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.
Mayor Bloomberg Calls Out Obama on Gun Control
For us this is a lose-lose scenario, but at least we’re not the ones losing. This week, prior to last night’s State of the Union, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called out President Obama on gun control. It was the usual nonsense, about “loopholes” and supposed “easy access” for criminals to obtain guns. The truth is that all the measures Bloomberg wants only make it that much harder for the law abiding.
But anytime one sleazy politician calls out another we think an angel get wings! Bloomberg’s Letter After the Jump
BLOOMBERG’S SLANDER OF GUN LAW VICTIM ‘DESPICABLE’ – SAF
Second Amendment Foundation:
The Second Amendment Foundation, upon reviewing a video of the mayor’s remarks, called Bloomberg’s comment “despicable.” Read more
An open letter to New York Mayor Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns
From: Second Amendment Foundation
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
Recent news accounts have once again revealed an ugly truth about New York City: Through the adoption and enforcement of Draconian firearms regulations, the Big Apple is rotten to its core for treating a fundamental, constitutionally-protected civil right as a felony.
These laws have recently entrapped a Marine Corps veteran, a female medical student, and the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots organization. Their crime – at least in your jurisdiction – is that they traveled with firearms that are perfectly legal to possess anywhere else in the United States.
Mayor Bloomberg, when you created Mayors Against Illegal Guns, you made it clear that New York style gun laws should apply across the nation. You also claimed your intent was not to infringe on Second Amendment rights, and that your proposals were “moderate.” Read more
CCRKBA: Mobile, AL Mayor & Member of MAIG Hypocrisy Showing In Burglary Case
Mobile, Alabama Mayor Sam Jones has some explaining to do in the wake of a highly-publicized incident before Christmas during which he held a burglary suspect at gunpoint, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Jones, a Democrat, is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that has campaigned for stricter gun control laws that affect average private citizens.
But Jones is no average private citizen.
According to published reports, Jones was returning home from an errand, driving his private vehicle. “His bodyguard, who drives the mayor’s city vehicle, was not on duty,” the Press-Register newspaper reported. And now there are questions about whether the mayor has an Alabama carry permit. Read more
