Mayors Against Illegal Guns Super Bowl Commercial: “It’s Time”

And there you have it: the Mayors Against Illegal Gun’s Superbowl ad. The ad indicates that the civilian disarmament movement has “retreated” from their calls for an assault weapons ban and ammunition magazine capacity limits to their “fall back” position of universal registration. I mean, background checks. Either that or they’re focusing on one assault on the Second Amendment at a time. Anyway, after this post, our man Bruce Krafft will explain why universal background checks are a bad, bad thing. Meanwhile, this commercial’s a blessing. While it adhere’s to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (demonize the enemy), the message is churlish rather than effective. No cause and effect emotionalism. So . . . where’s the pro-gun ad? Tell me Wayne’s Boyz are on the case.

comments

  1. avatar tron says:

    NFL probably wouldn’t sell ad time to the NRA.

    1. avatar pastubbs says:

      Thats A good point, But then again how many Pro gun TV ads have you seen. Hell I’v never seen any Gun related TV ad now that I think of it.

      1. avatar Evan says:

        I’ve seen exactly 3. 2 of them for Smilth and Wesson and one for that old DGU show Lapierre used to run.

  2. A really simple ad in response could show Mayor Tiny Dancer and Former Mayor Shortshanks talking about gun control this and that overlaid with the hard statistics of country leading violence and murders plus listing out all the hoops one has to jump though to legally own anything that dispenses lead from one end. Oh, may as well add in the fact that handguns were 100% illegal to own here from 1982-2010 yet account for ~85% of the murders every year.

    Bets on this ad backfiring or many just not paying attention because it’s not funny or comical. At least it’s $3 million less in their bank account.

    More Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity: heyjackass.com

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Can someone explain the Tiny Dancer thing to me? I’ve been seeing that and “little ballerina,” etc. a lot lately, and I don’t get the reference.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Well… that’s different.

  3. avatar JW says:

    I was wondering who the anonymous donor was that financed the Sandy Hook Choir’s expenses for performing at the Super bowl. I think I figured out the identity.

  4. avatar Brennan says:

    I would guess Bob Costas is behind part of this crap

  5. avatar jake45 says:

    Perfect time to go get a beer out of the fridge!

  6. avatar Matt in FL says:

    It’s interesting to me that they keep using that quote over and over like it’s some sort of “gotcha.” But I don’t see it that way. WLP’s statement was very carefully constructed: “…for every sale at every gun show.” The thing is, the CDM (I’m adopting and abbreviating RF’s “civilian disarmament movement”) is conflating his statement “every sale at every gun show” with the “gun show loophole,” which includes every private sale, everywhere, regardless of venue. It’s a Venn diagram thing. “Every [private] sale at every gun show” is a part of the “gun show loophole,” but every “gun show loophole” is not a sale at a gun show.

    If you banned private sales at the Orlando Gun Show, you’d eliminate maybe a half dozen vendors. These are the same half dozen guys who are there every single time, and they virtually always have the same guns (and not very many of them), which indicates to me that they don’t sell a whole lot. There are three guys in particular I can think of, who always sit together in the corner. One has 4-6 handguns, mostly revolvers. The next has 8-10 handguns, and he leans more toward pistols. The third guy has 8-10 older rifles, military surplus and such, and then two small glass cases with about half dozen handguns, including the same two 1911’s that I’ve been seeing for 2-3 years. All three have other stuff they’re selling, too. So if you banned private sales at the gun show, those three guys would go away, I suppose. But since they don’t really seem to be doing much business anyway, I don’t see how that’s going to make any difference.

    Also, many locales already have this de facto rule, because even though it’s not codified into law, many gun show promoters have a rule that any gun sold inside the gun show has to have a background check performed.

    On the other hand, you have the “parking lot sales.” At that point you run into a problem. You have to define what “at the gun show” means, because if you’re not “at” the gun show, it’s a private sale and might as well be taking place in my living room. In Orlando, it’s about a 100 yard walk from the entrance gate to the ticket booth. Depending on where you parked, it can be an extra 10-200 yards beyond that gate to your car. Are those people still “at” the gun show?

    The point I’m making is that you could do exactly what WLP says, and it probably wouldn’t hurt anything. But that’s mainly because it wouldn’t do anything. What he says and what the CDM wants are two dramatically different things.

    1. avatar Bill F says:

      The whole “private sale/gunshow loophole” never was a loophole to begin with. The law was written that way intentionally and the “loophole” was discussed beforehand. It never was an accidental omission as the antis would have people believe.
      Now, in NYS, we have to close any private sale through an FFL and the buyer has to submit to a background check. And Cuomo cleverly put a $10 cap on the transfer fee. He knew that transfers would be a nuisance and no FFL would be anxious to do them for $10. Especially if the “instant check” were to somehow start taking longer.

  7. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

    “Churlish?” Not hardly. Embarrassing is more like it. You can bet back in ’99 all you sycophants were also for background checks.

    1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

      Nope

    2. avatar Azman says:

      Sycophant. There you are wrong. And in 1999 I was in 3rd grade and didn’t know what a background check was.

    3. avatar Bill F says:

      Yes, it’s embarrassing how the antis keep trotting out those kids while putting them in danger and making them easy prey by creating gun free zones. That’s what you meant right?
      Meanwhile we have delusional folks adapting the laws of the land to conform to the behavior of the criminally insane as if the criminally insane actually read and obey them. Talk about a fool’s errand. How are the gun free zones working out so far? And DHS reports that guns are all but useless in a self defense situation, but scissors will do fine. Is there absolutely no sanity at all among you antis?

    4. avatar 16V says:

      Back in ’99 we were talking about what an ineffective speaker WLP was, and that we should replace him.

      Nobody I knew supported background checks, it was viewed as unconstitutional, then as now.

    5. avatar Will says:

      Back in ’99 I was just a ignorant whelp when it came to firearms. I wasn’t for any ban… or against it because I was completely oblivious to it… I had other things on my mind.

    6. avatar Evan says:

      In ’99 I was like 5 and I was quite content with my dads Marlin 336….even if it kicked like a mule to a 5 year old.

  8. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I don’t have a problem with having to go through a background check to buy or sell a used firearm as long as the government doesn’t keep records. There is already a federal law prohibiting federal government agencies from doing so, but I’d like the NRA to have it’s hands all over the law implementing it. I don’t believe it will make much difference since those criminals who aren’t incarcerated are usually smart enough to know where they can and can’t buy weapons, but I don’t think we need to make it easy for them. A more effective approach would be to put gun thieves in prison for a very, very long time.

    One thing they should do (if they do impose this) is arrange for free background checks at the local police department so the local gun shop can’t gouge private sellers. They could set up at gun shows too. Or you could pay the LGS if you don’t trust the local PD.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “…arrange for free background checks at the local police department so the local gun shop can’t gouge private sellers.”

      For what that’s worth, many localities that require background checks on private sales have a fee cap codified into law. Even NY’s stupid law they just passed caps it at $10. I think CA has a cap, as well, but I don’t know what it is.

      1. avatar Jan says:

        CA is set at $10 also. There was a big stink about some ffl in the state charging $30-$100 until somebody actually found the line in CA DOJ where it sets the fee limit. Some stores even refused to perform transfers until they were reported to the DOJ.

  9. avatar GC says:

    Sneaky move. Make all the uninformed millions that watch the Super Bowl think that their organization only seeks something as simple as a background check while pushing disarmament when those uninformed aren’t looking.

  10. avatar TangledThorns says:

    The fact the ad is concentrating on background checks only proves our side is winning.

  11. avatar Narcoossee says:

    So, where is this organization getting its funding from, anyway?

    1. avatar GC says:

      This is billionaire bloomberg’s pet program.

      1. avatar William says:

        I wish he’d sing at halftime.

  12. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Yeah, its for the kids. Yeah…thats right./// The rantings of the anti’s suicide cult are getting a bit old, Randy

  13. avatar William says:

    DANG. I’m watching someone else’s TV, so I can’t throw a beer at it.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      +1, but I would be throwing… um, “Soda”, wouldn’t want any anti’s reading this thinking were just a bunch of beer drinking hicks…

  14. avatar Joe Grine says:

    Is nothing sacred? Running a lib-tard commercial on the holiest day of the year is sacrilege.

  15. avatar In Memphis says:

    So happy I don’t have cable or sattelite or one of thoes boxes you have to buy if you just want basic channels

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    So . . . where’s the pro-gun ad?

    The NFL is completely anti-gun, and it wouldn’t run a pro-gun ad for all the money in Bloomberg’s and Soros’ combined bank accounts.

  17. avatar Lance says:

    Reason dont bother to watch the dumb Super Bowl especially when CBS or NBC handles it. Overall I agree and find it interesting when the antis right after the Hag introduces her AWB are now retreating from it. Very interesting.

  18. avatar pat says:

    Keep showing the……..children. Keep trying to get us to sniff Zyklon-B.
    Stupid libtards.

  19. avatar Excedrine says:

    I wonder which YouTube account was hosting that video.

    Funny how they get all this negative attention (as ALL anti-gun YT channels do) and suddenly it disappears.

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