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.
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.
NY Post Notes: Tourist’s Brothers in Arms
Apparently not every media outlet from the Big Apple is looking to target Ryan Jerome. This week The New York Post offered a story titled, “Tourist’s brothers in arms,” which noted that many Marines are lining to support the former Marine who made a mistake of bringing a gun to New York City.
The Post even offered this passage:
The irony that someone so highly trained and trusted to keep America safe might be thrown into prison — for a .45-caliber Ruger that he had legally registered in his home state and that he was actually trying to check with authorities — has not been lost on his Marine brethren.
Even the comments for this article show that many support Jerome, and blame Mayor Bloomberg. Maybe others have begun to see that Bloomberg is just a loud-mouthed anti-gun zealot who doesn’t care about the Constitution of the United States.
New York News Website Shows New York Arrogance
Ask a New Yorker to name the capital city of Alabama and most probably wouldn’t know. Ask a New Yorker what a “Michigan U-Turn” is when driving a car, and they probably wouldn’t know. Ask a New Yorker about laws for purchasing alcohol in Utah and chances are they might not know. Yet the New York City media seems to question why tourists don’t understand New York’s gun laws.
Website Gothamist for example noted:
Who believes that carrying a firearm into iconic, highly secured New York landmarks is a good idea? Metal detectors are designed to expose weapons, not belt buckles, yet clueless tourists keep getting hauled into court for packing heat at the Empire State Building. Now some Marines are claiming that Indiana native Ryan Jerome, himself a Marine who was arrested for trying to check his .45 Ruger with authorities in September, is more equal than others who have made the same mistake.
Is it necessary o describe these people as “clueless tourists,” especially in the case of Ryan Jerome, who was actually in New York City on business. But of course this is par for the course from the New Yorkers.
NY Times: Reckless Disregard for Safety
The New York Times offered an editorial this week titled, “Reckless Disregard for Safety,” noting:
The House showed its utter disregard for public safety in November when it approved the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would take away the authority of states to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun within their borders.
This is really “utter disregard.” Consider the following passage:
For example, New York, New Jersey and other states that bar individuals under 21 from obtaining a concealed carry permit would have to honor permits from states with no age requirement. The measure would also hamper efforts to combat illegal gun trafficking. An individual with a concealed carry permit from Florida — which allows the holder to carry unlimited numbers of concealed weapons — could drive a stash of weapons into New York and would have to be caught selling the guns on the street to get arrested.
What is stopping those teenagers in Harlem from arming themselves now? They don’t have concealed carry permits. This argument only aims to show that it would punish the law-abiding as the criminals are already breaking the law.
Does a posted speed limit by itself stop speeding? No, so why would a law such as this change who is packing an illegal gun and who is legally carrying a gun? Except to make it illegal to even carry a gun in the first place? In the end it seems to use the illegal gun would still be carried.
Mashable Claims “Easy to Buy Gun”
We’ve heard about the gun show loophole and now Mayor Michael Bloomberg is looking at illegal gun sales online. Unfortunately the media is already jumping on this band wagon. Mashable reported:
A study conducted by the City of New York found that — despite Craigslist‘s ban on gun listings — it’s quite easy to purchase guns through the online classifieds site. Private investigators found that 82% of the time they contacted sellers on Craigslist, an illegal sale was agreed upon.
“Over the past decade, we’ve launched a wide-ranging attack on illegal guns – and today, we’re opening a new front in that battle by targeting what has become an increasingly prevalent and dangerous problem: illegal gun sales on the Internet,” said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But here is the part that is missing in this report… it is still illegal. So why is Bloomberg time and time again calling for gun bans, instead of trying to go after those breaking the law? Clearly the anti-gun crowd believes that banning guns is the answer, instead of targeting the criminals who are breaking the law.
If criminals are breaking these laws (and bans of such sales) than why would they think that more laws is the answer?
Times Sun Union Calls for Background Checks on All Gun Sales
This week the editors at the Times Sun Union in Albany, New York offered an editorial that basically calls for the closing of the gun show loophole, and demands reporting of sales of all firearms. The editorial offered this thought:
A loophole in the federal law exempts private sales at gun shows from undergoing a NICS check. Only seven states, including New York, require the checks to be done for all sales. That should be mandatory nationwide.
The rest of the editorial notes the so-called “gun show loophole,” argues that criminals can get guns, and states many facts such as how licensed dealers must report all sales. All this makes good points and a very convincing argument, but there are some counter-points that the editors should think about.
Namely, “for all sales.” What about friends that give guns to one another? Or a father giving a son a gun? Would these need to be done through a dealer so a background check is done? And couldn’t people just “give” guns if cash isn’t exchanged? In other words, doesn’t this just create other “loopholes?”
And finally, this so-called nationwide background check would only affect law-abiding citizens, and wouldn’t have any effect on illegal gun sales. That is something to think about. Isn’t this really just about making it harder for the law-abiding to arm themselves?
AP Offers Biased Take on Gillbrand Bill
This week the Associated Press, via The Long Island Press, noted that U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is looking to close the so-called “gun show loophole.” The story presents a variety of dubious, misleading and even contradictory facts including:
-90 percent of firearms used in New York City gun crimes come from out of state
-Most of the guns are illegal
-Closing the “gun show loophole” would “keep operators responsible”
Now here are some points the article doesn’t note. New York City has extremely strict gun laws, and apparently these only deter law-abiding citizens from being armed, especially if criminals are going out state. But the article implies that 90 percent of crime guns come from out of state, which may or may not be true, as it is probably difficult to track many of these guns in the first place.
But let’s consider that New York State doesn’t have any significant gun industry, so wouldn’t all crime guns be from somewhere else? See how easy it is to skew the facts?
And now let’s review the second fact listed above, “most of the guns are illegal,” so what does that have to do with gun shows, where the vast majority are illegal. This sort of reporting implies that gun shows are akin to black market arms fairs, which they are not.
As for the loophole, here are two more points. One, what is to stop illegal dealers from selling guns off the books beyond gun shows? Nothing, which is how most criminals get their guns anyway. In other words, criminals aren’t going to gun shows. Closing private sales – and make no mistake that this is what it is really about – would only further punish the law-abiding.
NRA News: Tom King – New York Rifle and Pistol Association
Cam Edwards talks to Tom King - President of the New York Rifle and Pistol Association about a program in Albany called “SNUG”
USA Today: Gun reciprocity shoots holes in states’ rights
This week USA Today offered an editorial titled, “Gun reciprocity shoots holes in states’ rights,” and noted:
Different states have different rules for carrying concealed handguns, and for good reason. Rules that make sense in largely rural Western states such as Montana or Wyoming can make much less sense in more urban states such as New York and New Jersey, where legislators have made it harder to get a carry permit than it is out West.
There are several problems with this line of thinking,not the least bit of which is why should those in urban states have their Second Amendment rights reduced? Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that communities cannot restrict those rights? Shouldn’t hunters, sport shooters and gun collectors be able to obtain the same firearms as those in other states? Again, restrictive laws only punish the law-abiding and don’t do the least bit to deter criminals.
But there is one other point we’d like to bring out front and center. Recently New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to chart the course of legislation in Virginia, and in the past his group Mayors Against Illegal Guns attempted to prove that gun shows in other states allow for straw purchases. Where is the media outrage at these facts?
This is the problem with the anti-gun line. It calls for states’ rights when it suits the issue, but throws it out the window when it is the least bit inconvenient!
