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

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

Robert Farago - comments No comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-GWNTflYvU

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.

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

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

  1. Let’s all just gloss over the fact that temperatures have been
    lowering for the past few years. It’s actually cooler than it
    was 6 years ago. So if true, how is the murder rate in
    Chicago, or anywhere, going up? But then again how does
    Ms. Hefner explain the differences in murder rates between
    northern states and southern states?

    Reply
  2. 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.

    Reply
  3. No he washes the dishes while she cleans the gun… bravo for being a supportive spouse! If i did not have one i would not have such a large collection 🙂

    Reply
  4. 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.

    Reply
    • 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.

      Reply
  5. Most publishers have headlines like “Two teens shot outside of MLK high school in Detroit”.

    This would be an excellent case study in media spin against guns!

    Reply
  6. @ “the 300 will carry more energy past 500yds than the 223”

    That like most of what is posted here is just bullshit!
    When you take your selected top performing 300 Blackout and compare it to modern 77gr 5.56 NATO combat ammo then the 5.56 NATO exceeds the energy of the 300 Blackout at any range, and the longer the yardage the greater the difference in favor of the 5.56 NATO.
    If you want a subsonic rifle then use your 300 Blackout! If you want a rifle for combat use the 5.56 NATO! Just because the 300 Blackout sux less in SBR’s doesn’t make it into the miracle caliber you claim. This is just a new version of a 300 Whisper, and you will never see these same claims made by J.D. Jones! The bullet drop and wind drift numbers must also be considered when you use this for a long range weapon. You will never come close to the drop and drift of the 5.56 NATO with the 300 Blackout.

    Reply
  7. I think all these people making new laws for law abiding people,are totally out of touch with reality. They should start where the problem really is ,lets start by disarming the gangs ,drug dealers,thieves, and the rest of the scum. Maybe your commitee should take a trip down town after dark and see if you can get these folks to register there guns.GOOD LUCK

    Reply
  8. I’d have to disagree with this article in one respect:
    The reason the NRA does not publicly assume the tack of “gun rights =civil rights” is because Joe & Jane Sixpack dont give a rats about the Constitution. Your Minnesota cops’ reaction is a great example of this. If LaPierre took the stage and made a strong claim for gun rights being civil rights he’d be laughed right out of the committee chambers.

    This brings me to the next point: to the average Joe background checks sound like a great idea.After all, we all had to undergo one to get a job , so why NOT make all buyers of deadly weapons undergo the same scrutiny Joe Teenager does to work at Target? It’s a PR problem we aren’t going to solve by waving around the Constitution.

    We resolve this dilemma by translating the facts into a format the riff raff can understand. Voters who attended public school may have never heard of the US Constitution, but they’ll understand what a Federal Pork project is real fast. We have to sell the Brady Background Check system as what it is: a Federal Waste of money that wastes billions of dollars a year and has no statistics proving the money is doing any good. With our Federal debt being what it is, even Bunny Hugger liberals can understand that point.

    Put another way , lets change the debate and argue that we should take the money saved from shutting down the Brady system and put it toward school security grants or *gulp* planned parenthood.In a society ignorant of its own history, we cannot use that same history to change the minds of our society.

    Reply
  9. If global warming is contributing to the increase in gun violence in Chicago then why is the rest of the USA experiencing an overall decrease in gun violence? How come so many people in political, social, business, and scientific leadership positions are so loonie?

    The Chicagoland winter 0f 1979 (snowier and colder than normal) was the worst that I ever experienced in my 25 years of living in the area. Peoples’ tempers and stress level contributed to the murder rate which skyrocketed for that era. I guess Global Cooling increases the murder rate too (sarcasm off).

    Reply
  10. Okay Harry… so (tragically) blacks with guns are killing black people so your solution is to disarm everyone. How about just disarming blacks? Hold on… it’s not a rural problem; so let’s just disarm blacks in major urban areas…. hold on, oh yeah that’s working.

    Reply
  11. I’m 20, and started carrying a few months ago. It must say it definitely was a “growing up” moment. That doesn’t mean I was particularly foolish or irresponsible compared to now, it means that taking that personal responsibility for the wellbeing of myself and my loved ones gave me a healthy dose of reality and respect. The day I carried for the first time was one of the most “real” days of my life.

    Reply

Leave a Comment