associated with the KKK. Their intent was to help. I’ve read on multiple occasions that one of their primary concerns was that the new freemen had no training with firearms, which the officers felt was necessary for future defense of the country and for self-defense.

          Thanks for your post.

          Like

    • John Galt says:

      And they all claim expertise in Constitutional law.

      Like

      • 7delta says:

        Do they ever clarify whose constitution? I know a few misguided souls who think Germany and France have better ones, since their constitutions instructs the government about what it must provide to the citizens. obama told us before he was elected he agreed freebies should be government’s primary role too. Rights, in these ideal constitutions, are free health care, free housing and free education, as if free means they magically appear out of thin air. They aren’t unalienable rights though. Nothing in those constitutions guarantee who, how or what will be provided. The authority to decide the details rests solely in the hands of government. What government gives, government can take away. Greece is a good example, since its doing so well.

        Anyway, it couldn’t be our Constitution where they claim expertise, since all they know about it and American history is from a former card-toting member of the CPUSA, Howie Zinn. As a former instructor of Marxism, surely he didn’t have an agenda. Nooo. ‘Course not. Just telling the truth the winners didn’t want you to know by interpreting it into a more agenda-useful tale to round out the ‘truth’. /sarc

        What happened to common sense? When was critical thinking replaced by critical race theory? When were these people dropped on their heads? Couldn’t we have gotten them medical help before obamacare took away all hope of ever curing their disorder?

        People, like Bloomberg, make me want to bang my head against my desk. If they weren’t so dangerous to all living things, including themselves, I’d feel sorry for them.

        Like

    • smiley says:

      strawman BS…
      seems to work.

      Like

  2. Kitty Smith says:

    Bloomberg is an absolute nut case. He’s one of the biggest anti-gunners in the country. This is his back-door way of passing laws to prevent gun purchases by anybody, period.

    Like

  3. Col.(R) Ken says:

    Maybe we should suspend his right to free speech, to conduct inter state commerce and travel, until he’s 85.

    Like

  4. Murse says:

    Why can’t these rich guys go play with their money and leave the rest of us alone?

    Like

  5. nimrodman says:

    Stop-and-Frisk was accomplishing the same goal. Those young lads couldn’t carry, lest they be patted down and their stolen handguns discovered.

    But the leftists couldn’t quite leave that one alone, could they?

    Like

  6. benzy says:

    Typical liberal thinking… “Make it illegal and they won’t be able to have a gun”. It is already illegal for anone under the age of 18 to own or possess a gun and yet how often do we read about a shooting involving a group of teens? How many 13 or 14 or 15 year olds get caught carrying a gun in the sagging pants? He does at least understand who and where the problem lies, just not how to solve it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt Musson says:

      Just make Gang territory a ‘gun free zone’. Problem solved.

      Like

      • BertDilbert says:

        But those intent on using a weapon are going to have one anyway regardless of the law. In essence he is proposing the law abiding people to be defenseless. While he is right about young black males having a disproportionate impact on gun crime, guns themselves are not the issues.

        Like

  7. Daddio says:

    Actually, for once, I think shorty might be on to something here…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Well, let’s think this through:

      What law ever kept someone from obtaining a firearm, if that person wanted to obtain one? Thus, what makes anyone think that a “no firearms for anyone under 25” law would be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of gang-bangers within that age group?
      How would such prior restraint possibly pass constitutional muster? What of the violation of rights of all of the 15-25 year-old black males who aren’t gang-bangers or otherwise criminal?

      Here’s a better idea: when people commit violent crimes, lock them up and keep them locked up. Stop the catch-and-release program of 15-25 year-old criminals, and the crime rate would plummet.

      Now, if you want to impose harsher sentencing for juveniles, and keep violent juveniles locked up until they’re 25, even if they’re convicted prior to age 18, then you might be on to something.

      Liked by 4 people

      • pattyloo says:

        i agree with your reasoning but not the consequence you propose. locking them up is giving them ‘3 hots & a cot’ and plenty of time to hone their criminal skills. the consequence needs to be more severe. i look around chicago and see garbage in the streets in some areas; graffiti on buildings, sidewalks and bridges. they should have the prisoners out cleaning this up. a chain gang so they can’t escape. let them carry the 10 lb heavy duty chain while they work. the sight of this would incentivize others (children & adults) not to commit crimes. we need to make it so jail is no longer a vacation away from the dangerous ‘hood. i know someone who got sentenced to ‘community service’ in chicago due to a DUI conviction. his sentence included 30 days in jail and 100+ hours community service. he had to work very hard emptying heavy steel garbage cans in all of the parks. the supervisors (who worked for the county) drove them through the park, but they parked in a central location, and the workers had to trudge through snow with these heavy barrels back to the dump truck. sometimes they had to move those very heavy wooden picnic tables around the park. he said some of the other workers were lazy, but the supervisors yelled at them like a drill sargeant. the person who did this told me the community service was worse than jail. he said he worked very hard and so the supervisors let him ride in the truck. most of the others had to walk the entire route, which was an 8 hour shift.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Chip Bennett says:

          i agree with your reasoning but not the consequence you propose. locking them up is giving them ‘3 hots & a cot’ and plenty of time to hone their criminal skills. the consequence needs to be more severe.

          I think you’re missing the point: once they’re locked up they stay locked up.

          I don’t care what skills they hone while behind bars, so long as they stay behind bars and thus unable to employ those skills against law-abiding society.

          What they do while behind bars, how they earn their keep, etc. – those are separate matters entirely.

          Like

      • daddio says:

        laws are only for honest people.

        Like

      • hoosiergranny says:

        Until recently, almost no one in Chicago could legally carry. Just take a look their murder/shooting stats. might sound good but won’t give him the outcome he expects.

        Like

  8. Chip Bennett says:

    Racism, gun control, and prior restraint – a progressive hat trick!

    Like

  9. Paul H. Lemmen says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

    Like

  10. archer52 says:

    There is a law against fifteen year olds, regardless of race, possessing and using firearms without parental supervision. It isn’t the gun Mike. If you want to really control the issue, outlaw fifteen to twenty-five year old black males from living in the country. If you could snap your fingers and make it so, crime would bottom out 90% in many cities.

    This is the “blue haired, club footed midget” argument I used when teaching class. Profiling isn’t racial, it is behavioral. Certain groups are so stereotypical in their behavior you can safely profile one and be right the vast majority of the time. And that group is as easily identifiable as the aforementioned BHCFmidgets.

    Like

  11. Ziiggii says:

    How this alternative Mr. Bloomberg, instead of taking away the guns you just take all 15-25 year old minorities and put them in a big arena with their guns and they can play an intense game of “Dodge the Bullets”. Last man standing gets a prize… It could be our own “Hunger Games”!

    And may the odds ever be in your favor

    Like

  12. Inkraven says:

    At least we finally got a liberal to finally come out and say what they’ve been thinking all along about gun control. Deep down inside they know that the heart of the gun violence problem in this country is largely young black males killing other young black males. At least Mr. Bloomberg has the stones to finally come out and say it for all to hear.

    Like

    • Les says:

      I agree. I’m glad he said it out loud. I like how he said “they” and “that group” too. It won’t happen, but at least Bloomberg will get the credit for mentioning it. haha

      Like

  13. cajunkelly says:

    Lead in sentence of the article:

    While speaking at an overwhelmingly wealthy, white audience

    Well ain’t that special.

    Interesting coincidence though, in his it’s a joke to pull a trigger
    Flashback to the Fergistan chants: they think it’s a game, they think it’s a joke

    Like

  14. mazziflol says:

    Maybe he should start with a smaller group, like convicted felons. You know, make it a law, that convicted felons cant legally own a firearm. Seems more reasonable and wold probably keep guns out of repeat offenders hands.

    Like

  15. John says:

    This is the first time mayor B.has said anything thai agree with.

    Like

  16. Be Ge says:

    Well done, mr. Bloomberg. You have nowby admitted that, contrary to the leftyist myths, groups of people may be so different that they cannot live or are best off not living by one and the same law — exampli gratia, some groups being on average less intelligent, having lower social adhesion, less empathy and more aggression-readiness vs other groups to such an extent that certain things generally allowable from age 21 should be allowable from age 25 on in other groups. I can not say I totally disagree with the logic. I am currently waiting for a notable public figure — perhaps mr. Bloomberg(?!) to question the main holy cow of the leftyist — the universal unqualified voting rights. Again, now that the point has been made, why pretend influencing fates of the nation is anyhow more innocent than driver’s license or gun ownership permit. Politics of a large country is always her majesty the economics raised to the power of 2 (economics-square) and it influences lives of millions (or, in the US case, billions) of people. Yet and still, it is decided by illegals, frauds voting dozens of times in a raw and millions of people who simply do not have a slightest clue towards what it is that they are voting for, what’s on the vote, what powers are being transferred and what it is that the person seeking election can and cannot do for his or her constituents while in office. Instead, voting, fraud / illegals aside, is an emotional process full of b/s and phony slogans like “0b0z0 gave us the phone, he will do more”, “tax the rich”, “more privileges for the underprivileged” and so on (frankly speaking, slogans like “close the borders period” are not a lot better). In fact, it has become so bad that when you are trying to explain something about tales to your kids, you start by saying real tales are not the stories beginning with “Once upon a time” or “In the world so far away” or “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” but rather with “If you elect me…”. It is fairly easy to prove that the damage, direct and otherwise, from irresponsible voting by far exceeds the damage from legal guns in the hands of stupid people. So, now that mr. Bloomberg has expressed concern about dangers of irresponsible behavior in a certain minority group if it is allowed to live by the same rules other groups do, it is the sharp time to extend the said concern to voting and require qualifications from voters before there vote can be counted in. People should know a little math, history and basics of constitutional law before they can vote and need to clearly be able to identify what it is that they are voting for, what’s on the vote, what powers are being transferred and what it is that the person seeking election can and cannot do for his or her constituents while in office. I’ll vote for you, mr. Bloomberg, if you seriously voice the “universal unqualified voting rights” problem. After all, the qualified voting system likely eliminates socialist b00lcrappers from the business and the blunt gun grabbers will follow.

    Like

    • Be Ge says:

      As I follow-up to the above trolling, I totally do not understand the process of getting illegal (very obviously they are not legally purchased ones) guns out of hands of minority “youths” aged 16-30 or 16-40 using the grouping used by the folks who summarize FBI UCR. I can fairly well see how gun grab will work for law-abiding citizen, but the law enforcement has been working on the problem of lowering the illegal gun numbers for about as long as those guns are out there….with no break-through success. Is mister Bloomberg trying to suggest stop/search/frisk country-wide based on racial profiling? Em….What are the costs going to be?

      Like

  17. Ghost of Gene DebsII says:

    Michael Bloomberg’s a Marxist?

    Like

  18. seeingeye2 says:

    I do believe this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard Bloomberg say! Sure, take away all guns from all young black males and that will leave the only armed young black males the ones who care less whether or not they’re legal.

    Like

  19. Dave says:

    Why, that’s RACIST!!!! Oh, wait, I forgot that he’s a Democrat, Never mind.

    Like

  20. SFC Ton says:

    this idea isn’t racist its reality

    Like

  21. moe ham head says:

    yes because all of obozos children obtain their firearms legally

    Like

  22. Pingback: Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Says Minorities Shouldn’t Have Guns » Gossips

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s