Newark NJ Mayor: $1,000 to turn in your gun owning neighbors. “We Will Give You Cash!”

Today’s Orwellian infomercial is brought to you by the “honorable” mayor of New Jersey, oh, and so there is no confusion, by honorable, I mean treasonous. But hey he is waving a THOUSAND dollars!! So everyone out there on government assistance, everyone struggling to survive the latest vivisection of your inalienable rights & living standard through cyclical and deliberate economic implosions; pick up the phone, trade your liberty for the “security” of a THOUSAND dollars, that’s right a THOUSAND dollars! Just in case I didn’t emphasize this enough with my bug eyed hypnostare, I repeat a THOUSAND dollars, CASH!

Mayor Booker. I believe you genuinely care about your constituents, I understand you oversee a high crime district, yet I also believe it is imperative that you heed the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he wisely counseled,

“True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

The welfare/warfare/prison/military complex is the root of the disharmony that plagues our cities.  Rather than ignoring the larger political context that seeks to disarm the American population while simultaneously arming the D.H.S to the teeth, why not address the roots of the plague, lest you lose your way all together managing the symptoms of this politically mandated cancer.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824

And on a lighter note, who wants to help me get Tim and Eric elected as Mayor of everyville 2014?

90 Comments on "Newark NJ Mayor: $1,000 to turn in your gun owning neighbors. “We Will Give You Cash!”"

  1. Arthyron | Jan 6, 2013 at 1:50 pm |

    This is over a year old. I’ve seen a lot of people start posting it again recently. This “program” is no longer in service.

      • allen qualls | Jan 6, 2013 at 6:57 pm |

        I’m no rocket scientist, but YouTube says it was uploaded on January 15, 2012. I suppose you could call the number in the video if you wanted to see if the program was still in use.

        • To be clear it was primarily the second assertion I was interested in having sourced. Also the primary argument is what seems to be lost here. Who gets to decide what guns are legal and are not? The Government? If this isn’t a revocation of the right to bear arms I don’t know what is.

          • Please watch this to understand explicitly why this is so and thank you for commenting.


          • allen qualls | Jan 6, 2013 at 8:04 pm |

            I suppose if the gun is registered, its legal. If it isn’t, its criminal. It probably has more to do with the intent of the gun owner, knife owner, crowbar owner, etc.
            Do you even own a gun? Most legal gun owners understand the responsibility of owning one and the weight of that responsibility. Gun nuts, and criminals, don’t.

          • If it isn’t registered it is not illegal in Mississippi, Texas, and I am pretty sure there are a couple other States in this list. I am just going from personal knowledge from States I have spent time in.

            Gotta love States rights.

          • Dude, it’s part of a well-regulated militia. It’s the government’s JOB to define legal arms. Further, if you read the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, you’ll find a very specific definition of what constitutes a “militia,” and it’s VERY plain that they don’t mean everybody and their grandmother. In fact, most American historical definitions of “militia” would make it illegal for women to hold ANY arms, likewise men over a certain age.

          • Source? Please provide where exactly it supposedly states this.

          • Please provide the definition of militia you are alluding to as well. Thank you.

          • I am sorry but what does the definition of militia in one part of the Constitution have to do with the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights? Perhaps you have made a creative leap of faith here? Or would it be more closely described as semantic gymnastics? Or is this more of this revisionist, living document crappola. Just trying to be clear here.

          • As long as there is a single arm that is available for anyone who can legally possess an arm, then the “right to bear arms” has not been infringed, not unless one is a zealot who believes that “arms” constitute any hand-held weapon the military has access to, in which case my right to bear arms is infringed when I’m prevented from owning Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, depleted uranium shells, plastic explosives, RPGs, etc.

      • Arthyron | Jan 6, 2013 at 9:23 pm |

        It’s over a year old because I remember posting it to facebook back then. I scour a lot of alternative/conspiracy-related FB groups and newsfeeds pretty much daily. There was a big hubbub about it the last time it surfaced, and I remember it being over by that time when we were all discussing it. Because it’s been recently re-uploaded, the same discussions are happening again.

  2. zombieslapper | Jan 6, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

    Headline’s misleading. They’re looking for people who are illegally possessing firearms. Still, way to not address the real problems in society and turn a bunch of chowderheads looking for drug money into narcs.

    • Please explain how you found the headline is misleading?

      • zombieslapper | Jan 6, 2013 at 7:16 pm |

        Surely you can figure it out.

      • Because it’s completely mind-boggingly misleading. You make it sound like the government wants its citizens to monitor each other, when in fact, it’s an efficient way of finding illegal weapons carried around on the streets using the most valuable intelligence source, human social interactions. Get a grip. The state already knows who has the legal weapons. As far as I am concerned, possession of illegal firearms or straw purchasing legal firearms both warrant life sentences.

        • mind-bogglingly misleading?

          Newark NJ Mayor: $1,000 to turn in your gun owning neighbors. “We Will Give You Cash!”

          Now did you actually watch the video? Doesn’t he state unequivocally that people should turn in anyone who they think might have an illegal gun to receve, $1,000.00’s?

          Since you have made the statement that anyone purchasing “illegal” fire arms should be given the death penalty, what do you think about the Fast and Furious scandal? Do you think Eric Holder should get the death penalty for his role? Or is it legal enough that it doesn’t bother you in this instance? I’m just curious.

          • Breshvic | Jan 7, 2013 at 1:00 am |

            I do think a distinction needs to be made between legal and illegal gun ownership. If gun advocates include illegal or terroristic firearms in protecting their rights, it undermines the entire point. This is a mistake the NRA has made, and shows their corporate allegiance to gun manufacturers with responsible gun owners being an incidental secondary. It makes more sense to use all legal, constitutional resources to keep illegal guns off the street, all the better to keep the world safe for honest, hard-working, gun-toting Americans.

          • The Fast and Furious program was a great concept, even if it was run by incompetents. Various law enforcement agencies can use otherwise illegal substances or actions in undercover investigations (e.g. inert explosives, associating with terrorists, drug smugglers, etc.), I don’t see any problem with the F&F concept. However, if “the people” are “the militia” referenced in the Bill of Rights, they have a rather profound responsibility towards society in the way they care for their arms. If they abuse this authority, either by possessing illegal arms, or aiding/abetting the procurement of illegal weapons, they should be severely punished. It is, in essence, no different from acquiring a nuclear weapon from a state arsenal and transferring it to a terrorist organization. Considering that almost every single illegal firearm in USA began its life as a legal firearm, and procured legally, I’d say that a great many members of this militia are not well-regulated at all!

            Anway, the Constitution declares that “the Militia” exists “to execute the
            Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,” and that the Federal government should “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
            Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
            of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
            the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

            It certainly seems clear to me that “the militia” is not simply “anyone who cares to own a gun.” It’s a law enforcement and para-military force that is organized, armed and trained by the government. I don’t care to reference too much further, but the Militia Act of 1903 declares that a militia may consist of “every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia…former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the ‘unorganized militia per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.”

            So, as you can see, if the “militia” is “we the people,” then it doesn’t include minors, non-veterans aged 46 and over, women (unless they are armed forces veterens), and men over the age of 65.

            Certainly you can’t be part of the militia if you’ve obtained your weapons illegally, or the weapons themselves are illegal.

          • Seeing as how you’re not a Supreme Court justice, perhaps you should read the Heller decision?

          • mahajohn | Jan 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm |

            I am well aware of that decision, and I don’t agree with the Supreme Court, but certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with the procurement, possession or distribution of illegal firearms.

          • Dyrewulf | Jan 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm |

            It does if the firearms are unconstitutionally declared illegal.

          • mahajohn | Jan 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm |

            Which firearms? Recall that even during the assault weapons ban, those who already owned assault weapons kept them, and after DC banned general possession of firearms within the city by city residents, there were still those who owned them legally because they were grandfathered in. So unless it’s already banned or becomes banned, such as full-auto assault rifles, sawed-off shotguns, etc., an illegal gun is illegal because of the status of the person possessing it, or the method via which they procured it. Anyway, there is nothing unconstitutional about declaring a particular firearm illegal, not if “the militia” is to be “well regulated.” If even one variety of firearm remains for sale to licensed, law-abiding citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not been abridged.

            Why should there be any perception of rights being violated if one is possession of a banned weapon, stolen weapon, illegally obtained weapon, etc? It’s nonsense.

          • Dyrewulf | Jan 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

            First, you should research the meaning of “well-regulated” at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights. It was commonly used to mean well equipped or in order. Also, the 2A does not say abridged, it says infringed. How can citizen #1’s weapon be legal but citizen #2’s not be without infringement? The ruling from the SCOTUS stands and as I said you aren’t a SC justice so you’re opinions are just that, opinions, and matter not to me. I’ll close by asking if the congress banned political speech, would you stop talking about it?

          • Thank you Dyrewulf for your excellent points.

          • Mahajohn. Consider the video at the top, notice he is asking people to call in and snitch/report on anyone they suspect of having “illegal” guns. This would be a violation of rights given that the 2nd ammendment unequivocally states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They would be seized (violation of 4th ammendment) illegally as no warrant with a signed oath or affirmation was produced. (to keep potential liability at the fore for whomever levels such charges as a means to insure this power is not abused.)

          • How is it reasonable to infringe upon the rights of millions for the debatable actions of the few? We have no physical evidence that has been independently verified that many of the examples constituting the suppsed “epidemic” of shootings you invoke were carried out in the way the media is describing. Do you understand that the MSM is essentially the propaganda arm of the Federal government? Do you not understand the history of false flag attacks utilized to spark many of the most destructive episodes of recent human history? How can you presume to ignore all of this data? What of the disproportionate heroic tales of everyday people successfully defending themselves and their families from burglaries, rape and homicide with their guns? Do you admit there is a skewed perspective coming from the polticorporate/government media complex? (ad hoc term but you know what I mean)

          • Please read my above response regarding the Heller case and the numerous examples of people needing to defend themselves without the constraint of the federal government. Also I know at least one disinfonaut of some prominence who has protected his own home with a firearm. Would you have him waiting 2 years or risking imprisonment because of some random snitch for the right to defend his family and property from criminals? This is a very serious question.


            District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case
            in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second
            Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s
            right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
            self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision
            did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends
            beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by
            McDonald v. Chicago
            (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to
            decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
            keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

            June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the
            D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of
            Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations
            Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for
            the purposes of the Second Amendment,
            found that the District of Columbia’s regulations act was an
            unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations

            act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept
            “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” “Prior to this
            decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted
            residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to
            1975.”[5]Lower Court Background

            In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III
            for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally
            finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional
            scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model
            his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6]
            They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race,
            economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their
            mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two

            Shelly Parker – a software designer and former nurse who had been
            active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single
            woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug
            dealers who have sometimes tried to break into her house.[8][9]

            Tom G. Palmer – a colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[7] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm
            handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California,
            he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane
            language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When
            he produced his gun, the men fled.
            Palmer believes that the handgun
            saved his life.[10][11]

            Gillian St. Lawrence – a mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia.
            It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration
            process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in
            her home and to be able to register a handgun.

            Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson) – an employee of the U.S.
            Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she
            lives in the Adams Morgan
            neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from
            Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union
            Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her

            George Lyon – a communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association
            about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C.
            licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his

            Dick Heller – a licensed special police officer for the District of
            Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings,
            but was not allowed to have one in his home.[16]
            Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public
            housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood “transformed
            from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven”.
            Heller had also
            approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn
            the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[12]

          • Please provide sources as links as well. No offense but I can find a thousand bibles with different translations and sourcing them online doesn’t prevent mistranslations.

        • Hold it just one damn minute there. I am living in Washington State, but I have property in Mississippi State, and a MS State DL. It is completely legal for me to go back there, buy handguns from private people with no registration red tape or investigation of myself and then load them in my car and drive them back to WA. It is not legal for me to sell them that way in WA to other private individuals, or to ship them back to WA from MS, but I sure can drive them there, and without breaking one damn law.

          So again I ask, what is your definition of an illegal firearm since the legal definition changes State by State?

  3. @cameronwiltshire No problem here. Illegal guns are illegal guns.

  4. Ittabena | Jan 6, 2013 at 7:07 pm |

    Well let’s cut through the dross… What, Mr. Mayor, by your definition, is an illegal gun? Until that question is answered – even if it is from a year ago – further intelligent discussion cannot occur.

    Of course, depending on the answer to that question…

    A year ago, would that have been about the time of the Mayoral re-election bid? Rhetorical question, just got off work and not energetic enough to see if it was and if he won or not.

    • Well said Ittabena. We definitely need to clarify our definitions and terms so that we are on the same page and not wasting time bogged down in newspeak idiosyncrasies. Kudos for pointing this out.

    • DeepCough | Jan 6, 2013 at 7:33 pm |

      Where in the First Amendment does it say that “unlimited campaign contributions are perfectly okay, because everyone knows money talks and bullshit walks?”

      • ? Sorry too many mixed metaphors and arguments for me here. What is your point?

        • DeepCough | Jan 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm |

          Well, if, uh, man, like, you had a decent, y’know, grasp of the English language, bro, you’d, like, totally know that the Second Amendment, man, only provides for guns for the Establishment, man; it doesn’t say that every single Average Joe ‘Murcan can have a firearm at their disposal, dude, but hey, I’m just, y’know, reading the whole thing, man, not just cherry-picking, y’know, clauses an’ shit to justify narrow political ideology, know what I’m sayin’?

          P.S. “Money talks and bullshit walks” is only ONE metaphor.

          • Right it must be that I am incapable of understanding the English language and not your own insecurities bubbling over anonymously online again. Ahem. So your interpretation based on a complete lack of documentation or legal training is that the 2nd amendment, “only provides guns for the establishment”? What are you basing this on other than your own cherished notions? Please provide some context or citation or otherwise you’ve literally done nothing but express another baseless opinion from what I see. Regarding Mixed Metaphors, Sorry, in addressing so much smarmy troll vomit I sometimes make slight mistakes, I’m sure you understand. “It’s like a finger pointing the way to the moon, so go fuck yourself.”

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2013 at 12:23 am |

            ^[INSERT Gentle Chiding]

          • Sorry again, but I have two copies of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and though they both say the same thing, neither one of them limits this right to “establishment” anything – don’t see that word at all – and both do guarantee it to the average American citizen. It also mentions that this right has been recognized by the writers as having been granted by God and to be, in fact, inalienable.

            I think you should submit a bill for a refund to the public school system that you attended. You got ripped off sir.

  5. The right to bear arms does not preclude regulation. You do not have a right to have a gun illegally.

    • On what basis are you stating this?

      • Dingbert | Jan 7, 2013 at 9:56 am |

        I’ve posted this before, but pro- and anti-gun folks need to read it, preferably the whole opinion, so I’m going to keep posting it. It’s as authoritative and apolitical as you can possibly get. There is ammo for both sides. Three caveats:
        1) These holdings could be reversed any number of years down the line (think Brown v. BoE),
        2) We can disagree with the Court’s reasoning (think Citizens United), and
        3) Scalia is a dick.

  6. The video was uploaded a year ago.

  7. BuzzCoastin | Jan 6, 2013 at 10:06 pm |

    Newark is war zone
    has been for decades
    and this guy is grasping at straws
    in a vain attempt to bring order to Chaos
    good luck

    • It has changed quite a bit in the last few years. They’ve basically employed the Disney/Times Square strategy. Level entire housing projects and rebuild with big money. Price the locals right out of the area. Right beyond Newark’s jurisdictional boundaries, it’s the same as ever.
      It’s probably safer to walk the streets of Kabul than East Orange. *Unless you’re a valued customer

      • BuzzCoastin | Jan 6, 2013 at 11:14 pm |

        I haven’t been there since before 9/11
        so it’s hard for me to say about right now

        it’s always had the North Ward, which was quite upscale
        but that area between the Parkway to the Airport
        north & south between 280 & the Turnpike
        has been a war zone since the 60’s riots

        maybe they gentrified the downtown?
        but I’ll bet there’s still a lot of no man’s land

      • Apathesis | Jan 13, 2013 at 9:28 am |

        Here’s a song that deals with that same sort of problem which has happened in Harlem:

    • I agree and this is why I pointed out that if he were serious about remedy and not just staying politically endowed that he would question the military/prison/welfare/warfare complex. Sad to think how many black leaders refuse to heed the message of Dr. King and of the authentic push for freedom rather than this house slave mentality that is envogue. Yes I said house slave, it’s not racist to bring up the reality of house slaves selling out to the will of the master for a little bit of comfort and status now is it.

      • BuzzCoastin | Jan 7, 2013 at 1:29 am |

        Right on.
        I assume a politician works for da man, regardless of color.
        And if they get uppity, they get put back in the fields.
        Same holds true for White (race) House Niggers.

        But I’m sure peeps in da hood
        been reportin’ da guys wid da gats
        and all the mayor did was
        make it profitable for da peeps &
        more cost effective & efficient for da man.
        You might see it as a welfare payment
        in the truest sense.

  8. bobbiethejean | Jan 6, 2013 at 10:26 pm |

    The mayor isn’t asking people to turn in citizens in possession of legal guns but citizens in possession of ILLEGAL guns. Now that’s still pretty silly. It won’t accomplish anything. How the crap would I know if my neighbors have illegal firearms? I don’t even know my neighbors! Nevertheless, what you are accusing is false. Furthermore, this is old news and the program he was championing is no longer prevalent.

    • Bobbie can you please provide me a source to substantiate your statement that this program is no longer viable. It’s not my point whether or not it is still going, but rather to illustrate and create conversation around the recent hysteria for “gun control”. Of course most people just take the Sandy Hook story at face value, just like Waco, OKC, 9/11 but hey call me kooky, I distrust governments responsible for most of the murders, primarily against citizens who were disarmed by the governments who decided to play god all the way and end their lives prematurely.

    • I’m pretty sure the guy asked people to snitch and do something entirely illegal and unconstitutional, now he may think he is acting legally, but he absolutely is violating people’s rights and I’d like if I could have his treasanous ass arrested and collect a Thousand dollars to buy more guns but that’s just me 😉

      • Again for the record and please feel free to refute this with your own legal precedence or sources.

      • bobbiethejean | Jan 8, 2013 at 12:27 am |

        There’s nothing illegal about reporting illegal firearms. Nice try. Actually no, that wasn’t a nice try, you’re grasping at straws. I don’t agree with Booker’s tack but let’s not be unreasonable, eh?

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2013 at 1:06 am |

        You didn’t seem too concerned with snitching when you called the police 9 months ago on the man who was brandishing & discharging a firearm in your neighborhood.

        • Interesting you would bring this up. There is a difference between “brandishing” and discharging a fire arm now isn’t there Calypso? See if he was brandishing I would still have reason to alert the authorities as I could be put in danger because of his foolish behavior, as it was within 100 feet of my house. If he were using it to defend himself than I by all means assert his right to “brandish” said firearm. Given that he discharged his weapon at least 3 x’s over the course of an hour while brandishing it, making terroristic threats and overall just being an ass I have no problem whatsoever calling the officers who we pay to deal with such ruffians to do their job. After all they are supposed to keep the peace yes? Also I’m curious, when did I share this with you from before?

          • But you should know they didn’t do anything, just drove right by. I guess even police officers think twice when the other party is armed.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2013 at 2:08 am |

            U mad, No $$$ for Cap’n Call-a-Crime? : )

            You sir shared it for all the world to see right here on disinfo.

            SOURCE ?

            ‘Brandishing’ is a legal definition and such behavior would not generally fall under the nature of self-defense. That is why I used a conjunction to link the two concepts, as discharging a weapon (not targeting with) often occurs together w/brandishing . I fail to see any point in your attempt to make a distinction. Both acts within this context would be illegal.
            To legally use a weapon in self defense there must be a use of force against the assailant. Brandishing alone, even in a defensive situation could (and has) lead to assault charges. Even threatening to use a weapon without ever producing it or using it against an assailant, even if that causes said assailant to stop, can land the defender in jail.

          • Had he “brandished alone” I would not have called the police, once he started firing, that was quite enough for me. I didn’t want to presume to know what was going on from a hundred + feet away and nobody enjoys going to jail. The mental health ward or whatever it is, that you work in; if one your patients began brandishing a deadly weapon, I’m pretty sure you would be Cap’n Call-a-Crime’ing your folks for back up now wouldn’t you. Or would you run in guns/taser/sedatives blazing solo hard boiled style? 😉 Seargeant Shoot a Sedative? 😉 (hey I tried) Thanks for the link, I remembered posting but couldn’t remember when/where exactly.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm |

            We don’t call the cops. But they do call us.
            There is a special back high security entrance just for them to hand of their wards.

            It’s against policy if at all possible to solo restrain. The unit is locked down, other patients are evacuated and an appropriate number of staff is brought in to restrain an aggressor. I am however very good at not letting it escalate to this point.
            No matter how violent the person might be they are under my care. Under that care mercy & relief of suffering govern my actions. It’s not a prison. It’s a hospital.

  9. disqus_qrByd2uvep | Jan 7, 2013 at 1:17 am |

    You know what? All you armchair motherfuckers can spout all you want, but, UNTIL you’ve spent any time in Newark, and I mean longer than just driving through with your windows up & doors locked, ogling the impeded in the streets, you’d be happy to see any attempt to get some guns off of the street. Maybe, when you’ve had one shoved in your face, you’ll see things differently.

    • Precisely why you should have access to your own. There will always be turds out there who don’t value the rights of others. “It is not right to offend others, but it is also not right to not be able to defend yourself” – Bodhidharma (maybe)

  10. Camron, you micromanaging your posts is annoying. It’s like you publish them either to entrap posters into a conversation that will support your position or to argue like hell against them. What’s the point?

    And just because I enjoy bothering the @#$ out of you, I’ll second what Zombie said, your post has a misleading title. Whether Booker said it or not, he’s not advocating for getting rid of guns. He’s advocating for getting rid of illegal guns. And that’s all he can do legally anyway. Stop being so alarmist about it.
    And what’s your paranoia about this anyway? Obama hasn’t said a word about taking away guns for 4 years. Now that we have a near epidemic of shootings across the country, don’t you think this country deserves to have an indepth discussion about guns and gun legislation? I don’t personally believe in taking away guns but I think it would be good to talk about better gun control. And here’s the thing….just because we have a serious conversation about gun control and gun legislation DOESN’T MEAN WE’RE TAKING YOUR @#$ GUNS AWAY OK?

    • Since you may not have seen this, I will repost this very adequate response and refutation from Dyrewolf. Feel free to reasonably address these points. Again logical fallacies and personal attacks are a waste of everyone’s precious time, please refrain from them in your response. Cheers.

      “First, you should research the meaning of “well-regulated” at the time
      of the writing of the Bill of Rights. It was commonly used to mean well
      equipped or in order. Also, the 2A does not say abridged, it says
      infringed. How can citizen #1’s weapon be legal but citizen #2’s not be
      without infringement? The ruling from the SCOTUS stands and as I said
      you aren’t a SC justice so you’re opinions are just that, opinions, and
      matter not to me. I’ll close by asking if the congress banned political
      speech, would you stop talking about it?”

      You’re assuming the state has the right to designate which weapons are legal or not. Again do you submit that all power should rest with the government? Do you assume that they would never abuse any drastic power differential? Have you considered the long sordid history of Democide?

      Do you believe that the DHS should force us to pay for their full scale armament with lethal hollow point bullets while simultaneously working to undermine our constitutional god given and inalienable rights without challenge because they in a prior and unconstitutional legal maneuver declared that some weapons are “illegal”? Do you not see how this defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment all together?

      Why does Homeland Security need 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition?

      Read more:
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Why is everyone all up in arms about the recent purchase by Homeland security of 1.4 Billion rounds of ammunition?

      Our undeclared Foreign War in Iraq Consumes about 70,000,000 (70 Million) Rounds of Ammunition Each Year, which would take about 20 years to consume 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition ordered by the Department of Homeland Security alone, not including all the ammunition ordered by the weather service, Social Security, etc! 20 Years To Use All 1.4 Billion Rounds Of This Ammo?

      Is the Department of Homeland security to protect us from foreign terrorists, or to protect the central government from the American people?

      Remember we are talking about rifles, and machine guns, not nuclear war heads or drones. The government you would so quickly sign over rights to apparently has a sure monopoly on those destructive powers.

      Also if you don’t like my posts, you have every right to comment about them, and I reserve the same right in defense of my position, fair enough yes? So please stop invoking that I am somehow bending the unwritten code you tout whenever your pc button goes off. The point is that we discuss things fairly, reasonably and logically.

      • $10 bucks says you will ignore everything I have said and simply continue with your discursive line about how you think I should present myself to the world. What type of PC brainwashing did you undergo exactly? Just curious? Does Martha Stewart have her own FEMA camp? Just giving what your given, so if you don’t like it, change your own behavior. You should understand the hypocrisy of attacking people and then blaming them for your PC violations when they defend themselves? Oh wait, given your position on this post, maybe that is exactly what you do.

  11. Camron, your micromanaging your posts reminds me of an adolescent’s first steps into adulthood, testing the waters with your authoritative statements then acting overly defensive and angry when someone disagrees with you. If you’re gonna post, then post and let the commenters be. That’s what this site is about anyway. If you want to be provocative…great but then don’t act surprised or offended when you post an obviously alarmist and extreme headline that is not really indicative of the content. Booker can’t ask Americans to turn in neighbors for having legally obtained firearms. He’s obviously asking for help getting illegal guns off the streets….sheez.

    • Honu, do you want to talk about the subject at hand without all the personal attacks? The last time I invested the energy to correct your errors in thinking you disappeared with no further comment. If you are earnestly seeking the truth (which is yet to be seen) try to avoid the ad hominem diversions and talk about the subject at hand. If you can manage that is. Also if you want to piggy back on to other people’s complaints, please note where I have politely sought that they clarify their positions and they have neglected to for whatever reason. If you cannot answer the question in their stead, simply adding it to your laundry list of complaints does not bolster your argument but only makes you out to be a recalcitrant nag.

    • Actually, an OP who takes a powder is considered a hit and run, bad form and is generally frowned upon on all discussion forums.

      My Father was a State Police Officer and he always told me never to snitch. That a snitch was considered the lowest form of life there is and though the police work with them it is only an arrangement of necessity, the police still despise them for having no honor. I see and hear Booker asking his constituency to become snitches, and pointlessly so. How many druggies or terrorists do you know personally to have illegal firearms? I would wager Tom and Sally Lickspittle don’t know very many either. So who are they gonna rat out? Their next door neighbors, coworkers and family members are pretty much all that is left. I mean I would never carry around an illegal firearm, whatever that is, with a sticker on it saying illegal firearm. Get my point?

  12. Calypso_1 | Jan 7, 2013 at 8:56 am |

    How is Booker treasonous?

  13. Hmmm, lets call a cheap “throw away” $200.

    Getting one of my lackeys to hide it in an unlocked car or a temporarily unattended home might cost another $50.

    That leaves $750.

    Then some smurfs to drop a dime on the newly minted “illegal gun owners”. Maybe I’d split the check with them, because they’d have to cash it.

    That leaves me $250 for every poor fucker I set up.

    Three a day would be easy.

    I might be moving to Newark…

    • Thank you Zenc. Streetsmart and witty at that, why can’t you roam the streets as some kind of righteous masked vigilante? Casey Jones eat your heart out. Cheers.

  14. Apathesis | Jan 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm |

    In Worcester, MA they were offering $25-75 gift cards to grocery stores and free flu shots to anyone who turned in a gun.

    Talk about a rip-off.

    Anyway, this bullshit in Newark is just that. There are probably a good number of law-abiding citizens who have illegal guns for PROTECTION because New Jersey is apparently notorious for not issuing gun permits.

  15. Yellow journalism. He’s calling for people to turn in those with ILLEGAL guns, not all guns. The headline makes it sound as if he’s targeting those with legally registered weapons.

  16. I guess he is going to give us five brand spankin’ new $200 bills. He tells us he will give us $1,000 and holds up five bills. Gotta git me sum o’ them thar $200 bills.

Comments are closed.