Essentially, it is a front group for a handful of rabidly anti-Second Amendment mayors who founded it, which in fact lobbies for gun control and misrepresents itself as a "reasonable" group going after illegal activity.
Of course he mentions the sting operation, supposedly sponsored by Bloomberg to investigate straw purchases of guns in other states. Jennings says "they acted illegally and were guilty of a felony crime." Well, I doubt that's true since they were never charged with a crime in spite of the gun crowd's tireless efforts at repeating the incident.
There's the mandatory rehashing of the failed attempt at concealed carry reciprocity.
Currently, some states do not even allow non-residents to carry a gun for protection. New York is one such state. It is impossible for any nonresident of New York to carry a handgun in that state legally, and in much of that state, close to impossible for residents.
One of the commenters, of which there are several good ones, pointed out something that struck me about that above description. "Some states don't even allow..." It made me laugh.
What's your opinion? Do you agree with Mr. Jennings' description of the MAIG? Do you think they acted criminally in the famous undercover incident? Do you think the reciprocity law is still a possibility, that we haven't heard the last of it?
Please leave a comment.
When it comes to gun control, I'm suspicious of any group using the term 'common sense', as this mayoral conglomeration seems to do. MY common sense says there are two possibilities:
ReplyDelete1) Criminals have guns
2) Criminals have guns AND law abiding citizens, most of whom go through a federal background check have guns as well.
Which of these two possibilities seems to be common sense to you?
Even their attempt at naming themselves (who ISN'T against illegal guns?) is duplicitous...Bloomberg has shown himself to be against LEGAL guns as well (see his rabid pursuit of the owner of a perfectly legal flintlock).
The mayoral group has the mindset of so many in power in the United States...we the elite, vs. the rest of you, the masses. They tend to see themselves as different and superior. I would also bet that a good number of them own and/or carry firearms, or at the very least are guarded by armed individuals, but that's not acceptable for the 'common man'.
So, Jennings description is somewhat accurate. I can't comment on the legality of their 'sting' operations, but it does seem to bend some laws between crossing state lines and not bothering to involve proper authorities...all while inciting people to perform felonies. But who's going to go after them with Bloomberg's deep pockets? After all, he is one of The Elite. It's ironically another major problem with gun laws: they're not enforced strictly enough!
Of course he mentions the sting operation, supposedly sponsored by Bloomberg to investigate straw purchases of guns in other states. Jennings says "they acted illegally and were guilty of a felony crime." Well, I doubt that's true since they were never charged with a crime in spite of the gun crowd's tireless efforts at repeating the incident.
ReplyDeleteYeah--it would be silly to think Bloomberg got special treatment--billionaire mayors don't get treated any better than anyone else.
Still, I can't help but wonder--the gun dealers set up by Furious Mike's little sting operation supposedly engaged in "straw sales," correct? Tell me--if the dealer is making a straw sale, isn't the buyer making a straw purchase (a federal felony, I believe)? Does it not, in other words, take two to tango? Granted, sometimes I've seen Junior G-Man Bloomberg's operation characterized as involving "simulated" straw purchases, but what the hell does that mean? Were they buying for someone else, or weren't they? And if they weren't, and it wasn't a straw purchase, what crime did the dealers commit? You can't have it both ways. Either the dealers did nothing illegal, or the purchasers did commit a federal felony, with Bloomberg as the chief conspirator.
I'm kinda proud of my "Famous 10%" theory about MAIG members whose corrupt criminality make them unsuitable for public office. Here's where I'm coming from: MAIG claims "more than 450 mayors," but that claim has been up for a while, before the latest round of defections, not to mention the fact that some of those "more than 450" were apparently claimed falsely--let's call it 450 even. Of those 450, we have 8--oops--make that 9, counting Nagin, who are convicted, indicted, arraigned, or at least under investigation for criminal wrongdoing--all within the last 27 months. That's 2%.
ReplyDeleteNow, at the heart of Mikeb's "Famous 10%" theory is his belief that the gun owners we hear about as having gone bad are the tip of the iceberg--the vast majority of that 10% consists of criminal, irresponsible, violent gun owners who have so far gotten away with it. If we are to believe the "10%" figure, that would have to be the case, given the fact that nowhere near 10% of the 80 million gun owners (or more?) in the U.S. have gotten in trouble in the last few years--that would be 8 million (I've seen the estimate made as low as 65 million--let's be generous, and go with that).
In fact, the number can't even be 2%--there's no way 1.3 million (2% of 65 million) gun owners have gotten in trouble over the last 27 months. Assuming the same ratio of caught to uncaught for dirty MAIG members and unsuitable gun owners (and why not assume that--the assumption has no less basis in reality than any of several assumptions Mikeb made), that would mean the actual proportion of MAIG members who are dirty is way over 10%--do I hear 20?
beowulf, About the sting operation, isn't it the same any time the authorities do that? Don't they break the law themselves in order to infiltrate the criminal activity? Don't they have some kind of immunity for doing that?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how the law works on that. So you approve of entrapment, when done by the authorities? Speaking of "authorities," Bloomberg ain't one--at least outside NYC (outside, indeed, NY state)--as made clear by the BATFE themselves--so any special "Only Ones" exemption allowing breaking the law one wishes to enforce didn't apply to Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteThey are not "mayors against illegal guns"
ReplyDeleteThey are a gun control group out to ban guns. Period.
Their policy proposals are IDENTICAL to The Brady Campaign's.
"About the sting operation, isn't it the same any time the authorities do that?"
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Bloombergs thugs weren't the "authorities". They were a private company under his employ. Modern day Pinkertons, if you will.
Mike W. says, "They are a gun control group out to ban guns. Period.
ReplyDeleteTheir policy proposals are IDENTICAL to The Brady Campaign's."
You say "period" after that declaration, but that doesn't mean anything except that you're passionate. The policy proposals of both groups would ban certain guns, but they certainly wouldn't do what you keep saying is their intent. You're reading their minds and imagining what they eventually will want to do if they get their way. I say it's pure paranoia and fear on your part.
Meanwhile, based on that, what you're resisting are ways to lessen the criminal gun violence, all because you THINK people will eventually try to take your guns away. That's why you're responsible, Mike.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteCan you be any more asinine?
We aren't resisting gun control efforts because someone might take our firearms away!!!
We are resisting because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights. What is hard to understand about that Sparky?
Registration, which historically has lead to confiscation, is only one of the many inane, ineffective, costly, burdensome only to the law abiding ideas that we resist. WE resist it because it is unconstitutional.
You're reading their minds and imagining what they eventually will want to do if they get their way. I say it's pure paranoia and fear on your part.
Those who don't know history are doomed to blather on and on about things they know nothing about on their blogs.
You admittedly know very little about gun control and its history, yet you can make statements like that. Isn't amazing you can use your 1st amendment rights to call for the trampling of our 2nd amendment rights?
based on that, what you're resisting are ways to lessen the criminal gun violence, all because you THINK people will eventually try to take your guns away
hey Sparky, you really do have OneUtah Reading Comprehension Failure Syndrome.
Many of us have told you over and over again that there is no evidence to the effectiveness of gun control.
You've been unable to present evidence showing the effectiveness of gun control.
Yet you shrug off all that and more to call for MORE GUN CONTROL
Now who's being closed minded.
We have shown that more guns does not equal more crime/death. In fact that the opposite is true, yet you resist our efforts to reduce crime.
How does it feel to be on the side of criminals Sparky?
Bob, You can't say things like, "Can you be any more asinine?" That violates my commenting code on the level of name-calling. I allowed the comment becasue you inserted the personal attack into quite a good response, much of which I liked. But the next time one like that gets deleted.
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way, if you call me Sparky one more time, I'm gonna come to your house, take your gun off you and conk you with it.
The policy proposals of both groups would ban certain guns, but they certainly wouldn't do what you keep saying is their intent.
ReplyDeletePlease learn to read MikeB.
I said,
They are a gun control group out to ban guns. period.
In your own comment you admit that my statement is true, that both groups want to BAN guns. So, what I keep saying is there intent is true. They want to ban guns. You admit it yourself yet you still backpedal.
Name me one gun control proposal that the Brady campaign hasn't endorsed because it'd be an infringement on my rights.
ReplyDeleteOne thing MikeB.
The fact is they have NEVER seen a gun control law they didn't like and their goal (the banning of arms among the civilian population) has not changed from when they were founded. (though originally they were founded to ban handguns.)
You can't say things like, "Can you be any more asinine?" That violates my commenting code on the level of name-calling.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, does that mean we can't use any adjective to describe your responses?
asinine: foolish, unintelligent or silly.
"Asinine" is an adjective when used with the verb "be" is a reference to your words or actions. Bob then clearly describes what he thinks is asinine. Which is exactly what you state is OK in comments.
At least be consistent, tell him you are going to delete his comments for calling you "Sparky"
MikeB,
ReplyDeletePlease allow me to rephrase your commenting policy based on my understanding and analysis of your actions:
If you say anything that makes me pout, I'm going to delete it
If you say anything that shows me to be a hypocrite, I'm going to delete it
If you say anything that proves my statements to be a flat out lie, I'm going to delete it
If you use words I don't like, I'm going to delete it
Sparky? You have a problem with that?
Bring it on BUB!
Your commenting policy is inconsistently applied at a minimum.
The liberal commenters can make personal attacks to other commenters, why is that ?
Your commenting policy and the way that you implement it is asinine.
I can prove that something you said is flat out untrue, but I can't call the person who made those untrue statement what a liar.
I can't call you "names" on your blog.
Have you noticed that you don't live your values on other people's blogs?
You call us names (gun nuts on 1Utah for example).
You say that we lie about your statements or comments.
what does one call a person who doesn't live the values he says he does?