Monday, January 31, 2011

Bloomberg Still Stingin'

The New York Daily News reports.

The Tucson massacre that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others did not stop Arizona gun dealers from selling high-powered semiautomatics last week to buyers who said they couldn't pass background checks.

The sales were captured on undercover video by private detectives working for Mayor Bloomberg's crusade against illegal guns. The detectives went to the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix on Jan.23 to expose the deadly loopholes in America's gun background check system.
It's comforting to remember that most gun owners are in agreement with the gun control folks on this one. It's still baffling that so many are opposed. I don't think I've heard a good reason why. Have you?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Poor fellows don't want to be inconvenienced with waiting for a background check, and the slight increase in costs that it may entail. Tsk. Of course, they're in denial that such illegal sales actually occur. It's hard to prove it happens, with the exception of undercover investigations like this one, since paperwork is sketchy and voluntary for these private sellers.

  2. "Singin'" about disarming African-Americans? I know you won't post this, because you prefer to keep Bloomberg's blatant racism secret, but it pleases me to rub your face in it, anyway, coward.

  3. Wow, Bloomberg is still wasting tax dollars on his bullshit dog & pony shows.

    These aren't "stings". No one was arrested nor were any crimes committed.

    I wonder why he didn't try it at the gun show in Charleston, WV that weekend? Oh yeah, because his bullshit "stings" are a felony there. More states should pass common sense legislation like West Virginia.

  4. I think the better question is why so many supposed gun owners would support it, and I think it's because they've been tricked into thinking that gun control would actually work.

    But as far as why I oppose it, it's simple: It's an infringement on an unalienable right that has absolutely no positive results, except to make some people "feel good."


  5. Hey Fatso White Man: You guntubbys think you're oh so smart. But if you had one drop of the smarts you'd know that selling something to somebody who says, in insinuates, that possession of said item is illegal, makes the seller a felon.

    (18 USC 922 (D) prohibits anyone, dealer or not, from transferring a firearm knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that they’re one of a list of things [felon, crazy, addict, illegal alien, etc.] that is identical with “not able to pass the background check”, since the NICS check is designed specifically with that list in mind.)

  6. MikeB,

    Wrong. Where are the criminal charges?

  7. FWM, I don't know why there are no criminal charges against those sellers, but BantheNRA is right they did commit crimes.

    Why are you so intent on defending them?

    What about you, Zorroy, why are you so interested in protecting those bums. By the way, what does Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" policy have to do with this?

  8. Heh--maybe I've figured out how to get you to publish a comment you otherwise wouldn't (like the many others I've posted over the last couple weeks that mentioned Bloomberg's racism).

    What about you, Zorroy, why are you so interested in protecting those bums.

    Actually, I can't find anything I've said that could reasonably be seen as "protecting" the people involved. I will say now, though, that since I see all gun laws as unconstitutional, immoral, and foolish, and since I'm contemptuous of the "shared responsibility" idea, I don't think they did anything morally wrong, whether it's found to be "illegal," or not.

    Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" policy, which is used against white men 9% of the time, and finds a gun 0.15% of the time, exposes Bloomberg's blatant racism.

    Illustrating the racism--the evil--of your hero, in a discussion about said hero, seems relevant.

  9. mikeB,

    I'm not defending them if they are criminals. I am saying there is no evidence of criminal activity and that Bloomberg and his investigators are liars. If there is a crime, why was no one charged? Videos that are obviously heavily edited do not maintain a chain of evidence but are good for framing people.

    If there is an actual crime, where is the evidence?

  10. Of course a crime was committed--by Bloomberg's detectives, who had no jurisdiction there.

  11. Well, why weren't THEY charged, Tennessee Budd?