Mayors Against Illegal Guns Wave the Bloody Shirt. Again.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) have created a 30-second TV ad targeting cable television viewers in the Denver and Washington, D.C. markets. (So to speak.) In the ad above, Stephen Barton shows his wounds (from the Aurora Colorado Midnight Movie Massacre), misrepresents murder (failing to differentiate between criminal-on-criminal homicides and the death of innocent victims), neglecting to mention lives saved by defensive gun use (not that he would) and demands a (unspecified most likely prohibition-based) plan for gun control. In fact . . .

MAIG’s campaign is agitating for a gun control question in the upcoming presidential debates: “President Obama and Governor Romney: What’s your plan to end gun violence?” Oooh. That’s a toughie!

TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia is also up for a gun rights-related question. Our Armed Intelligentsia came up with some more pointed lines of enquiry. But then gun rights advocates don’t rely on emotion and waving the bloody shirt.

Then again (again), where’s the NRA ad putting forth the other side of this story? You know: gun free zones as killing fields.

[Note to MAIG: you can’t end gun violence. Just as you can’t end America’s Constitutionally protected right to armed self-defense against those who use violence against law-abiding citizens. At least not without a Constitutional amendment.]

comments

  1. avatar soccerchainsaw says:

    I suggest we by default refer to MAIG as: “Illegal Mayors Against All Guns”. It would be a more accurate description of the organization.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I just always read it as MAG – Mayors Against Guns.

  2. avatar Bill Baldwin says:

    Then again (again), where’s the NRA ad putting forth the other side of the story?

    That would be nice. Something along the lines of More guns owners, more states with CCW laws, more states with Constitutional Carry and the Homicide rate being nearly the lowest it’s been in 50 years.

    1. avatar ItsLate says:

      The reality is the Colorado Theater where the shooting happened was the only one that was a GFZ. There were several others in the area showing the same stupid movie that were NOT GFZ! A important fact that escapes them.

  3. avatar Frank Williams says:

    He claims 48,000 people will die from handguns in the next 4 years. So how many people will be killed by drunk drivers in that same time period? I’ll bet he hasn’t given up alcohol, nor would he ever think of making a commercial demanding the return of prohibition because of that.

  4. avatar DerryM says:

    Stephen Barton is just whoring his wounds for money and has no idea what the 48,000 Deaths figure he cites really means. Despicable, but then he’s working for a collective of despicable persons.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Probably more for fame than money.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        Fame and the dubious honor of being a stooge for people who care more about what you can do for them than you as a human being.

    2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Maybe he believes in what he says and wants to help increase awareness. What do you guys want, to silence him with your ridiculous claims that he’s “whoring his wounds” and that the MAIG members are all despicable?

      1. avatar JoshinGA says:

        He was shot with a legal gun. Instead of championing better medical care for the mentally ill, better reporting procedures from caregiver to the police, or any other myriad of reasons that relate to the situation he was involved in. Hell, I would think better of him had he been shilling for a group that wanted to change the procedure for getting a gun. I wouldnt agree with that, but at least it would be applicable to what he had been through. An illegal gun was in no way related to what happened to him.

  5. avatar JoshinGA says:

    Correct me if Im wrong, but he was shot with a legally obtained gun, right? That makes him speaking for MAIG kinda not as applicable…

    Oh, I get it now, this guy makes a better face for their organization than some gang banger with face tats. You know, the real victims of illegal gun violence.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      It’s nice to see them moving away from the coward Colin Goddard. At least (from what I know) Barton wasn’t in ROTC or the police / military.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    Another of what Stalin called useful idiots.

  7. avatar Rambeast says:

    Comments disabled. Typical. They don’t want a debate. They just want to scream and misinform until there is an emotionally driven law passed that will infringe on a constitutionally protected right.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Comments disabled: because we know our viewpoint will be ripped to shreds by logically thought out, factual comments from the opposition.

      I wish we could: A. Get Bruce to write a piece geared towards submitting to a major publication. B. And get said publication to actually publish his piece. Id bet you dollars to doughnuts they dont disable comments on a pro-gun piece (if they ever published one, that is).

    2. avatar Frank Williams says:

      You can leave comments on the story on Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/colo-attack-victim-wants-debates-address-guns-180720239.html

  8. avatar David says:

    So the question of the hour is, ‘WHAT IS YOUR PLAN TO END GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, TODAY?’

    Say, I’ve got an idea! We could always do the unthinkable and restore the moral Judeo-Christian foundations of American government. How about returning the Ten Commandments to our public schools, and courtrooms! Do you think that might make a difference? How about resurrecting society’s now defunct moral behaviors in everything from Congress to high school dating? Too radical? Too reversionary? Too distasteful? I mean, ‘Why not!’ We’ve already tried everything else.

    It might be another good idea to insist that the organized news media cut it, the Hell, out; and stop, ‘4-walling’ all of the gun violence throughout American society. I’m not even going to suggest bringing back the public execution of egregious and violent criminals. That would be too far out of sync with the modern kiss-ass namby-pamby socialist direction American society is now being forced to tread. I often wonder, ‘Where’ in modern jurisprudence did western civilization suddenly decide to deviate from the – at least – 5,000 year old proven and effective practice of publicly executing society’s most reprehensible, ‘human garbage’?

    Somewhere in Judeo-Christian America’s obscure legal past those in charge of, both, mass-media and government privately determined to ignore all biblical admonitions and proven historical precedence and quietly began forcing American taxpayers to warehouse hundreds of thousands of the most perverse and degenerate lawbreakers. We are a nation presently starving for income and tax dollars. (For the purposes of this discussion who cares exactly, ‘Why’?) In the midst of this INCREASING DILEMMA where is the logic for the citizens of this country to SUPPORT FOR LIFE the likes of: Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez, Angel Maturino Resendiz, Colin Ferguson, Jared Loughner, and now James Holmes, et al, ad infinitum? Forget the morality, or lack thereof, where is the logic!

    What James Holmes did has little, if anything, to do with, ‘guns’ or the presumed, ‘easy availability of firearms. The carbine he used was just a tool. If Holmes hadn’t used a gun he would have found another weapon to employ – In fact Holmes DID use other weapons; and, from what I hear, some pretty sophisticated ones! American society needs to realize that

    JAMES HOLMES BEHAVED THE WAY HE DID BECAUSE HE EMPHATICALLY KNEW THAT HE WOULDN’T BE REQUIRE TO PAY WITH HIS LIFE FOR THE CRIMES.

    Rather than deprive the vast majority of this nation’s other law abiding citizens of their hard won and much coveted Second Amendment Rights it would be far more rational and make much more sense to punish the evil doers, themselves, instead. It is, both, immoral and unfair to demand that American taxpayers should pay for warehousing degenerate human filth. Social deviates like: Manson, Ramirez, Ferguson, Loughner, and Holmes don’t deserve to have: a roof over their heads, 3 square meals everyday, free dental and medical treatment, and no mortgage or personal finance worries – LITERALLY – for the rest of their lives!

    Until American society is returned to its original, ‘moral roots’ and Judeo-Christian ethics; until America shows the psychopaths and sociopaths hiding among us, that their murderous behaviors will not be tolerated and entail the most severe of corporeal punishments, killers like: Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez, Angel Resendiz, Colin Ferguson, Jared Loughner, and James Holmes are going to continue to thrive; AND, American guns and Second Amendment Rights have little, or nothing, to do with – what is in actuality – an ever increasing American social problem.

    Speaking for myself as an American gun owner, I don’t want to be punished for the murderous sins of these reprehensible and evil men. I’m very sorry Stephen Barton was shot and so badly injured; but, the fault lies more with the cynical (and obviously blind) organized news media, as well as in the liberal socialist direction American government has embarked upon. The existence of an armed American citizenry is NOT to blame. Any other intellectual position is, quite frankly, somebody else’s covert design to disarm America. One of the two questions I keep asking myself is, ‘Why’?

    1. avatar Greg Camp says:

      1. The death penalty is an appropriate response to the kind of evil at Aurora, but it’s not a deterrent. There’s no evidence that the death penalty reduces crime. In fact, violent crimes tend to rise after an execution.

      2. The American system of government and society comes out of the Germanic tradition and ancient Greek thought. Monotheistic religions aren’t necessarily opposed to freedom, but they do too often remain silent in the face of tyranny.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Well Greg, the reason that the death penalty in the US isn’t a deterrent is because even if you get it, the odds of you actually being executed are slim. If getting the death penalty meant you were taken out on the court house steps after the verdict and had your head chopped off with an axe, people would be more careful.

    2. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

      As a morally upright, die-hard Constitutionalist, veteran, student of history, secular humanist and atheist – I emphatically resent your entire opinion.

      I just thought that needed to be said, lest you mistake silence as agreement.

      1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        +1000!

  9. avatar jwm says:

    Yada, yada, yada.

  10. avatar fasd says:

    Wouldn’t it be funny if the future of the country depended on the opinions of a bunch of faggoty piss-ant mayors? Might make a great movie.

    1. avatar fasd says:

      Is it right that these executives should receive respect, obedience and even protection? Why? Why aren’t they afraid to speak against my rights? What causes an attitude of arrogance in modern politicians?

  11. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Wait a minute, I don’t understand his complaint. He was already protected by the very types of laws he’s proposing. Aurora invoked home rule to prohibit CCW in their jurisdiction. The theater chain had a policy, which was posted notifying patrons that they prohibited weapons including CCW on their premises.

    And he’s more than welcome to continue to live, work, play in areas like that.

    Those worked so well to protect him and the others there.

  12. avatar Jim Bob says:

    He should carry a gun in case someone tries to… shoot him (oh wait). His plan should be to defend his life from those who would take it. Because let’s face it, shit happens, bro.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    “President Obama and Governor Romney: What’s your plan to end gun violence?”

    Here is how I would respond to that Debates question:

    “That is a loaded question, and I’ll explain why.
    First, your question assumes that guns are the source of the problem and that more gun control will solve the problem. GUNS are not the problem. VIOLENCE is the problem. We need to look at things that will reduce the amount of violence in our country, and especially in our inner-cities where most of the violence is happening. Gun control does not work and never will work, because it doesn’t address the real problem, violence.
    Second, I need to know what you mean when you are talking about gun control, because that term has several meanings to different people. Are you talking about law-abiding gun owner control? If that is what you mean then I think it is fairly obvious why most reasonable people would oppose that kind of legislation. Law-abiding gun owners are not the ones committing violent crimes, and we should stop treating them as if they are.
    Or are you talking about violence prevention laws? This seems a more logical approach, but unfortunately violence prevention laws rarely actually work, and I don’t think Americans want their basic human rights violated, especially by laws that do not do what they are intended to do.
    I have several more arguments on this subject, and I would love to discuss this with you at another time. However my time is up for this question.”

  14. avatar Chad says:

    Mark Walters on Armed American Radio, gave a statistic recently on his show, that a significant number of Mayors, in Bloomberg’s Mayors against guns group, are in fact, convicted criminals. Don’t you just love that?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email