Apparently, National Rifle Association leaders thought they could bully the hundreds of mayors who have joined a coalition called Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
It looks like the bully brought a boomerang to a political gunfight.
The NRA sent postcards to its members around the country in typically hysterical fashion, calling the Mayors group every name but American. (Remember their literature last year against President Obama found to be “intentionally dishonest” and “pants on fire wrong” by PolitiFact? Same thing).
Yet America’s mayors, law enforcement officers and community voices — rather than ask the NRA how high they should jump — are telling NRA leaders to go jump in the lake.
It seems to me the NRA is on a bad roll. Last month the protesters carrying guns at the town hall meetings backfired on them, and now this. If it keeps up, the more passionate and aggressive gun folks may decide to change their tune.
What do you think? All those reports of mayors abandoning the cause and all those other reports about mayors who were criminals themselves, were what, exaggerations I suppose? I'm sure they were true, it's just the way they were presented you'd have thought the whole operation was about to fold.
Do you agree with Sebastian that this is a movement which could enjoy a certain success? Do you agree with his underlying idea that the MAIG has longer range goals, bigger than the ones presented currently? Is that something to worry about for gun owners?
Please leave a comment.
How did the armed protesters backfire on us? MAIG is doomed.
ReplyDelete"Do you agree with his underlying idea that the MAIG has longer range goals, bigger than the ones presented currently? Is that something to worry about for gun owners?"
ReplyDeleteKnowing what Michael Bloomberg has done to New York City, I can't imagine his goals for the rest of the country being any different. And I don't imagine him stopping until he gets it.
It's beyond naive to think that the MAIG will all pack their bags and go home once they get what they want. Like all gun control groups, if you give them an inch, they'll want a mile. They'll keep pushing for more.
What did the NRA have to do with the armed, civic minded folks who committed ZERO violence--even if that somehow is a negative? I don't remember the NRA having any connection whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteLast month the protesters carrying guns at the town hall meetings backfired on them,
ReplyDeleteI talked to more people around our 2nd Amendment rights since the "armed protesters" then I did 6 months prior to that. It raised consciousness levels around the country about what our rights are.
Many of the folks didn't believe how restrictive our rights are when we first started talking.
So, I don't see it backfiring on us. Do you have any evidence (silly me for keep asking that question, eh) to suggest that it did?
Perhaps you surveyed 10% of the population to make your decision?
Last month the protesters carrying guns at the town hall meetings backfired on them, and now this.
ReplyDeleteEvidence please?
How did the armed protesters backfire on us?
ReplyDeleteIt didn't. MikeB just lives in la-la land. Oh, and the NRA didn't have a damn thing to do with any of those folks.
Unfortunately, the article is too one-sided to give a true picture. It's easy to cherry-pick responses...I'm sure the NRA will point to those mayors who are protesting the group (e.g. http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2009/09/26/mayor-anti-gun-group-misused-my-name/) in all of THEIR material to show just the opposite effect.
ReplyDeleteReally, the inability for either side to have a straightforward conversation is pathetic to me. Tom Gresham's (sp?) 'Gun Talk' radio show replayed his 'interview' with an anti-gun representative, and BOTH of them kept changing the subject to something they felt they could argue better, talking over each other, pretending not to be able to see the basic points the other was making, etc. I'd really appreciate a straightforward discussion that could stay on topic...the concepts are NOT complex, but most just don't seem willing to actually address them. Sort of like politics and health care at the moment.
Mike- you and I know, dep in our hearts, that the radical right [gun lobby] is truly an anti-American knot of mindless zealots who hate America and would, actually, like to see it brought down to an anarchistic state.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, when you bring issues like this one into the public spotlight, you can expect the gun-nuts to rise up faux-Patriotic fashion, and bleat their usual 'constitution' rant and pap.
They could give a rat's
ass about that document and all that it means to a well-functioning democracy. All that matters to them is that idiotic 2nd Amendment which everyone in their right mind knows was stuck in there to prevent England from another seige of the colony.
So, then, Mike, when you post articles like this, it is akin to dropping a piece of hamburger outside- all of the critters will descend upon it and feast upon the morsel, then withdraw to their lair, and await the next meal.
It works each time you do it.
Funny stuff! But then, they are a funny, albeit mentally-unstable, lot.
Cj, certainly we can discuss it here until MikeB re-engages his comment moderation.
ReplyDeleteI will also point out that MikeW BobS, and my Blog are all open to discussion and free to stop by.
I'd certainly love to discuss the issues with you, and the others will likely repeat my gesture.
CJ,
ReplyDeleteI don't know your position on gun rights. If you are against, please accept my invitation to host a debate on my site.
If you are willing, I'll post your views that you email me and we can discuss it in the comments or I'll post my views in the same or another post.
MikeB, forgive me if this violates your commenting policy but Mud_Rake's comment is about the biggest pile of shit I have seen posted on here yet. In fact, we may all be dumber now for just having read it.
ReplyDeleteI just read it again.
I wouldn't even know where to begin addressing his nonsense. If I try to break it up and respond line-by-line I'll have an I.Q. lower than Forest Gump when I'm through.
I just read it a third time and I am now as dumb as a bleeding heart liberal.
One mor tim and i wont evn bee abwul to writ nuthin
Mike- you and I know, dep in our hearts, that the radical right [gun lobby] is truly an anti-American knot of mindless zealots who hate America and would, actually, like to see it brought down to an anarchistic state.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mikeb, is mud_rake right? Is that what you know, "dep in [y]our heart"? Sounds to me as if mud_rake has no argument beyond childish attempts at insults. Interesting choice of folks with whom to associate, Mike.
Good thing the vast majority of commenters here are grownups, to help dilute the presence of angry children like muddy.
Once the 2A is incorporated to state and local levels, MAIG will be destroyed.
ReplyDeleteHow has it 'backfired' MikeB? MAIG's numbers are down from what they were originally claiming. They included people who weren't associated plus people who were no longer mayors of the listed cities and hadn't been for some time.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA also had nothing to do w/ the townhall protests. If you have some evidence to the contrary, why don't you present it?
Is MudRake's comments considered by you to be enhancing the debate? That's what your 'comment policy' stated. Or are attacks by one side OK but not the other.
I'm sure you'll elaborate.
To mud rake...
ReplyDeleteMikeB posts about gun control because it's the only thing that "gets butts in the seats" in front of his blog.
He wants people to come visit his forum, that's understandable. But when he posts about some music video or other nonsense, noone leaves a comment and I surmise noone even bothers to watch the video to begin with.
Gun control and the 2A is and always will be a hot button issue for people on both sides.
MikeB is smart enough to realize that this is the only way he can get people to come and visit.
What he doesn't realize is that by choosing to blog about a subject he knows nothing about, he inevitabally puts some serious nonsense in print for the whole world to see. MikeB does more to help the pro-freedom crowd than he does to hurt it.
Every pro-2A commenter on this site can distinguish an M1 from an M1A from a quarter-mile distance and yet MikeB doesn't even know what the M1 or M1A is.
MikeB is a great supporter for our cause, not by his passions which I believe are genuine; but by his actions of posting stuff so easily debunked by anyone with a computer and the skill to spell "google."
Even he, deep down, knows I am right.
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteAll those reports of mayors abandoning the cause and all those other reports about mayors who were criminals themselves, were what, exaggerations I suppose?
What "exaggerations" would those be, Mikeb? Have you seen inflated claims of the number of mayors who jumped ship, mayors who were falsely claimed by MAIG, or MAIG members who are in legal trouble? If so, present them. I'll wait.
I'm sure they were true [which would mean they aren't "exaggerations"], it's just the way they were presented you'd have thought the whole operation was about to fold.
Perhaps you'd "have thought" that, but I don't remember seeing anyone claim--or even imply--that. Our point was to illustrate the moral bankruptcy and pathological dishonesty of that nest of vipers.
I'm still waiting for that evidence Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for that evidence Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have to understand, TomB, is that Mikeb isn't one to limit himself to assertions, insinuations, and accusations for which he can present evidence. He prefers to just "spray fire from the hip" (to borrow a ridiculous gun-grabber phase), and see what sticks (pretty much nothing, so far).
What really pisses him off is that his mudslinging lacks the power to send people to prison, because, apparently, the U.S. justice system isn't Italian enough for him.
Care to comment on that assessment, Mikeb?
I'm not seeing any anger from the Liberals on the idea of the 2nd Amendment being incorporated. I'm wondering if they plan to pass "reasonable restrictions" for the entire USA that will fall under the "regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment once incorporation passes? Perhaps MAIG will be part of that effort?
ReplyDelete"I'm not seeing any anger from the Liberals on the idea of the 2nd Amendment being incorporated."
ReplyDeleteYou don't get out much, do you?
A few guys asked, "How did the armed protesters backfire on you?"
ReplyDeleteThey made you look like a bunch of nuts. Only the most extreme pro-gun people thought otherwise. Refer to Sebastian and Say Uncle and many other reasonable gun people.
FatWhiteMan, Thanks for injecting a bit of humor into the discussion, which too often gets too heavy.
ReplyDeleteYour response to mud_rake's comment was hilarious..
"Refer to Sebastian and Say Uncle and many other reasonable gun people."
ReplyDeleteBut by your definitions they're not 'reasonable' because they support the expansion of firearm rights.
The only ones that think it 'backfired' are the nuts on the other side.
The only ones that think it 'backfired' are the nuts on the other side.
ReplyDeleteExactly, Thirdpower.
If attending a political protest rally armed (with a scary so-called "assault weapon," no less) is so overwhelmingly seen as "crazy," I wonder why MSNBC felt the need to grossly distort reality, and paint the protesters as "racist," in order to bolster the idea that people who show up armed at political protests are in the wrong.
The distortion, of course, is that MSNBC deliberately edited the footage to hide the fact that the supposed purveyor of "white rage" is himself black (More here).
Then again, Mikeb, we're no strangers to false accusations of racism around here, are we? Perhaps MSNBC isn't guilty of deliberate distortion--perhaps it's merely the TV equivalent of "writing too fast," eh, Mikeb?
beowulf, I apologized for that, you said you accepted it.
ReplyDeleteIs this what you call accepting an apology?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAcceptance of an apology does not require that I forget the original offense.
ReplyDeleteSince that apology, I've seen your continued prissy disapproval of what you take as personal attacks from gun rights advocates, and your giggling support of mud-fer-brains' vituperative vitriol (misspelled vituperative vitriol), so spare me the martyred "hurt" act over an occasional reminder of your earlier dishonor.
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteThey made you look like a bunch of nuts. Only the most extreme pro-gun people thought otherwise. Refer to Sebastian and Say Uncle and many other reasonable gun people.
Sebastian and Say Uncle are big on "marketing" and "packaging" gun rights, and trying to cultivate a good image. That's fine, if you're into asking for one's fundamental human rights. If, on the other hand, you're the sort who will exercise your fundamental human rights, and tell people who don't like it that they're welcome to try to stop you, but you suggest they max out their life insurance policy first, you don't really care about what the forcible citizen disarmament advocates think of you.
I'll give you three guesses as to which category I fall into. If that makes me "unreasonable," so be it--I'm not interested in trying to negotiate.
By the way, Mikeb, about your "reasonable gun people" looking down their oh-so-elegant noses at the people who peacefully carried firearms to the town hall meetings--I suppose you would consider Clayton Cramer (of the Gun Self-Defense Blog) to be among them, aside from his unfortunate (and gratuitous) foray into homophobia.
ReplyDeleteI, on the other hand, vastly prefer Mr. Vanderboegh's response--which should surprise no one.
About the guns, Clayton is right. Mike V. and his friends are just being themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhich one do you align with, beowulf?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhich one do you align with, beowulf?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I thought we knew each other--you wound me. I am a gazillion percent with Mr. Vanderboegh, and his recognition of the clear fact that we don't need friends--just plenty of ammo, and a clear line of sight to our enemies.
Yes, I knew that. Sorry for the wound. Do you refer to yourself as a 3 percenter? You know what I call it right, grandiose victimism? But you already told me you don't plan on being the victim. That was you, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteHow does that work for you guys then? You actually think you and your little hoard of ammo would be able to fight off a squad of Blackwater-type commandos?
No, you know you wouldn't be able to, hence the second part of the description, grandiose victimism. The first part is covered by the mere fact that we're having this conversation.
I was being facetious about the "wound"--you are obviously under no obligation to keep track of your various commenters' philosophies and attitudes.
ReplyDeleteDo you refer to yourself as a 3 percenter?
More like the 3 percenters' annoying little brother, who follows them around, desperately wanting to be a part of it. I often flatter myself with the idea that I'm one of them, but when I'm honest with myself, I admit that I'm a wannabe. And yes, I have a couple times posted comments here to the effect that I'm not planning to be a victim. Because I'm, at the moment, in the mood to be brutally honest with myself, I'll admit that the reason for that is that even if it does come down to patriots fighting the jack-booted-thugs and the gov's jack-booted-Blackwater-type-"Hessians," the JBTs and pals will probably simply ignore me--because they can afford to. Who knows, though, maybe I'll surprise them (and myself).
You actually think you and your little hoard of ammo would be able to fight off a squad of Blackwater-type commandos?
No, you know you wouldn't be able to, hence the second part of the description, grandiose victimism.
You are, of course, free to wager on whichever side you want. I'd recommend not betting the kids' college money on Blackwater, though.
b. thanks for an honest description of yourself. I respect that.
ReplyDelete"More like the 3 percenters' annoying little brother,"