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-in-seattle/anti-gun-mayoral-criminals-have-something-else-common

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/28gqxvb

Further proof that only criminals and criminal sympathizers support gun control. :lol:

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 adage, "Guns have two worse enemies: rust and politicians" comes to mind.

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.

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.

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!

The article was pointing out that all the criminal members of MAIG were Dems.

I like the "illegal mayors" twist. Nice.

eye95 said:

The article was pointing out that all the criminal members of MAIG were Dems.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

The Donkey said:

SNIP I encourage people to investigate each candidate individually.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Citizen said:

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

Click to expand...

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/intelligencerreport/gun_control.html

eye95 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

I notice you omitted the part of my post, short as it was, the supported my statement.

Oh, well. Moving on.

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.

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.