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.
NRA News: Emily Miller from The Washington Times – I bought a gun, but…
Cam Edwards talks to Emily Miller from The Washington Times, who is writing a series on her efforts to get a gun in Washington, DC
Washington City Paper: Murder is Down in D.C., But Why?
“It’s not due to gentrification” is given as a reason why murder is down in D.C. says Washington City Paper this week, which notes that murder has “dropped to a 50-year-historic low in D.C.”
What the news site doesn’t suggest is that residents can now own hand guns. This isn’t reported at all in this story. Consider this citizens in the capital can now arm themselves and crime is down… and the media is mostly mum on it!
KNDO Offers Rambling Article on Gun Show Loophole
We can’t even make heads or tails of this report on a gun show in Yakima, Washington. KNDO.com, offered the story, titled “Local gun shows bring out protesters,” and had this report:
Gun control is a hot topic for many people across the country including in Yakima. This weekend a gun show in Yakima was the focus of protestors saying they demand change in state gun sale laws.
Thousands of people made there way through Yakima’s gun show, some browsing, others buying some of the hundreds of guns up for sale at the Fairgrounds.
But not everyone was excited for the show.
Protestors gathered Sunday on the second day of the gun show not protesting against owning guns, but rather a loophole in state law.
First, this copy is badly written, to the point that it sounds like there are two introductions. Perhaps one was from the studio and the other the voice over from a beginning of the segment. But even if so it is confusing. And the point of the story is misleading.
The truth is that this is little more than an excuse to give anti-gun zealots a voice about an issue they don’t understand. The article fails to mention that criminals don’t regularly buy guns at gun shows, and that many background checks are conducted.
SAF: APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS SAF VICTORY IN LAWSUIT V. SEATTLE PARKS GUN BAN
Second Amendment Foundation:
The Washington State Court of Appeals for Division 1 today unanimously upheld a 2010 King County Superior Court ruling against the City of Seattle’s ban on firearms in city parks in a lawsuit originally brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, other gun rights groups and five individual plaintiffs.
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said he had always been confident that the Appeals Court would rule “in favor of the law and against the attempt by Seattle to dance around it.”
“We told former Mayor Greg Nickels he was wrong,” Gottlieb said, “and we have reminded the city under Mayor Mike McGinn that it was wrong, and now the Appeals Court has confirmed our position.”
SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the National Rifle Association and Washington Arms Collectors.
Writing for the Court, Presiding Chief Judge Ann Schindler noted, “We hold that under the plain language of RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300, the city’s attempt to regulate the possession of firearms at designated park areas and park facilities open to the public by adopting the Firearms Rule is preempted by state law.”
“This is not only a victory for the citizens of Washington State,” he said, “but also for the State Legislature, which had the wisdom in 1983 and 1985 to pass and strengthen our preemption statute. This law has become the model for other state statutes across the country.
“The ruling is also an affirmation of Judge Catherine Shaffer’s original trial court ruling last year,” he continued. “She had the foresight to include observations about our state constitutional right to bear arms but also the Second Amendment.
“Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to the states through our victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago,” Gottlieb concluded, “it is going to be impossible for anti-gun politicians in the Evergreen State to defy our preemption statute and our constitutional rights. Such local rules and ordinances are illegal, and now they know it for sure.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
NRA News: Emily Miller – The Washington Times – “D.C.’s only gun source”
Cam Edwards talks to Emily Miller from The Washington Times, who is writing a series on her efforts to get a gun in Washington, DC
Newsday: Gun control always under fire
Need more proof that New York editors see the world differently than the rest of the country? This week the editors of Newsday, which is now essentially a Long Island newspaper, offered an editorial titled, “Gun control always under fire.” It is a passion-based piece with little in the way of supporting evidence for its claims.
It isn’t mentioned that crime has fallen as gun rights have increased. It didn’t mention that Chicago and D.C. had high gun crime despite strict gun control.
Instead the editors offer this thought:
“But gun-control victories can be fragile. Supporters of irresponsible legislation to allow someone with a concealed-weapons permit from any other state to carry a gun here in New York are trying again. Congress should again reject this one-size-fits-all proposal. If it became law, it would mean lax requirements in some states — for instance issuing permits without gun training or to people with violent misdemeanor convictions — could become the de facto national standard.”
Once again we must ask, what is to stop a criminal from merely carrying a gun illegally? If someone is intent on breaking the law the right to carry is going to be the least of one’s concerns. Note too that this suggests that those with violent misdemeanor convictions could get a gun, but never address felony convictions – is this because the editors believe felons wouldn’t carry guns?
Typical view for those with strict gun control and who would only wish for more.
NRA Targets San Fran Gun Control Says The Informant
KALW News “The Informant” took aim at the NRA last week, noting:
“San Francisco currently faces two lawsuits by the National Rifle Association attacking its gun control laws. The lawsuits are part of a nationwide campaign targeting local measures that restrict gun ownership.”
The article also notes that the NRA’s efforts including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While this is mostly straightforward reporting it fails to note, as our friend John Lott did in a piece for FoxNews, namely that crime is down in Chicago and D.C.
In other words “The Informant” didn’t offer that key bit of information.
John Lott: Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News
Our friend John Lott wrote an excellent op-ed for FoxNews.com last Friday, titled, “Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News.” He essentially notes, “murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.”
And have you heard about the crime rates? Probably not, because as Lott notes… they have fallen. He writes:
“Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news. One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.”
The media likes news on guns… but only when it is bad. There is the saying, “if it bleeds, it leads.” Sad but very true.
English Media: Prison Time, Not Gun Control Reason for Fall in Crime Rate
Time and time again the media notes that other nations have strict gun control laws, but yet America has once again see crime fall nationwide. The Guardian in the UK offered a story on this fact, and had an interesting passage worth noting:
“Anti-gun activists note that the cities with two of the sharpest falls in murder rates, New York and Washington, have enacted strict gun control laws by US standards. Yet Houston in Texas, where some regard it as criminal not to own a gun, has also seen a sharp drop in homicides.
“One of the most widely accepted explanations is also one of the most politically and socially sensitive – that the imposition of sharply stiffer prison sentences since the early 1980s, which has resulted in the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, has kept large numbers of criminals off the streets.”
Ironically liberals like to be hard on guns, calling for more gun control, while saying prison isn’t the answer. Yet since 1980 more criminals are in jail and crime is down. Could it be that guns aren’t the problem, but that criminals are? And yet many liberals want to see fewer in prison.
