"Guns are flooding into the city from states like Pennsylvania and Virginia, where people can buy guns easily and then sell them in cities like New York to those who cannot legally acquire them, including drug dealers and other dangerous criminals," said Bloomberg in a recent radio address.
The city released 2003 data, which showed that 92 percent of all illegal guns came into New York from out of state.
"Fundamentally, if you want to solve the problem it is up to Congress, and Congress keeps getting rolled by the NRA," said Bloomberg during his weekly radio show. "This is plain and simple -- the NRA versus the lives of our children and our police officers," he said.
The gun used to kill Stewart in Brooklyn was discovered to be stolen from Florida. The suspect in that case, 27 year-old Allen Cameron, is also a suspect in the shooting of Philippe.
Bloomberg is a moron.
First off, if people are buying lots of guns in places like PA and FL and peddling them to criminals in NYC, then THEY TOO aren't "legally acquiring them." They're straw-purchasing them, and there are laws against that.
Second, Bloomberg is too stupid to wonder why the guns are brought to a place that bars honest residents from having guns for their own defense. The criminals want to have guns in a place where good people don't have access to them because
it makes robbing people a safer thing (for the robber) to do!
Third, if the gun used to kill Steward in Brooklyn was stolen from Florida, what does it have to do with the NRA? A law was broken to get the gun from NY to FL. So Bloomberg wants more laws that ALSO would not stop criminal acts from being committed?
It's amazing how someone so incredibly DUMB was able to become a billionaire.
Oh, wait, no it's not. He's a LIAR (typical of gun-banners), and liars often make money at the expense of others. I guess being a LIAR is how he did it, rather than by being intelligent.
P.S. Why does it have to be "the NRA versus the lives of our children and our police officers"? Did he stop to think of how many children's lives might be lost if there was no NRA, and therefore no parents who had guns to use to defend their children in their homes? Children's lives would be lost that way, too.
Any time someone introduces "the children," it's generally because he has no articulate, logical argument on his side. So he goes for the emotional response. "Who wouldn't want to save children's lives?"
The only thing is, he has not demonstrated or proven that ANTI-GUN means "children are saved" and PRO-GUN means "children are killed." He has to be challenged on that presumption, which is of course patently unfounded.
-azurefly