Mayors Against Illegal Guns

imported post

After reading this post on one of the blogs I read regularly
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/200...-sights-on-bloombergs-anti-gun-mayors-part-i/
I got curious and took a look at their site to see how many Virginia mayors are part of the group. Unsurprisingly, Norfolk is listed on there. While there are apparently a number of mayors in that group that are under the impression that Bloomberg's group is focused on keeping guns away from criminals, as opposed to making it illegal for the rest of us to be armed, history leads me to doubt that Fraim is of that belief.

I guess the main thing I'm wondering is if there are enough people that care about gun rights in these cities that we could use this against some of these mayors come election time.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml#VA
Alexandria, VA
Hopewell, VA
Norfolk, VA
Petersburg, VA
Portsmouth, VA
Richmond, VA

imported post

On the surface, I'm not sure that I see anything wrong with their group. I'm against "illegal guns" too - that is, guns obtained illegally or in the hands of people who are not legally eligible to own or possess one.

From their website:

One of the most difficult challenges we face in meeting this responsibility is preventing criminals from illegally obtaining guns and preventing those who do get them from using them. The issue of illegal guns is not conservative or liberal; it is an issue of law and order -- and life or death.

We respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, and we recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers carefully follow the law. Our only interest is in fighting crime -- and we are determined to win. The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.

They even say "gun politics on all sides", which is interesting by itself. I'm good with what they say above. I dont view them as a threat from what I see so far.

ETA - We still should be watchful though, as Bloomberg has a way of twisting what's right into something wrong.

imported post

More information, or at least more opinions...

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d2-Mayors-Against-Illegal-Guns-misses-the-mark-by-blaming-the-tool

TFred

imported post

I was surprised by a few things after looking at that list. First, with the exception of Alexandria (expected), all of the anti-gun mayors arein the southern part of the state. I am happy to see that this disease hasn't spread too much in NOVA. Being a newcomoer to VA, I guess, I don'tknow the VA politics well enough to undestand why. Second, I am pleasantly surprised that VA still fares pretty well in comparison to such traditional pro-gun states like Florida and Pennsylvania. Their membership on the list is a lot more extensive.

imported post

Well it doesn't take much time with our good friend mr. google to figure out that these folks are not our friends.

They opposed the recent Thune amendment, which if I recall correctly was all about legal gun owners, carrying their guns legally in states where concealed carry was legal. I don't know how they can justify any position on the Thune amendment based on their named purpose, opposition to illegal guns...

If it walks, talks and sounds like a duck.......

TFred

imported post

You need to look at them more closely, Jim. Also, think about who's leading them: Michael Bloomberg.

Think about it: do you think that the AHSA is a pro-gun organization just because they say they are? If so, you'd be greatly mistaken.

Just as anti-rights groups usually do, they try to put a "reasonable" mask over their true intentions. MAIG is dedicated to NYC-style gun control. This is not a group you want to get behind.

~ Boyd

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

On the surface, I'm not sure that I see anything wrong with their group. I'm against "illegal guns" too - that is, guns obtained illegally or in the hands of people who are not legally eligible to own or possess one.

From their website:

One of the most difficult challenges we face in meeting this responsibility is preventing criminals from illegally obtaining guns and preventing those who do get them from using them. The issue of illegal guns is not conservative or liberal; it is an issue of law and order -- and life or death.

We respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, and we recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers carefully follow the law. Our only interest is in fighting crime -- and we are determined to win. The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.

They even say "gun politics on all sides", which is interesting by itself. I'm good with what they say above. I dont view them as a threat from what I see so far.

ETA - We still should be watchful though, as Bloomberg has a way of twisting what's right into something wrong.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, ProShooter, I believe that you are not well informed about this bunch. Clearly, they are not going to tell you what they really want. Just like Obama, United Nations, ect. their ultimate goal is nothing short of the the total disarmamanet of the U.S. citizens and the repeal of the Second Amendment. Granted not all of them want it, but people like Bloomberg and Daley clearly do. Some mayors that get recruited under false pretenses do leave, but the ones that stay drank the Kool Aid. Bloomberg and company have tried to sue and hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for deaths caused by guns. They have even been cooperating (maybe still do) with the feds to create the start of a national gun registry by pooling the databases of some member jurisdictions. I think this goes way beyond keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, which, by the way, I also support.This would be less of a problem (or an excuse for anti-gunners)if there were fewer criminals on the street to begin with?:exclaim:

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

On the surface, I'm not sure that I see anything wrong with their group. I'm against "illegal guns" too - that is, guns obtained illegally or in the hands of people who are not legally eligible to own or possess one.

From their website:

One of the most difficult challenges we face in meeting this responsibility is preventing criminals from illegally obtaining guns and preventing those who do get them from using them. The issue of illegal guns is not conservative or liberal; it is an issue of law and order -- and life or death.

We respect the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, and we recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers carefully follow the law. Our only interest is in fighting crime -- and we are determined to win. The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.

They even say "gun politics on all sides", which is interesting by itself. I'm good with what they say above. I dont view them as a threat from what I see so far.

ETA - We still should be watchful though, as Bloomberg has a way of twisting what's right into something wrong.

Click to expand...

Just remember, it's also about Mayors overstepping their bounds. A Mayor from a city in a different state has no authority to send his goons into another state to harrass and try to put licensed gun dealers out of business.

"violent criminals with easy access to firearms"? That's not the problem in my mind. I find the problem to be having violent criminals out in public at all instead of being behind bars. A violent criminal can't get a gun and shoot up a school if he's in prison. In my mind, if a person has done their time and are let out of jail, they should have the same rights as anyone else, as they have 'paid their debt to society.' If the government doesn't trust a perolee in public with a gun, I don't trust them to be in public at all. He could get some fertilizer and gasoline and build a bomb that would do a hell of a lot more damage to life and property than a person with a gun ever could, and you don't need a background check or a federal license to sell that stuff.

imported post

Well it seems that their actions are different than thier mission statement as it were. I'm always cautious when Doomberg is involved in anything but like I said, on the face they didn't seem to be a problem..

As always, actions speak louder than words. I dread to see what they will try to get their hands on next.

imported post

Bloomberg's a co-chairman?

I don't trust them. End of story.