“Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has always believed that the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with sensible laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people,” the organization declares in a rare email blast. “We have never called for confiscating of legal guns, either publicly nor privately – and we never will.” That’s a strange thing for MAIG to say, considering that the org’s demandaction.org website declares their intention to “Get military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines off our streets.” Yes, well, “getting guns and ‘high-cap mags’ off our streets” means one thing: taking them away from you. In case you didn’t know. Here’s a closer look at MAIG’s “thinking” on confiscation as mooted by three former mayors at poughkeepsienews.com . . .
We are former mayors of Albany, Utica and Binghamton and served as members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns when Mayor John Tkazyik was a member. We were surprised and disappointed to see in a recent OpEd Poughkeepsie Mayor John Tkazyik blatantly mischaracterize the important goals of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the national bipartisan coalition working to make America’s communities safer by cracking down on illegal guns and the criminals who purchase them (“Mayoral group’s gun agenda is wrong” Feb. 5).
As former mayors of Binghamton, Albany and Utica, we know that a mayor’s most important responsibility is to keep their citizens safe. That’s why we, along with more than 100 other New York mayors, joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The coalition’s top legislative priority is requiring background checks on all gun sales, a policy that New York state enacted last year, but one that 34 other states across the country have not. In those states, criminals can buy a handgun, without a background check, from an unlicensed seller.
Mayor Tkazyik in his OpEd would have you believe otherwise.
Mayor Tkazyik makes false claims about the group, even saying the coalition “intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”
The fact is Mayors Against Illegal Guns believes that the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.
It is undeniable that our nation has witnessed far too much gun violence. Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., the Washington Navy Yard, Tucson, Ariz. and our own devastating tragedy in Binghamton are just a few tragic examples. The statistics are clear, every day 33 Americans are murdered with guns — that’s 12,000 people killed with guns every year. That is far too many mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who will not live to see 2015. When faced with those facts, it’s imperative that mayors work together to fight illegal gun sales, which take place in big cities and small towns every day.
The vast majority of gun owners and sellers are responsible citizens. But when our laws do nothing to stop dangerous people from acquiring guns, people die. Reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people are — as Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court have ruled — entirely consistent with the Second Amendment. And the vast majority of the American people — 90 percent — support our coalition’s push to close the loopholes in the background check system.
Perhaps Mayor Tkazyik had the wool pulled over his eyes by the gun lobby, but our coalition firmly believes that fighting gun violence and protecting the Second Amendment go hand in hand.
—–
Jerry Jennings is former mayor of Albany. David Roefaro is former mayor of Utica. Matt Ryan is former mayor of Binghamton.
Any reason why all three of these guys became FORMER mayors?
Oh good, so I wasn’t the only one to notice that.
Interesting question: Since Bloomberg isn’t NYC mayor any more, and can’t get city employees to organize MAIG on the taxpayer dime… who’s bankrolling this den of two faced liars?
“We have never called for confiscating of legal guns, either publicly nor privately – and we never will.”
Of course not. They first call for making certain models illegal and then confiscate them. This, of course, will have no effect of crime or violence so they will make another set of models illegal and then confiscate those. rinse and repeat.
This sums it up. What is legal and a natural inalienable right is first made illegal, justifying the confiscation.
As you say, the key word is “legal.” They don’t plan to confiscate legal guns because they know they can’t get away with that. They will gradually make all effective firearms illegal, and simultaneously create as many prohibited persons as they can. Then they will confiscate. If they aren’t stopped.
Step 1) Make the previously legal gun illegal.
Step 2) Confiscate.
There, they’ve never technically called for the confiscation of legal guns. B.S. doublespeak.
Step 3) Profit!
You forgot the last one I thought I would help you out.
😉
I am so freaking tired of hearing these anti-gun grabber types claim that they’re not anti gun! that is the most stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! its like mom’s demand action and your tire Obama administration and Mary’s Against Illegal Guns they’re all b******* artist! Liars these so called politicians lying is an art of theirs I cannot believe that they’re getting away with line is much as they are on on the news and every other time I turn on the television it some other b******* story! didn’t your parents ever tell them that honesty is the best policy? and how in the hell did we end up with all these liars in our public office? they make fun of us because we love guns and we care about our religion, but they seem to need to read the Bible more than any of us because all they do is open your mouth and outcomes a huge lie I’m so sick of it oops I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. Obama can kiss my white ass!
Of course they are liars. They HAVE to lie to accomplish their goals. You cant just tell people you want to take their rights away… That would make them angry. And they have guns. It’s much neater to lie until you, “already have most of them on the trains going to the camps.”
I’ve got news for ya buddy, a criminal can buy a handgun from an unlicensed seller without a backround check in ALL 50 STATES. Its called the black market.
Close the black market loophole! /sarc
They don’t want to talk about that statistic. The percentage of firearms illegally bought is very small as opposed to black market and gun thefts. Shhhhhhh! Don’t be pissing in the CHWNBTD (Clueless Hens With Nothing Better To Do) Cornflakes.
Most of the time, I believe, the guns they buy on he street without any variety of background checks are actually far cheaper than they would be in a licensed gun store, because they are STOLEN, and the thief simply wants the gun converted into crack as quickly as possible.
“In those states, criminals can buy a handgun, without a background check, from an unlicensed seller.” This my favorite quote. Who are they defining as criminals? The ones they create or the real criminals they are doing nothing about.
They’re harping on the fact that in most states a private party such as myself can sell a firearm, including a handgun, to another private party. No background check is needed (or possible, since private parties are specifically barred from using NICS), and in many cases, like here in WA, no paperwork or anything is needed. Groups like MAIG believe prohibited persons (convicted felons and such) purchase guns through these means. Although in my extensive experience in WA it is very rare to find a seller who doesn’t vet the purchaser, including almost always checking the purchaser’s concealed pistol license to ensure that they have passed a background check successfully, that is technically optional. I’m sure some prohibited persons do actually acquire firearms via private sale in this manner. Of course, it is a felony for them to do so…
“But when our laws do nothing to stop dangerous people from acquiring guns…”
Um, it’s a felony. It is already, currently a federal felony everywhere in the U.S. of A. for a prohibited person to purchase or possess a firearm. Additional laws are just additional burdens on those who abide by the laws. What MAIG wants to prevent IS A FELONY NOW. Laws do not stop people from doing things, they simply provide punishments for those who do those things anyway and, hopefully, that deters future people. All of MAIG’s scenarios they want to try and stop with more and more laws ARE ALREADY CRIMES.
Yes it is possible for a private seller to run a background check on a purchaser–indirectly anyway. California requires ALL sales to have a background check–which just means that the private sale is done in a face to face transaction at an FFL, the FFL does the 4473 and runs the background check (not NICS here), and holds the firearm for the required 10 day wait. At gun shows there is always at least one FFL there who does nothing but process paperwork–and charges a hefty fee to do so, usually about $75.
What is there to prevent a person from collecting the price in cash and handing over the firearm? I mean, if you wish to pay that extra $75 or whatever, feel free, I’d rather not. And the above is how I have always sold guns, I guess the first time was near 50 years ago. I see no reason to change.
Let’s have a lot more Former Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Ahhhhh, Jerry Jennings. Man never met a tanning booth or a hair spray he didn’t like.
Mayor for 20 years. Short by Albany standards, Erastus Corning was mayor for 42 years.
Let me see if I can logically follow the comments to this article. Each of you is FOR illegal guns. Isn’t that an absurd position to take. Where does this bologna end and common sense take over?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.
It’s a false dichotomy, and even if you accept it, the solutions offered are feel good band aids that do nothing to solve the actual problems.
The thought that anyone would be in favor of illegal guns is chilling. You fellows have just confirmed that each of you favor this position which is in and of itself illegal.
Define “illegal”.
You can’t be serious
No, I am serious. “Illegal gun” refers to a gun that’s existence is banned. That pretty much limits it to unregistered NFA items, unregistered select fire rifles and machine pistols, unregistered (that word keeps popping up, huh) rifles with barrels under 16 inches, etc. etc. Their usage in crimes is essentially zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Illegal Possession? Depends on who you declare cannot possess a firearm. That’s a debatable topic, and one that is frequently argued over here.
Illegal usage? Harming people? Yeah, no. Just no.
The problem is conflating all of the above into one argument when they are in no way, shape, or form the same.
Unless you’re deliberately trying to maximize FUD, in which case, you’re a thoroughly dishonest fellow.
And you clearly CANNOT define “illegal”, or you would have. Let me help; according to MAIG and its founder, Bloomberg the billionaire fruitcake, ALL guns are illegal. How outraged are you now, that those on this forum are in favor of “illegal guns”? If you really are against illegal guns, let’s get together and repeal the NFA and the GCA, and then start dismantling 100 years of completely useless legislation which is all clearly unconstitutional. Presto! No more illegal guns!
You know this perfectly well, I’m sure, but few if any people here would have a problem with the police going after a real criminal. We reject the notion that simply owning a weapon that someone has arbitrarily decided to ban makes one a criminal. An attempt to deprive another of life, liberty, or property is what makes a criminal. So, for concrete examples.
1) A person owns an AR-15 that they keep against the unlikely, but unfortunately real, possibility that they will need to defend their family some day. Not a criminal. Leave them alone.
2) A person owns an AR-15 that they decide to take to work and settle some scores by shooting up the place. Criminal. Lock them up.
Easy distinction.
Now, as to the last sentence: “…each of you favor this position which is in and of itself illegal.” Surely you don’t mean to imply that favoring a position, whatever that may be, is illegal? You believe in thoughtcrime? I must be reading that wrong.
What is your point? You fail to address the fact that apparently you too favor ownership of illegal weapons.
Once again, dimbulb, WHAT IS AN ILLEGAL GUN?
Like Gyufygy said define Illegal” There are guns in many states that are illegal in NY,CA, etc. Those guns are legal on the federal level and SHOULD be legal everywhere. If you want to accuse me of being for those guns than guilty as charged. If you can’t see that MAIG’s plan is to make every gun suitable for self defense illegal then you really need to open your eyes.
I’m not sure if MIAG themselves have called for the confiscation of assault weapons but there are many on the anti side of the discussion that have.
You can’t be so obtuse that you don’t know what illegal means. This is simply a way to avoid facing the harsh truth. You either are in favor of the possession of illegal guns or you are not. It is not a complex postulate.
If a gun is illegal in your jurisdiction then as a law abiding citizen, no, you should not own one. MAIG’s goal is to make the guns that are currently legal in MY state illegal everywhere. If you can’t see that then you sir are the one that is obtuse .
And since you continue to refuse to offer any definition, it is clear that YOU are the one who does not know it. You are in the middle of the far left’s favorite game of claiming that “everybody knows” the truth of whatever lie you’re pushing that day. Which is exactly how MAIG got its name, specifically intended to disguise the fact that the goal of the organization is to outlaw all guns. And idiots like Bloomberg think they can slide that crap past the rest of us because he is so sly, and we are all fools.
So here YOU are, trying to gin up support for this stupid group while refusing to define your terms. Gee. Think you are sly, do you? Believe you’re putting something over on us? Did you really think you could convince those here that expressing an opinion was illegal?
Actually, I’m more for not having any gun BE illegal.
I know I need a 106 and M-2 but didn’t realize that everybody else fit too!
Actually, the most recognizable to people is the M16. But, I applaud you for doing your research, typing the term “machine gun” into Google, clicking the link to Wikipedia, and seeing the picture of the Browning M2. Your firearm knowledge is extensive for sure. Perhaps you can contact RF and get a weekly column going here. It’s a shame to know so much about guns and not share that gift with the world. On behalf of everyone here, welcome to TTAG!
Thank you for the compliment. I have been fortunate in my life when it comes to firearms. My Father and his only brother built rifles, shot everything and reloaded. It started me on a path of learning and hands on that has given me a little experience.
106? As M-106? That would be a crew served weapon and thus a community owned weapon (as definded by MY community not your’s or the Fed gov’t). M2 could go either way so lets just call it an individual weapon (fun stuff).
Libtards.
M106 & M2 are perfectly legal to own, FYI. Just need money and paperwork.
Did your family members have a manufacturer’s license? ‘Cuz otherwise we have a definition of ILLEGAL GUNS at last, they are the ones that YOU own.
I’ll remember to call you when I neurosurgery.
And we’ll remember to call you when we neurosurgery.
What illegal guns? People can illegally own guns but I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument for making certain classes of firearms illegal. So if by ‘for illegal guns’ you mean ‘for owning semiautomatic firearms’ then I guess…. yes I’m all for “illegal guns”.
I’m trying to answer your question seriously. I don’t see any grouping of guns to make illegal. Even machine guns are legal, they just entail restrictions on who can own them (mainly because they are so expensive). So if machine guns are legal what you actually care about is people who illegally hold or use guns. And that, is a horse of a different color.
I feel confident in saying that everyone on this board would be all for punishing people who illegally use firearms (ie murder, homicide, assault, brandishing). The reason there’s hostility towards this organization is because this isn’t “Mayors against those who misuse firearms” this is “mayors against illegal guns”. The object of their focus is incorrect.
In a country of laws illegal is illegal. It is not complex. Some laws I like some I don’t. I’m sure it’s the same with you. But that’s the way it goes.
Yes, but I just pointed out to you that classes of guns are not themselves illegal.
Illegal for some persons to own, illegal to be used certain ways, but the guns themselves are not illegal. Do you see the difference?
Let’s take it one step further: even in NY state AR-15s and ‘high capacity mags’ are not themselves illegal. They are illegal for citizens to own now, but the police still have them. The guns then are not illegal.
You’re right I’m sure we do differ on what should and should not be illegal. But guns themselves are not legal or illegal. Our behavior with guns is what is legal and illegal, to which most of us say ‘well focus on the onerous behavior: gun misuse not ownership”
C’mon! His stance couldn’t be more clear. He’s against “illegal guns”. So, he doesn’t support ownership of automatic weapons by civilians per the National Firearms Act. However, he does support ownership of AR-15’s, de facto. Only a nasty person would want to deny a law-abiding person’s right to own a legal firearm. I’m glad we finally got this one sorted out 😉
Legal/illegal, of course it’s not complex. Maybe if we had trial courts, juries, lawyers, appeals courts, Supreme Courts, Constitutions, 50 different sovereign states with different laws and a federal entity with yet another set of laws, it might be but here?–naw, it’s simple.
Perfect description of how our legal system works and it does work
So far, you’re just dancing around the real question. If there are guns that are manifestly illegal — and are illegal across America right now — then I’d appreciate it if you could point out which ones they are. Then we’ll know exactly what MAIG is against.
OK, I see where you are coming from I think. Yours is a valid perspective (absolute respect for rule of law, and work to change laws within the system). I wish I believed this would still work in America at this point..
The rule of law does work in America. Democracy is messy. However for the rule of law to work we just follow the law. We can’t pick and choose which ones thoug because then the rule falls apart .
And the highest law in this land is the Constitution, within the framework of which all other law must operate.
2A specifically forbids much of the nonsense with which firearms owners must deal in these Benighted States, but noone is rushing to enforce it apart from we “little people.”
When a law is itself illegal, then those enforcing it are criminal and those who resist are in fact on the correct side of the law.
Not being scholarly in Constitutional law, the criminals might be unaware of their criminality, but ignorance is no shield from guilt and criminals they be.
Welcome to Boston in 1775, or Selma a li’l bit more recently.
Are you a constitutional law scholar? I studied 1 year of Con-Law (all lawyers do at a minimum) and just do see the basis for your opinion.
<snark>
I’m glad that you “do see the basis for” my opinion.
</snark>
Shouldn’t you be lurking under a bridge somewhere in the Carpathians?
“The rule of law does work in America. Democracy is messy. However for the rule of law to work we just follow the law. We can’t pick and choose which ones thoug because then the rule falls apart.”
Rule of law has already fallen apart. The Federal government does not obey the constitution, especially the administrative branch. Further, many courts, up to and including the SCOTUS, are perfectly willing to interpret the constitution to say whatever they think it should say.
No one is for illegal guns. We’re against foolish laws which only impact law-abiding gun owners and have never been credibly demonstrated to have any impact on crime.
Or put another way: murder rate is at a 50 year low. Last time we saw rates this low was early 1960s. Before almost all gun regulations and when guns were easily obtainable by mail with no NICS check.
The NICS system has been a colossal waste of resources as less than 40 people are successfully prosecuted under it every year. That’s out of 6 to 16 million checks.
We know what the mayors want, just look to Connecticuit and New York. I know he wasn’t a mayor, but Andrew Cuomo said it: “confiscation is on the table.”
We’re also not in favor of arbitrary laws making previously legal guns illegal.
Or, frankly, silly laws that make it easy to become an accidental criminal (like attaching a VFG to a pistol), or the characterization of suppressors as dangerous items instead of hearing protection.
@JPB:
Heroine is legal, in the proper hands. However, as a controlled substance there are limits on who may possess it. This makes it an illegal substance in the wrong hands.
Guns are, under current laws, a “slightly” controlled class of items in that there are those not permitted to own or use them. This makes them illegal in the wrong hands.
While the organizational title of MAIG is grammatically questionable, it is sufficiently clear.
I suspect, however, that their actual mission isn’t printed on the mission statement. There is also mission creep to consider.
Next silly comment?
Heroin trade name for diacetylmorphine in not legal period.
It is legal with a DEA license, so generally research or some colossally rare medical situation.
It was invented in the 19th century by Bayer AG as a highly effective pain killer and is still used as such, although its legal use these days is limited to the terminally Ill.
Look up Brahms’ Cocktail.
Дискурс с James P Barnett, как стрижка свинью: один генерирует много визг, но мало шерсти.
When the police, DEA, FBI or whatever keep it as evidence in a prosecution, should they go to jail as well? All-encompassing proclamations generally make you look like a fool.
And you STILL have failed to offer even the slightest explanation of what an “illegal gun” is, nor offered a single example. You might wish to notice that even thermonuclear weapons are legal.
Barnett is a troll Mr. Bixby, does no good to engage him
What is a troll pray tell. I am a grown man, husband, father, grandfather, attorney life member in the NRA and TSRA, probably longer than you have been alive. I think clear and quickly. I do not engage in emotional arguments as they are invariably not based on fact and reason.
Troll:
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Trolling:
Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it’s the internet and, hey, you can.
Hence my last comment on that subthread. Old Russian proverb.
Rough translation for old Russian proverb:
Discourse with James P Barnett is like shearing a pig: makes a lot of squealing, but gives little wool.
you would know
Have you never heard of a wooly pig?
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/20/article-1271767270816-09365CC5000005DC-435056_636x471.jpg
That’s pretty weak logic. Whether through intentional malice or simple naivety, you’re failing to recognize the true source of the frustrations evident in the comments here.
People here aren’t for “illegal” guns. They’re against the gradual and continued erosion of freedom, particularly the right to keep and bear arms, this being a gun blog and all. They’re also deeply distrustful of MAIG, who has demonstrated patterns of behavior inconsistent with the flowery messages they deliver in press releases like this one. And they’re opposed to arbitrary measures like magazine capacity limits that, when considered logically and dispassionately, simply burden individuals who do respect the law and do not contribute meaningfully to public safety.
It’s quite possible to be all for obeying the law and against MAIG without being in favor of illegal guns. It ought to be plain enough to see how unless your comprehension or skepticism stops at the literal meaning of their organization name, or you’re trolling.
+1
Neither malice nor naïveté has any place in logic.
Sad little troll
Awaiting the definition, Mr Troll.
I am surrounded by such superior intellects and keen wits. I have noticed that if one dares to stray from then incestuous “knowledge” that men such as you possess you form a pecking party. You know what that is right. But you are a hen and that is all. Barnett out
So now you’re leaving because you feel so put-upon? You were set upon because you said so many things wrong. And you’re doing so without ever once directly addressing any of the questions asked. Just the standard goalpost moving that I’ve come to expect from the civilian disarmament movement.
Sarcasm is obviously a term you do not understand. Pity is can be useful at times.
Reading comprehension is another deficit of yours. You will never find a spoken word printed statement or published work where I advocate “disarament.”
“Let me see if I can logically follow the comments to this article. Each of you is FOR illegal guns. Isn’t that an absurd position to take. Where does this bologna end and common sense take over?” -JPB
Obviously “the bologna” ends somewhere outside of your grasp.
No.
No one said, “hey give out free guns to criminals.” Guns owned by law abiding citizens protected by their Constitutional Right are not Illegal. Many people posting here recognize the the ultimate goal of organizations like this is to slowly criminalize everything, until everyman is a felon, and take away their rights, for the “public safety.”
Obviously you did not follow the logic of this article or the comments. For the future, if you ever find yourself reading comments on a post board, which are mind bogglingly absurd, such as “Each of you is FOR illegal guns.” go back and read over it again, before flaming the whole readership. You probably missed something. As is evident in every single response you posted on this topic.
There is a huge difference between being against the illegal use of guns and not supporting an organization that is for making (some subset) guns illegal.
As I read the headline and article
It was about illegal weapons not making weapons illegal. My apologies if I misread.
What you read was spin and propaganda. It is no secret that MAIG spend money all over the nation lobbying and spreading propaganda and lies to force useless gun feature bans through state by state. Making more and more guns illegal giving them more and more to confiscate and circumventing The Second Amendment. No one here wants to protect criminals, but no one here wants to see their ownership of any item turn them into a criminal themselves either. People who rape, and rob, and murder, should be arrested and tried by a jury no matter what tools they used. The problem is when you start saying that anyone who owns any specific tool is a criminal as well, even when they have done nothing criminal. The problem is that organizations like this keep saying they are going after criminals but all the talk about is gun feature bans and making family members get background checked to hand guns down. As though magical background checks would help anyone in a nation where background reporting is not national and is woefully under equipped.
That’s what this whole post board is about. Seeing past the lies to what the actions of MAIG actually amounts to. “We have never called for confiscating of legal guns, either publicly nor privately – and we never will.” No of course they won’t, they will just lobby all over the nation until there is no such thing as a “legal gun”.
You’re response unintentionally described the core of the issue. The article is an attempt to defend MAIG written by a former MAIG. It IS the bologna. It really reads like this, “Group organized for making weapons illegal says, ‘We only want to take the illegal guns away from you, as soon as we get done making them illegal, while we carry guns in government buildings because we gave each other verbal permission. We promise it’s OK.” And that is where the common sense kicks in, that these groups are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Telling you what you need to hear to further their goals. But of course they didn’t just say that…. That would be absurd.
Since you cannot seem to grasp it (have you been checked for Alzheimer’s?) let me point out there is absolutely no such thing as an “illegal gun”. Any law which purports to declare a gun “illegal” is unconstitutional infringement on a natural right. Now you can reread the whole series and perhaps actually understand what is going on.
?
I agree, its ridiculous to try to stop crime by making some tools illegal. As though a criminal would say, “well i really wanted to shoot and murder some guy but I can’t buy a gun at a gun store so I guess I will get a legal job.” People by nature are ingenuitive, they will use or make any tools they can find to accomplish their goals, for good or evil. Stopping crime is about people.
Finally, I want to point this out again. Somehow I feel it doesn’t get said enough.
Guns owned by law abiding citizens protected by their Constitutional Right ARE NOT ILLEGAL.
Let me see if I can logically follow the comments to this article. Each of you is FOR illegal guns. Isn’t that an absurd position to take.
Sorry, is that a question? Rereading all seven posts before your initial one at 9:18, I can’t find a single one that supports your claim. Your attempt to logically follow the comments failed. The idea that banning inanimate objects will do something to stop crime is absurd.
The thought that anyone would be in favor of illegal guns is chilling. You fellows have just confirmed that each of you favor this position which is in and of itself illegal.
Now you’re arguing that being in favor of a position can be illegal? I must have a lot of nerve just walking around every day being in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization, since those are clearly illegal positions where I live.
You fail to address the fact that apparently you too favor ownership of illegal weapons.
Now we’re getting somewhere. At least you’ve moved the focus from inanimate objects to an action performed by an individual with volition.
You can’t be so obtuse that you don’t know what illegal means. This is simply a way to avoid facing the harsh truth. You either are in favor of the possession of illegal guns or you are not. It is not a complex postulate.
Name the “illegal guns” you are referring to. I’ll let you know if I’m in favor or not.
In a country of laws illegal is illegal. It is not complex. Some laws I like some I don’t. I’m sure it’s the same with you. But that’s the way it goes.
Wait a minute! Didn’t you say earlier that favoring an illegal position was “in and of itself illegal”? Yep, you did! You should go turn yourself in.
However for the rule of law to work we just follow the law. We can’t pick and choose which ones thoug [sic] because then the rule falls apart.
I’m sure you would have been first in line telling Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus. Oh my God! She’s not following the law!!! Call the police!!! I need an adult!!!
I studied 1 year of Con-Law …. I know I need a 106 and M-2 but didn’t realize that everybody else fit too!
I guess the Bill of Needs is covered in the second year of Con Law.
“…mayor’s most important responsibility is to keep their citizens safe. ”
NO. No it is not.
Even if it was, they’re not doing it right.
Who do you think you’re fooling… GRABBERS!
MAIG wants to change the rules so law abiding citizens and their law abiding guns are illegal. It’s like playing a game where the opposing team actually makes up the rules and is the referee. It is nothing more complicated than that. “Your guns were legal yesterday…but gosh they are illegal today and you need to hand them in so we can melt them down and make bricks out of them.” I am glad to see some members of MAIG are no longer members.
I think if you’re no longer a mayor, you’re ineligible. They’d still be in if they could be.
Here’s a simple question for a MAIG Mayor: should I, as a citizen who has never been convicted of so much as a speeding ticket, be allowed to possess an AR-15 with standard capacity 30 round magazines. Yes or no?
If the answer is no, then by definition, you are a gun grabber.
I’ll help with the correct answer, any MAIG can simply copy.
Did you want select fire with that? A suppressor?
“We will never confiscate legal guns. So, we’ll make them illegal, then confiscate them.
“We have never called for confiscating of legal guns, either publicly nor privately – and we never will.”
Ha ha ha ha ha…Oh man I can’t stop…ha ha ha ha…
Where’s Feinkenstein, she needs to read that statement, It’ll probably even crack HER up, and crack her face, too.
Oh, here she is. I found her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzDO86iSKWU
It’s good to know that they did not, in fact, send letters to owners of lever-action rimfire rifles in NYC to get rid of their guns because they could hold more than five assault bullets in their long tubular assault clips.
I don’t care about the promises and claims of known liars, I don’t trust any politician as far as I can throw them. Especially the Chris Christie type, I couldn’t throw him far at all.
“…..we know that a mayor’s most important responsibility is to keep their citizens safe. ” Wrong. Your responsibility is to keep us free. We’ll keep ourselves safe.
Their position is ironic. They want to ban the very tools that keep us safe.
They’re not fooling anyone. Their name should be “Mayors Against Guns” – period.
Actually, at the mayoral level it is mostly about safety and quality of material existence.
Roads, water, sidewalks, lighting, sewage, policing (yeah, there’s a place for that), fire and other minutia of life in a community.
Keeping us free is the responsibility of higher-ups at the war-fighting and preventing level, and of us.
Better think that one through, Russ….
If you can’t possess your guns in your city, then it doesn’t matter what the higher-ups do – You’ve already lost your freedom. Think New York City…..
These morons should stick to streets, water, sidewalks, lighting, sewage, police and fire protection, and leave gun control alone.
They should just change their name to Mayor’s Against Illegal Violence and get at the true heart of the matter. Legal violence of course is the one the .gov inflicts on you, the citizens.
Or maybe Mayor’s Against Legal Freedom…MALF…kind of appropriate.
… or maybe “North American Mayors for Banning Legal Arms” otherwise known as NAMBLA.
Hard to believe MAIG are not gun grabbers when Bloomberg put in ordinances in NYC to where you can’t have shotguns or rifles within the city.
They don’t need to grab ’em if noone has ’em in the first place…
“Mayors Against Illegal Guns: We’re Not Gun Grabbers!”
What a crock. I bet you the can’t say that out loud in a public venue without twitching (trying not to laugh) and fingers firmly crossed behind their backs.
Jeez.
Single question I’ve never heard MAIG answer, but should:
“what is your definition of an illegal gun?”
Follow up (because you know it will be washy) “so then your not against citizens owning semiautomatic rifles?”
Or fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF! Don’t forget those legal weapons!
“That is far too many mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who will not live to see 2015.”
So… only children with no children of their own are fair game?
The other flaw in that statement is that their 12,000 figure includes an awful lot of dead gangbangers and other violent criminals. Frankly, I’m not shedding many tears over those kinds of “gun violence victims” not seeing 2015.
Me too neither.
Ahh……a little defensive are we? The first chink in the armor….crack in the wall.
Yes and yes.
Because exposure and pushback has muddied up their reputation, MAIG types are simply trying to redefine themselves in a way that is politically acceptable especially for fence sitters.
Truth has nothing to do with it.
There’s that word again…reasonable. I don’t think it means what they think it means.
Never go in against a Bloombergian when DEATH is on the line!
Ahahahahahahahahaha! Ahahahahahahahahaha! Aha?
I believe the Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization was quite truthful when they stated, “We have never called for confiscating of legal guns, either publicly nor privately – and we never will.”
Their game plan has never been to confiscate “legal” guns. Their game plan has always been for legislatures to declare most/all guns illegal and then confiscate them.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
It’s the mayors’ job to keep us safe? Stuff flew out of my nose at that one. Your job is mainly to cut ribbons when new libraries open and to deliver speeches to the Rotary. You should be working to preserve liberty, but we’d be okay if you’d just shut the hell up and cut more ribbons. Man, these people have dangerously inflated senses of self-worth.
I could almost tug on a heart string over the statistics of gun murders, but that action stops when I start laughing at the term “sensible”
33 people are murdered by guns, but wait, 115 die each day from SECOND HAND CIGARETTE SMOKE!!
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United!
1,300 persons die each day from smoking and the MAIG want to talk sensible???
So this brings up the question as to why this is acceptable. Firearms and tobacco both create jobs, both deal in death, one has second amendment protection and the other doesn’t, so why is there an issue? Taxes. Lots of money means it’s OK to murder yourself and others with your tobacco, but not with guns. At least guns don’t cause morning hack.
It seems simple, tax every bullet and every gun so the politicians have lots and lots of money, and we will never hear another word about gun control from MAIG, IMDA (Ignorant Mothers Demanding Action) again.
With those numbers, I for the life of me can’t understand why that loser Piers Morgan and others can ignore those statics. Lets blame the media for a start, but 480,000 every year as opposed to 12,000 that are murdered. I rest my case.
Great points.
I believe capturing lost tax revenue was one of the underlying if unspoken reasons behind the CA legislature passing, and Schwarzenegger signing, AB 962 a few years back to require face to face brick and mortar sales of ammo in CA, essentially banning direct shipping of internet ammo purchases to CA consumer purchasers.
With that law barred from enforcement by the CA Court of Appeals, I’m certain the Legislature will return to the effort to require in state transactions promptly.
“As former mayors of Binghamton, Albany and Utica, we know that a mayor’s most important responsibility is to keep their citizens safe.”
You may want to have a word with Idaho Sen. Jim Rice: “We sometimes think our duty is to make everyone safe. It’s to preserve liberty. It’s not to make a society that’s absolutely safe.”
I realize he’s a senator and you guys are (former) mayors, but the premise remains.
That’s the very quote that jumped into my head, too. It’s a beaut.
If you like your gun, you can keep it*
*If it is on our list of approved weapons
Yeah, close the loopholes. Are you a US citizen that wants a gun for self defense? denied! Loophole closed. In case you don’t know it mayors, the people that vote you in want special criminals like trayvon protected(gun free zones, ya think). Their only goal is to get self defense guns banned. Believe it or not I don’t strap my handgun on to defend myself from a second story white grandmother./// Nice try though.
So, Bloomberg’s coven’s now relying on three has-beens to refute one honest current Mayor’s expose? They cried “Wolf” once too often. I believe I see MAIG circling the bowl.
…Followed by a “Gurgle” and then freshening of the air.
That one was like 5ft long…
Ahhh, I feel much better now!
Keep dreaming. Bloomberg is still a billionaire nut job, they may change the name but it won’t go away any more than Soros will.
Objects cannot be “illegal”. The ACTIONS of possession, use, sale, transfer, manufacture, etc. of a given object, by a given “unauthorized” person in a given area, can be made “illegal”. There is no such thing as an “illegal gun”.
Therefore MAIG’s name and mission are nonsensical. They are against something that cannot exist. They should claim victory immediately and quietly disband.
Now as any oddball guns which violate laws o’ Nature…
Those gun grabbers, they so funny, they so transparent. The astounding thing is, they really, truly, deeply believe the BS. That any 21st century American can be so ignorant, so ahistorical, so naive and so deluded simply boggles my mind. But they do have a raison d’être, they are useful idiots in the best and greatest Leninist/Trotskyist sense. I have little doubt that they wear that mantle proudly.
The above-quoted Three Blind Mice contend that in states without UBCs, “criminals can buy a handgun, without a background check, from an unlicensed seller.”
I got new for those morons: criminals do that in every state and the District of Columbia.
Don’t forget the territories and possessions.
“…laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals”
I thought we already had those. In fact, I thought those laws generally didn’t work. And if laws that simply try and keep out of the hands of criminals don’t work, the only ones left to try and those that keep guns out of the hands of everyone.
So is MAIG (a)useless or (b)dishonest?
Okay… c….
I’ll say one thing about these fools…. They’ve mastered the art of doublespeak and spin. They say one thing and mean something entirely different.
Nothing new to see here. “Rulers” have been doing that since people were stupid enough to accept their “Rule”.
We are not to have Rulers, Yet, the Rule that prevails best be that of Good Citizenship.