Doesn’t the word illegal imply strongly that a law was broken? We still must question whether any laws were, in fact, broken. But that’s not how FoxNews Radio saw it:

“Mayor Michael Bloomberg says undercover investigators working for New York City were illegally allowed to buy semi-automatic pistols at an Arizona gun show.”

This is actually a tad sloppy reporting. Previously other outlets noted that Bloomberg said that the sales “probably” were made to those who wouldn’t pass a background check. That’s a big difference.

What Bloomberg, who heads Mayors Against Illegal Guns, did not note is how many of those deaths include criminals who are shot by law-abiding gun owners, or criminals who are shot by the police.

Bloomberg also offered this thought:

“No rational person thinks you should be able to sell a rifle that’s advertising as able to bring down a commercial airliner. Nobody thinks we should be selling armor-piercing bullets — you don’t need that if you’re hunting deer or elk.”

Would the honorable mayor of New York City please tell us where such rifles are being sold? Where does one get armor-piercing bullets? And what does this have to do with handguns?

This is a common bait and switch type of misinformation that anti-gun zealots like to pull. Bloomberg talks about handguns and violence, only offering the facts he wants to give – the number of deaths. He doesn’t mention anything about guns used in self defense, and then of course he throws out the information about armor-piercing bullets and rifles that can take an airliner. He notes this is part of the gun’s advertising claim – but we at FirearmsTruth.com can’t find any such ad.

We were at the SHOT Show last week and never saw any gun advertised as being able to do such a thing. So this reminds of us an old joke… how do you know when a politician such as Bloomberg is lying? His mouth is moving!

Don’t agree with our take on Bloomberg Businessweek’s take? Let’s look at a few examples where the wording suggests that the writer isn’t exactly entirely unbiased:

“It will open a new front in the fight over gun rights, setting the stage for courtroom battles over the constitutionality of weapons restrictions around the country.”

Is it necessary to use the words “front” and “weapons?” While firearms can be weapons, so too could be a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. And the word “front” along with “battles” implies a hostile intent. But let’s also examine some other passages a bit more closely too:

“Chicago has been the only major U.S. city with a blanket prohibition on handguns. The ban was challenged by four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old homeowner in the Morgan Park neighborhood on the city’s South Side.
 
“McDonald, who says his home has been broken into at least three times, says he wants to keep a handgun by his bed for protection.”

What the author of this piece failed to mention is that Mr. McDonald actually shot an intruder into his home. As written, this piece offers McDonald’s statement as unsubstantiated. In fact, he’s been a victim who had to use a gun already in self-defense.

But the whole point of our post is that we see this type of just slightly anti-gun bias all too often in the mainstream media.

“Mayor Richard Daley today rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the city’s gun ban, but said that he will be ready to act quickly to put in place restrictions on gun ownership if it does.”

The post further quotes Daley, almost suggesting that he hopes something bad will happen to chance some minds:

“You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they’ll see the light of day. Maybe one of them will have an incident and they’ll change their mind overnight, going to and from work.”

So we’ll ask the question, no one else seems to ask… does Daley think before he speaks? The Tribune blog post also quotes him saying this choice statement:

“Whatever the details of the court’s ruling will be, we will always find new ways to keep guns off our streets.”

The sentiment is good. The possibility of this statement being true is ridiculous. Daley can’t possibly believe he can keep “guns off the streets.” What he can do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns. Of course, this comes from the guy who just days ago told a reporter that Chicago’s gun laws were effective with the choice statement:

“If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know.”

So does Daely think before he speaks? He sounds like a very dangerous man to us, and there is an old saying about where good intentions take you. Let’s hope that men such as Daley, or New York’s Michael Bloomberg don’t do too much paving.

But beyond what Michael Bloomberg does in New York City is really not the issue. Nearly my entire collection of firearms is housed out of state, because I fear that Bloomberg will change New York City gun laws and require me to “hand in” my guns. There is no grandfather clause in New York City. If the laws change, you change with them or you leave. I’m hoping I can leave, and the sooner the better.

Again, what Michael Bloomberg does in New York City is really not the issue. It is that Mr. Bloomberg is trying to change the laws in other states, and on the national stage. I find it ironic because many “lifers” as those who were born and will likely die in this city, complain that much of the old New York City is changing, that too many outsiders are coming in, and that New York City looks too much like the rest of the country.

Well, I say to the old guard in New York, including Mr. Bloomberg, maybe you should keep your old New York City. But keep your hands off the guns of law-abiding citizens, especially those who don’t live in New York City.

And to those New Yorkers, or just residents of New York City, who feel as I do… stay home on Tuesday. Don’t vote. This is a year when Mr. Bloomberg says he needs to see every voter get out. I say instead, stay home and vote by not going to the polls.

In a statement Bloomberg said, “This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it’s about keeping guns from criminals, plain and simple.”

I don’t know if I see it that way. Getting a rifle permit is difficult and expensive in New York City, and obtaining a pistol permit is for many nearly impossible. Bloomberg uses the phrases, “guns off the streets,” and “out of the hands of criminals.” But really he wants all guns – expect for those of the police and his wealthy friends – completely out of New York City. The best solution is for this mayor to go back to being a private citizen, and hopefully soon.

 ”Bloomberg created ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ as a front group to lobby Congress to oppose important pro-gun reforms and support new federal gun control restrictions. And some mayors have joined or been duped into joining this anti-gun Bloomberg crusade.”

Forty-five of Florida’s mayors have joined the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Understandably, these men and women have been inundated with mail and phone calls from constituents who are unhappy that their elected leaders are supporting this group. Mayors Against Illegal Guns has around 450 cities nationwide under its thumb.

The group has the kind of name that is hard to argue with. Who is for illegal guns? But this is just a form of Orwellian Newspeak created to mask the organizations true intentions. What you consider to be a legally owned firearm may not be the same as what this group considers to be legal.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns was founded by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. New York City is notorious for its draconian gun laws and it doesn’t take a great leap of faith to believe that the group wants New York style gun control in every American city. If you own any type of firearm, this would most likely make you an illegal gun owner.

Former NRA President Marion Hammer is afraid the mayors group really wants to spread New York City gun control.

“This is what we like to call a ‘soft front’ to hide what they’re really doing,” Hammer said. “Everybody is against illegal guns. The NRA is the one organization that has worked for years to stop people from using legal guns illegally — that’s called ‘criminal activity,’ by the way. Our big thing is to punish people who use guns illegally and leave legal gun owners alone.”