NRA News: Women Against Mayors Who Are Against The Second Amendment
Cam Edwards talks to Anna Rittgers - Independent Women’s Forum
Who Guards the Guards: NYPD Officer Pleads Guilty of Gun Smuggling
This past weekend New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his case for stricter gun laws, but we ask would they do any good if those trusted to have guns break the law? The Associated Press via The Wall Street Journal noted this week that Brooklyn NYPD officer William Masso could face five to six years in prison for gun smuggling!
He reportedly attempted to a cache of firearms that included “three M-16 rifles, one shotgun, 16 handguns,” as well as slot machines and “thousands of cartons of cigarettes, along with counterfeit merchandise.” But even worse, is the fact that Masso was “recruiting other law enforcement officers to join the scheme.”
This makes us wonder if Mayors Against Illegal Guns shouldn’t look closer to home instead of targeting distant gun shows?
Even Left-Leaning Daily Beast Sees “Bloomberg’s Gun-Control Ad Is the Wrong Move for Obama”
Apparently the left-leaning news site The Daily Beast didn’t like that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to make gun control a real issue in this country. This isn’t because writer Adam Winkler or anyone at The Daily Beast actually believes in the Second Amendment, but they know that “Bloomberg’s Gun-Control Ad Is the Wrong Move for Obama.” Winkler writes:
President Obama focusing on gun control this year would only stimulate gun-related interest groups, like the National Rifle Association, and encourage them to spend even more money to turn out the vote for Republican candidates. Of course the gun lobby is going to oppose Obama’s reelection no matter what.
Winkler then tries to defend Obama on the record:
The NRA and its allies, however, have a credibility problem on this issue. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, the NRA has been ominously warning gun owners about what the organization calls Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.” The NRA promised that Obama would “ban [the] use of firearms for home self-defense,” “pass federal laws eliminating your right-to-carry,” and “close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America.” None of these things has happened.
What Winkler does say is that President Obama did have a White House summit that called for “reasonable gun control,” which to us is actually an unreasonable call. Additionally, Obama did tell Sarah Brady he was in fact working on gun control but “under the radar.” These are points that The Daily Beast either forgot, or didn’t want brought up.
Finally after giving various weak arguments on the points, this article closes with:
Gun violence is a serious issue that deserves our leaders’ attention. Yet given the obvious downside risk of promoting gun control in an election year, gun-control advocates should hope that, when it comes to guns, Obama just keeps his mouth shut.
So what we are seeing is that someone believes there is a real problem – one we think is dramatically overstated – and yet says he hopes his guy “just keeps his mouth shut.” Democracy at work indeed!
New York Daily News Gives Bloomberg Platform to Rant
While the story this week in The New York Daily News wasn’t entirely biased, it did basically just parrot New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It offered this passage:
“Federal laws say you can’t get a gun if you have a drug problem, psychiatric problem, criminal record or [are a\] minor, and yet Congress doesn’t give monies to make sure that we can have a background check,” Bloomberg said on “Meet the Press.”
Criminals seeking guns can take advantage of “too many loopholes,” the mayor said.
“The background database isn’t up to date, private sector sales of guns is something like 40%, and they don’t do background checks,” he said.
The problem with this argument is that it basically blames the loopholes and not the criminals. It also tries to suggest that those 40 percent are 100 percent of the illegal gun problem, and there is no evidence this is the case. Once again it seems clear that Bloomberg isn’t just part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, he’s a mayor against all guns.
National Review Calls out Bloomberg
We’re pleased that FirearmsTruth.com isn’t the only one to call out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for issuing what is essentially a mixed message in his call for safer gun laws. As the National Review noted this week, Bloomberg’s issue is as much about the mental-health database as it is a gun issue – too bad that Bloomberg doesn’t address this and leave the gun issue to someone who understands it.
However, the National Review seems to be giving in on the issue a bit. The article notes:
Improving the mental-health database is an unambiguously good idea, and requiring background checks for private sales is at least debatable — a fair number of crime guns seem to come from private sources, and it’s not unreasonable to ask someone who wants to transfer a gun to drive to a licensed dealer first.
We just have to ask where does this line end? Is it unreasonable when a stranger buys a gun from you? This almost makes sense as you don’t know the person, but it becomes a gray area when it could be selling or trading guns to your friend. Is the background check still necessary? And what about when Dad decides to give a family gun to his son? Is the background check still necessary? “Happy birthday son, now let’s go to the gun shop so you can pay to receive your gift.”
And this is where the notion of “reasonable gun control” that so many anti-gun types call for becomes a bit unreasonable, especially as street thugs and criminals NEVER bother with background checks and permits.
AngolaPress Reports: “Bloomberg reloads in push for gun control”
The international media has noted something that the mainstream media in the United States either fails to grasp OR wants to conceal from the American public. The gun lobby’s power is voters. Consider this bit from this weekend’s AngolaPress story focusing on Mayor Bloomberg’s recent push with his Mayors Against Illegal Guns ad that was scheduled to run during the Super Bowl:
Candidates for local and national office in the U.S. have faced sharp backlashes for advocating restraints on gun ownership, such as assault weapons or guns on campus. Such pushes draw fire from the well-funded National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies. For many defenders of the Constitution’s Second Amendment – the right to bear arms – guns are the single issue on which they vote.
Read that final sentence. Doesn’t this clearly explain that the power of the NRA is convincing voters? “Guns are the single issue on which they vote.” Now the anti-gun crowd might not like this fact, and the media may even try to hide this truth, but this is the actual power of the NRA – that it speaks to those who are single issue voters.
The article adds:
Democrats, who are more likely than Republicans to favor some restrictions on gun ownership, made a conscious decision to stay away from the gun issue in the 2010 midterm congressional elections. The aim: protect the so-called Blue Dog conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, who didn’t toe the party line on gun control. Most were defeated anyway.
If the Democratic Party hoped to keep the gun issue off center stage in the 2012 presidential race, MAIG’s campaign makes that unlikely. So does the fact that the NRA and the gun industry’s trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), have announced they will have a combined war chest of $225 million.
Now let’s take another view, if the Democrats have stayed away from this issue isn’t it because they are scared of losing the election? The anti-crowd cries foul and tries to point that the NRA has two much power, forgetting that it is really the single issue voters who are speaking their mind.
How is this different from other issues? It is in that the anti-gun crowd doesn’t want this to be a fair fight.
Capital New York Quotes Anti-Gun Bloomberg
So how does New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg really see guns? We know he hates them, and last week he was quoted in Capital New York. Here is a sampling:
“There are too many loopholes in federal laws that let people buy guns when federal laws say they shouldn’t. Federal law says you cannot buy a gun if you have a criminal record, psychiatric problems, or a minor. Unfortunately, the gun background-check system that we have has some flaws in it. Too many people sell guns privately, and while they’re not supposed to sell to those who couldn’t pass a background check, they’re not required to do a background check. And it would be very easy to have reputable gun dealers do that background check for them.”
The question we would like to ask the Mayor is what is his point? Is this really a problem of “guns” or of the flawed medical system? Most gun sales do require a background check, and the background checks do keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t buy them. Further restrictions will only make it harder for the law-abiding – as the citizens of Chicago and Washington can attest. Those cities had even stricter laws than New York City and yet STILL had a gun violence problem.
Bloomberg later stated:
“I don’t think the founding fathers meant to have people to walk around with assault rifles in their hands. I don’t think the founding fathers meant to have people who are on the no fly list be able to go and buy guns.”
This is a common tactic used by anti-gun types. Did the founding fathers intend for reality TV? Did the founding fathers mean for people to have access to pornography on the Internet? It is certainly impossible for the founding fathers to have any opinion on no fly lists when the cutting edge technology in flight of the era of the 1780s was a hot air balloon!
Likewise, as we often state, the guns of the era were far deadlier given the medical treatment today. In the 1780s any musket wound was very likely to be fatal. So this nonsense that the guns are deadlier today is just that – nonsense.
And finally for good measure Bloomberg compares America to the Third World:
“There are more guns than there are people in America. And it’s only America that has this problem. A couple of third-world countries. But you go around the world and they look at us and say, ‘What are you people thinking?’”
No this isn’t true. There are mass shootings even in countries where there are far stricter gun laws. And yes, there are more guns than people in America. So what is the problem? This argument suggests that Bloomberg isn’t anti-illegal guns as he often tries to suggest, but truly ANTI-GUN in all respects. He is mad that people have guns because he doesn’t like guns.
But this is easy for a billionaire to say, one who has private security – who are likely armed. So are the guns really a danger? No, the danger is men like Bloomberg who will spend their vast fortunes to rewrite the laws as they see fit. Maybe he should at least change the name of his group from Mayors Against Illegal Guns to MAYORS AGAINST GUNS and stop the pretext and lying.
Does NBC New York Reporter Believe in Checking Facts?
There is a role in the media called a “fact checker” but strangely it seems many firearms related stories in the mainstream media just accept anything said by anti-gun types as a “fact.” Case in point, this week NBC New York offered a story on how this weekend a commercial will run featuring Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston – who happen to be the founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Here is what we are talking about:
Bloomberg asserted the (recent) shooting (in New York City) made clear the importance of gun control. He added: “We had too close a brush with death tonight due to illegal guns.”
And the figures prove he’s right. Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne told me that about 85 percent of the gun crimes committed in New York City result from gun purchases made in Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, “states with comparatively lax gun laws.”
First question, where does Paul Browne get his information? And more to the point, how do the figures prove Bloomberg is right? This number is widely cited, but without a source. Second, what numbers of those are legal vs. illegal gun purchases? In other words, are these even legal purchases that take advantage of “lax gun laws” in the first place? This point is never made clear and is often very vague. Not exactly the facts now are they?
But the facts get even more twisted:
John Feinblatt, the Mayor’s chief policy adviser, told me that states with tough gun laws are unlikely to be the source of illegal guns. He noted that, in fighting gun crimes, two measures are vital: having universal background checks for gun sales and putting all such data in the FBI files. In the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, in which 33 people were killed, the gunman, Seung-hui Cho, had a mental history that indicated he was dangerous but , Feinblatt said, that was never passed on to the FBI. Some state laws on gun sales, he added “have loopholes like swiss [sic] cheese.”
Again, this is twisting the message and points. Seung-hui Cho’s ability to get a gun wasn’t because of lax gun laws, but rather a failing in the mental health system. But what “loopholes” are like “Swiss cheese” exactly? Would this be private sales? Even in New York private sales are legal, provided both parties have licenses to own the firearms.
But another point we’d like to make on facts. States with tough gun laws may not be the source of illegal guns, but it is hard to know for sure. Illegal guns aren’t exactly tracked the way commercial sales are tracked, so this is somewhat a vague point. It is clear that guns do change hands in New York and Illinois – as there is gun violence. Clearly an illegal black market operates and no amount of gun bans or gun control is going to destroy this black market. But that’s a fact that really pushes the issue – is it Mayors Against Illegal Guns or just Mayors Against Guns, because the way these guys talk it sounds like the latter.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns Goes to the Super Bowl
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino will reportedly appear in a pro-gun control ad during the Super Bowl. Of course this publicity stunt is occurring as New York and New England’s teams appearing in the big game.
It should be noted that the 30 second ad will cost some $3 million dollars – so anyone who says that the NRA pushes its pro-gun message unfairly should consider the money that these super rich anti-gun zealots are throwing at their cause.
But let’s consider some too some of the media coverage so far.
The New York Times: “During Super Bowl, for 30 Seconds, 2 Mayors Will Be on Same Side,” which offers this passage:
The half-minute ad features Mr. Bloomberg and Boston’s mayor, Thomas M. Menino, ribbing each other as they cheer for their respective teams and cities. But then they turn to the purpose of their spot, declaring that one thing they agree on is the need for stricter federal gun control laws.
The New York Post: “Mayor Bloomberg to run anti-illegal gun ad during Super Bowl”
The Associated Press via The Wall Street Journal : “NYC, Boston mayors team up in gun-control ad”
All this is interesting in the way it suggests it is about “illegal guns” and how the mayors are “teaming up” and are “on the same side,” but never notes that this is against what many gun owners want. Of course do these rich anti-gun zealots care.
It should be noted that the ad will only appear in select markets and not nationally due to rules on “cause related” ads.
BBC News Notes: Colombia experiments with Bogota gun ban
Gun control say anti-gun types will make a safer world. So maybe we have a test subject in Bogota, Colombia, which is banning firearms reports the BBC this week. But what’s this… some are already saying that it won’t reduce crime? The BBC noted:
And critics of Mr (Mayor Gustavo) Petro’s ban have pointed out that most homicides involving firearms are committed with non-registered weapons, most likely smuggled into the country by left-wing guerrillas and the criminal bands that control drug trafficking.
So let’s see if we understand. The city is going to ban guns, keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but critics note that guns are smuggled into the country and are used by criminals.
This should be required reading by groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
