Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Illegal Mayors Against Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Illegal Mayors Against Guns

    Anti-gun mayoral criminals have something else in common

    Shameless plug for my esteemed colleague David Codrea, the National Gun Rights Examiner; in his column yesterday, he asked why so many anti-gun mayors are criminals.

    He overlooked another “common denominator” among several former members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) who have taken a fall in court: They all share the same political party affiliation. Codrea lists several mayors who were MAIG members who have been convicted of various crimes, so this column did a little checking. Every one of them is a Democrat.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ng-else-common

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/28gqxvb

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Further proof that only criminals and criminal sympathizers support gun control.
    Last edited by Jack House; 09-22-2010 at 04:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Interesting! All anti-gun mayors are democrats and their criminal histories are boatloads higher than mayors whose stance on firearms is falls within rational norms...

    Hmmm. Tell you what - let's propose a Constitutional amendment which forbids anyone with a criminal history of any kind whatsoever from holding public office.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    The adage, "Guns have two worse enemies: rust and politicians" comes to mind.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    With an eye toward precision: All the mayors form MAIG who were convicted of a crime were Democrats. Some members of MAIG are not Democrats.

    That being said, the Democrat party is severely more anti-gun than the Republican party. If they are in power, our RKBA is at increased risk.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I'd kind of like to hear from our distiguished member "The Donkey" as to why "They all share the same political party affiliation". Haven't heard from him in a while about anything. In TX we have a moonbat mayor from Houston who dropped out of MAIG, after he "suddenly discovered" they're a pack of fascists and are much reviled in the state he seeks to govern. He's even gone out of his way to insist he carries, but just hasn't had the time to get a license. He's also a trial lawyer, which as far as I'm concerned is a criminal enterprise itself.

    Rick Perry mangaed to do it while (I belive, but don't know for sure) he was Lt Gov. He might not be worth a damn as a conservative, but he's good on guns. Too bad Medina had to blow it by allowing herself to be associated with the 9/11 truther lunatics.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Those behind MAIG --

    Michael Bloomburg, the former republican Wall Street maven;
    Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for Senator from Illinois;
    Paul Helmke, formerly Republican mayor, now director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence;
    Frank Luntz, Republican Pollster and author of a recent "Word Doctors" White Paper on how to sell gun control to the American people.

    Stupidity knows no party!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The article was pointing out that all the criminal members of MAIG were Dems.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I like the "illegal mayors" twist. Nice.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The article was pointing out that all the criminal members of MAIG were Dems.
    Well . . . much criminal activity goes unpunished. See e.g. http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/factsheets/bloomberg.cfm

    Dave Workman's article just rags on democrats: he mentions Eric Holder's efforts to re-start the assault weapons ban, for example, but doesn't mention that the reason the AWB ban efforts were abandoned was because of resistance from democrats in the House.

    Republican leaders talk a great deal about personal liberties, but every time they get in power, we learn that what they are really for is liberty for the economically powerful and the instrumentalities of state power, and to hell with everyone else.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There are pro-gun and anti-gun factions in both parties. However, if you really think that Democrats in power will better protect your gun rights...

    Well, believe what you will.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Two out of three of the democrats who represent me in Congress are just as good as their Republican opponents on gun issues, IMHO.

    All of the democrats who represent me are better than their Republican opponents on civil liberties issues in general.

    In the aftermath of Heller and McDonald, the same procedural and institutional barriers that prevent all "little guys" from enforcing all of their civil rights become the major hurtles against making the 2nd Amendment meaninful in most peoples lives. I think my democrats are better on these issues.

    I do not think that it makes sense to generalize about all democrats or all republicans on these issues. I encourage people to investigate each candidate individually.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    SNIP I encourage people to investigate each candidate individually.
    Me, too. Investigate them individually and thoroughly. Both parties. And, be ready to send the findings to grand juries.

    Funny how the Demonrat party operative shows up to mitigate image problems when MAIG and Dems comes up as a thread.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    By all means, investigate them individually. However, given two candidates who are pro-gun, don't you think that voting for the one whose party has a much larger percentage of pro-gun candidates would be the wiser choice? It would increase the likelihood of pro-gun leadership.

    Having a pro-gun rep voting for Pelosi as Speaker does not help the cause.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    Funny how the Demonrat party operative shows up to mitigate image problems when MAIG and Dems comes up as a thread.
    I also show up on democratic websites when MAIG tries to peddle their propaganda through web-ads or there is a 2A hostile thread.

    What brought me to this forum tonight was an itch to post a William Shatner clip. Perhaps you saw it in the "Defensive Shooting Question" thread:

    http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelli...n_control.html

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    SNIP don't you think that voting for the one whose party has a much larger percentage of pro-gun candidates would be the wiser choice?
    Nope. Mark Twain had it right when he said Congress is America's only distinctly criminal class.

    I've seen too much. The Demicans and Replicrats are just two wings of the same party: The Keep Ourselves in Government Party. No matter which is in power, the debt goes up, deficits go up, pork goes up, freedoms go down.

    I will not sic a member of either party on other people by voting for one of them.

    As Mencken said, an election is just an advance auction of the spoils of theft.

    When I read the Federalist Papers, the putrid ills assigned to Parliament are all so easily recognizeable in Congress today, even a dummy like myself can see it.

    As Lysander Spooner wrote in No Treason, theft is illegal and immoral. It does not become justified just because Mssrs. A, B, and C depute Mr. D by way of an election as their agent to do their thieving for them.

    But, more to your question, it is entirely possible for them to let us keep our guns and keep screwing us over. They've discovered how to cook us slowly. As long as enough people remain sufficiently unriled, they can keep this up, while letting us keep our guns, until the financial system and economy really does totally collapse, or a new system becomes necessary (or they claim such is necessary). And, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out in whose favor a new arrangement would be organized.

    I've had it with both parties.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-24-2010 at 12:34 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    By all means, investigate them individually. However, given two candidates who are pro-gun, don't you think that voting for the one whose party has a much larger percentage of pro-gun candidates would be the wiser choice? It would increase the likelihood of pro-gun leadership.

    Having a pro-gun rep voting for Pelosi as Speaker does not help the cause.
    On substantive "pro-gun": I don't think it makes much of a difference in the House, because you have a pro-gun majority there regardless of which party the leadership comes from. Pelosi cannot get an anti-gun measure through the House.

    The Senate is another story because of their "advise and consent" role on judicial nominees. What is going on in the third branch now is very important to guns.

    But generally, when thinking about judicial nominees, I tend to look beyond substantive interpretation of 2A. On civil liberties, I am interested in a range of issues, many of which indirectly effect 2A rights.

    For example, consider the 11th Amendment: under a activist, right-wing interpretation of the 11th Amend., embodied in Will v. Michigan State Police, if a State policeman -- or other state (as opposed to local) official -- falsely arrests you for open carry, you are without federal legal recourse.

    I would very much like to see the Will case overturned: but the justices who voted with the Heller and McDonald majorities are also those who would vote to uphold the immunity for arbitrary and abusive state power in Will. They pull the same kind of crap on issue after issue in civil liberties cases, but many people who are concerned about gun rights exclusively do not recognize it.

    Now that Heller and McDonald are settled law, I think that it is high time that gun rights people broaden their perspectives somewhat. That may mean -- contrary perhaps to the prevailing meme here -- that the "liberals" are the good guys.

    Personally, I am uncomfortable with Senate activism in holding up orrejecting judicial nominations for reasons of judicial philosphy in most cases. The place to influence the judiciary is in presidential elections.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Nope.
    I notice you omitted the part of my post, short as it was, the supported my statement.

    Oh, well. Moving on.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Donkey, I hope you don't think who is in the leadership doesn't matter. They determine which legislation is even considered. With anti-gun leadership, it is nigh onto impossible to even get pro-gun legislation that corrects past missteps considered.

    I know I'll never change your mind, but...

    Folks, vote for the pro-gun candidate. If there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between them (there always is), vote for the Republican candidate. A Republican leadership will be pro-gun. A Democrat leadership will be anti-gun. Simple as that.

    Moving on.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Not so simple:

    A vote for Sharon Angle, for example, is a vote to replace mostly pro-gun Senate majority leader Harry Reid with mostly anti-gun Senator Dick Durban.

    But you should probably vote Republican if you, like Sharon Angle, hear the echo of jackboots every time the Department of Education or the EPA is mentioned. Then take your meds.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    On substantive "pro-gun": I don't think it makes much of a difference in the House, because you have a pro-gun majority there regardless of which party the leadership comes from. Pelosi cannot get an anti-gun measure through the House.

    The Senate is another story because of their "advise and consent" role on judicial nominees. What is going on in the third branch now is very important to guns.

    But generally, when thinking about judicial nominees, I tend to look beyond substantive interpretation of 2A. On civil liberties, I am interested in a range of issues, many of which indirectly effect 2A rights.

    For example, consider the 11th Amendment: under a activist, right-wing interpretation of the 11th Amend., embodied in Will v. Michigan State Police, if a State policeman -- or other state (as opposed to local) official -- falsely arrests you for open carry, you are without federal legal recourse.

    I would very much like to see the Will case overturned: but the justices who voted with the Heller and McDonald majorities are also those who would vote to uphold the immunity for arbitrary and abusive state power in Will. They pull the same kind of crap on issue after issue in civil liberties cases, but many people who are concerned about gun rights exclusively do not recognize it.

    Now that Heller and McDonald are settled law, I think that it is high time that gun rights people broaden their perspectives somewhat. That may mean -- contrary perhaps to the prevailing meme here -- that the "liberals" are the good guys.

    Personally, I am uncomfortable with Senate activism in holding up orrejecting judicial nominations for reasons of judicial philosphy in most cases. The place to influence the judiciary is in presidential elections.
    "liberals" or more accurately progressives will never be the good guys. What we do need is more libertarian officials.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I notice you omitted the part of my post, short as it was, the supported my statement.

    Oh, well. Moving on.
    <chuckle> I notice you felt you had to bring it up, just so you could make noise, then ostentatiously "move on" so everybody would notice that you were doing so.

    So, let me get this straight. You ask me a question. I take the time to give a sincere reply to what I think is the central issue, complete with my reasoning, even addressing what I consider the error of your premise (without calling it error or telling you I think you are wrong. You're welcome for the courtesy.) And, you fuss about me cutting short your quote, misrepresenting your position? Then, having invited me, and received a civil reply, you play some control game by announcing you are moving on? (bad control by inhibiting/cutting off communication)

    Do you really think enough of us actually desire to communicate with you such that there is any point to announcing you are "moving on"?

    Hahahahahahahahaaa

    Oh, and I notice that even though you "moved on" you were paying attention to what I wrote. Where you say, "...not a dime's worth of difference..." in your next post, replying to Donkey.

    Hahahhahahaahahahaa



    Fellas,

    When Eye95 announces to you that he is "moving on", he is not only saying he is going to ignore you, he is also saying he wants you to shut up. If he only wanted to stop discussing a given subject or just wanted to ignore you, he could do so without writing anything more, couldn't he? By adding the "moving on" comment he is trying to control your communication on the subject, too--so you'll shut up. Otherwise, he wouldn't need to add it, would he? He wants to make sure you get the idea that he is cutting you off.

    I guess the sad part is that he thinks that is a way to control others. That he even feels the need to control other's in this way is even sadder.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-24-2010 at 11:54 PM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    When I say "moving on," it simply means that the current sub-discussion has nowhere productive to go--usually because we have competing axioms (and people's axioms tend not to change except as a result of life-altering events) or because one of the participants has started getting away from mature and civil rhetoric into something else. There is no point in continuing. Doing so usually produces page after page of junk that just serves to annoy everyone.

    It means that I have said what I need to say to possibly sway anyone whose mind is open on the subject. Since I am rarely trying to change the mind of the person with whom I am discussing, I don't want to turn off those yet to make up their mind. So, I make my point and stop the arguing that will surely degenerate into the juvenile.

    Years of posting on the Internet have taught me that this is the most productive way to respond to a disagreement on a message board. For mature posters, they make one more reply and, absent a reply from me, the thread continues on without pages of back-and-forth. Some posters take it as a personal slight, even though it is not intended as such. I tend not to worry when someone is sensitive in that way.

    The way I indicate that repeated behavior by a poster has illustrated that any further discussions with him would not be productive and will result in my ignoring him would be something along the lines of "Welcome to IgnoreLand."

    I prefer to discuss with folks who can disagree without having to make comments about the person to whom they are posting. The analogy I like is hanging around a bar. If someone starts saying ugly things about me because they disagree with me, I just walk away and talk to someone else. If they do it often enough, I just stop paying attention to them at all and don't even address them in discussions even if one of us is within earshot of the other.

    Like I've said, it's how I keep from participating in flame wars. It doesn't stop others from flaming me (obviously). However, they are responsible for their own choices. I'll try to make my own mature choices.

    Welcome to IgnoreLand. I really hated saying that this time. But, I give up.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Fellas,

    When Eye95 announces to you that he is "moving on", he is not only saying he is going to ignore you, he is also saying he wants you to shut up.
    So? When I or others post anyway, we're saying we have something further to say.

    This is an Internet message forum. Provided one stays within the rules, they're free to post as they see fit, whether someone wants them to "shut up" or not.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Not so simple:

    A vote for Sharon Angle, for example, is a vote to replace mostly pro-gun Senate majority leader Harry Reid with mostly anti-gun Senator Dick Durban.

    But you should probably vote Republican if you, like Sharon Angle, hear the echo of jackboots every time the Department of Education or the EPA is mentioned. Then take your meds.
    There you are Donk, and a good day to you.

    I figured you would point out Bloomberg was a republicrat, though you seem to ignore the fact that he is a liberal above all. However, are you seriously implying that republican efforts to prevent terrorism violate your liberty more than laws that prevent you from building on your property for the sake of some "endangered" migratory bird? Last I looked the republicans opposed legislation that forces me to buy insurance, or pay thousands fines as well. Just because they aren't openly advancing gun control does not mean they support the 2A. They are advancing an agenda that will cost us all more money, and economic freedom is a significant issue.

    Your needless jab at Sharon Angle notwithstanding, Harry Reid could never have fooled enough people to vote for him in Nevada if he wasn't pro-gun. Though it seems like that might not be enough to keep him in office since he has become nothing more than a "pet" of the increasingly reviled and likely one term president who makes Carter feel better about himself.

    Since eye95 pretty much made my arguement for me (thanks) I don't need to expand on why I feel the dems are the greater evil. I do agree with you that even when republicans hold the governement, they do nothing to advance the cause of freedom. However it seems pretty clear to me, and the millions who participate in, or sympathise with the Tea Party that the dems are reversing liberty. So now I hope I'm not being decieved (again), and that the republicans hear the rage coming from the voters and repeal all these stupid laws and initiatives.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •