View Full Version : Hickenlooper to Gunowners: "I will take your guns"
saddleup
02-16-2010, 19:15
As a 2nd Amendment advocate and card carrying member of the NRA and owner of guns, we better wake up and start taking action.
Our 2nd Amendment freedoms are at stake if John Hickenlooper is elected Governor.
I started researching his positions and found a website, (it was posted on here last year, but was forgotten) where Hickenlooper is part of an elite club. So elite, he is the only Mayor in Colorado to be a part of it.
This elite club is called the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns."
http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/.../members.shtml (http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml)
As Mayor he supports taking away gun rights in Denver. Think what he will do as Governor?
Here are a few examples of what these Mayors, including Hickenlooper, support:
http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/...ral_action.pdf (http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/blueprint_federal_action.pdf)
Improving Gun Background Checks:
1. Notify federal, state, and local law enforcement when someone fails a background check
(FBI, ATF);
2. Prioritize rejected purchases for investigation and prosecution (DOJ, FBI, ATF);
3. Require secure identification for gun purchases (DHS, OMB);
4. Electronically verify state-issued identification (FBI);
5. Process background checks for employees of federally licensed dealers at the licensees’
request (ATF, FBI);
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS 1
6. Perform background checks on employees of federally licensed dealers during audit
inspections (ATF, FBI);
7. Notify dealers stripped of their licenses that they will continue to be “engaged in the
business” if they dispose of inventory in significant quantities for profit (DOJ, ATF);
8. Enforce the requirement that dealers notify ATF whenever they transfer more than one
handgun to their personal collections (ATF);
9. Maintain NICS records of default proceed sales to persons on the terrorist watch list for
20 years and all other records of default proceed sales for six months (ATF, FBI).
II. Policing Problematic Gun Shows:
10. Identify which guns were sold at gun shows when tracing crime guns (ATF);
11. Conduct criminal enforcement operations at shows suspected to be major sources of
illegally trafficked guns (ATF);
12. Increase enforcement activities to deter sales to prohibited purchasers by unlicensed
sellers (ATF);
13. Investigate private sellers at gun shows who appear to be unlawfully engaged in the
business (ATF);
14. Conduct comprehensive residency checks on buyers at gun shows known to be major
sources of illegal guns (ATF).
III. Supplementing AT F Resources and Improving Its Structure:
15. Increase resources to deter cross-border trafficking to Mexico (DOJ, ATF, DHS, OMB,
State Department, Congress);
16. Establish an Interstate Firearms Trafficking Unit run by a Deputy Chief for Interstate
Firearms Trafficking (ATF, DOJ, OMB);
17. Increase the number of ATF Inspectors who audit federal firearms licensees (DOJ, ATF,
OMB);
18. Enforce license revocations when dealers’ administrative appeals are exhausted (ATF);
19. Expand undercover investigations to assess dealer compliance with straw purchasing
laws (ATF);
20. Mandate investigation of all incidents involving the theft of 5 or more handguns (ATF);
21. Require federal firearms licensees to report firearm thefts from common carriers and
bonded warehouses (ATF);
22. Publish annual reports on lost and stolen guns (DOJ, ATF);
23. Support 250 additional state and local law enforcement officers to be assigned to ATF
Task Forces (DOJ, ATF, OMB).
2 A BLUEPRINT FOR FEDERAL ACTION ON ILLEGAL GUNS
More Eff ective IV. Crime Gun Tracing:
24. Create a new Office of Tactical Trace Analysis at the National Tracing Center (ATF, DOJ,
OMB);
25. Determine which dealers have a high number of traces compared to their sales volume (ATF);
26. Send a demand letter, conduct an inspection, or require a sworn statement when a federally
licensed dealer fails to answer a trace request (ATF);
27. Require dealers to maintain copies of trace requests and their responses (ATF, OMB);
28. Require guns to have a second, hidden serial number (ATF, OMB);
29. Require guns to have tamper-resistant serial numbers (ATF, OMB);
30. Require guns to have standardized serial numbers (ATF, OMB).
V. More Eff ective Partnerships Among Government, Law Enforcement, Community Groups,
and Responsib le Gun Industry Representatives:
31. Allocate more Project Safe Neighborhood funds to reduce recidivism among gun
offenders (DOJ, OMB);
32. Increase support for community programs that generate intelligence about firearms
trafficking (DOJ, OMB);
33. Promote Wal-Mart’s Responsible Firearms Retailers Partnership as a voluntary program
for gun dealers (ATF);
34. Produce updated versions of reports on firearms trafficking (DOJ, ATF);
35. Expand the scope of ATF’s trace reports (DOJ, ATF);
36. Fund external research of emerging problems in gun trafficking (DOJ, ATF);
37. Develop industry standards for gun safety locks (CPSC).
VI. Enforcement of Existing Laws on Especially Dangerous Firearms:
38. Resume enforcement of the ban on the importation of non-sporting purpose firearms
(DHS, ATF, DOJ);
39. Require dealers to report multiple sales of long guns most commonly linked to crime (ATF);
40. Subject purchasers of Stinger Pen Guns to stricter background checks and registration
Hickenlooper is a threat to our right to own guns!
funkfool
02-16-2010, 19:45
I sent him a letter last August regarding this - never even received a response.
My letter:
Mayor Hickenlooper,
I urge you to resign from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, (MAIG). I believe you need to reassess your membership and support of the MAIG because the organization has more than illegal guns in mind. I believe that the group is also against legal and lawful ownership of firearms. This is evident in their continuous mischaracterization of facts and outright falsehoods as stated by Mayor Bloomberg and other members.
From Mayor Bloomberg:
“The gun laws of one state affect the people of all the other states."
The mayors said they hope to stanch the flow of guns from states that have less-stringent laws by pressing for tougher gun-control measures nationwide...
A MAIG advertisement in PA:
The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” (S. 845) would require Pennsylvania to honor concealed carry permits granted by other states, even when those permit holders could not meet the standards required by Pennsylvania law. This would strip Pennsylvanians of the power to create their own public safety laws, and hand that power to the states with the weakest protections.
The last thing we need in Pennsylvania is to have Congress gut our laws and endanger our police officers by allowing alcohol abusers and people convicted of impersonating a police officer to carry concealed guns in our communities.”
This is a lie.
The concealed carry reciprocity act does not allow this. Individual states have very stringent rules for permits. I challenge anyone to show me where, as MAIG states, “alcohol abusers and people convicted of impersonating a police officer” were allowed to acquire or keep a concealed carry permit.
Concealed carry permit holders are by nature, law-abiding citizens and the incident rate is far lees that the general population, estimates are in the hundredths of one percent for violent acts perpetrated by permit holders.
Bloomberg sponsors violation of Virginia law:
A few years back, Bloomberg hired private investigators to break the law in Virginia. In 2007, following a series of Bloomberg-sponsored undercover “sting” operations at gun shops in states including Virginia, Virginia passed a law prohibiting the Bloomberg practice of sending out civilian investigators who deliberately attempted to simulate straw purchases.
Regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy, Bloomberg stated:
“Lost family members would be alive if Virginia closed the so-called “gun show loophole.””
There are at least two major lies in that statement:
1) Murderer Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally at a regular firearms store and passed the government-mandated background check because mental health folks failed to report him. Then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell worked quickly to resolve that issue. Gun shows had nothing to do with Virginia Tech.
2) There is no “gun show loophole”. Dealers at gun shows must conduct all the background checks at gun shows that they do back at the store.
From the MAIG website:
“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.”
This is NOT their true agenda.
They want stricter gun laws in ALL 50 states.
The MAIG group is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun civil servants.
Civil servants… no, they are trying to push their personal agenda regardless of the safety of their constituents.
Again, I urge you to resign from this anti-gun group, as I firmly believe it is not consistent with your constituent’s rights and beliefs.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXX
I urge every citizen of Denver to send him a letter similar to this...
Great-Kazoo
02-16-2010, 19:46
and you just realized this??
Moviestar
02-16-2010, 20:22
One of these threads AGAIN?
It says clearly in the PDF you posted, they are against illegal trafficking of guns between illegal gun owners. It has NOTHING to do with LEGAL gun owners, as well as the sale of privately owned firearms to ILLEGAL owners. They are called Mayors against illegal guns no mayors against legal guns.
Take your tin foil hats off, and read up on stuff before you post it and sound like an idiot. If you actually read it, its common sense. Of course you want to enforce harder laws on people selling to illegal gun owners, would you want to sell a gun to someone who has a criminal record and them have them use it in a crime?
It is honestly silly how bad the reading comprehension level is.
One of these threads AGAIN?
It says clearly in the PDF you posted, they are against illegal trafficking of guns between illegal gun owners. It has NOTHING to do with LEGAL gun owners, as well as the sale of privately owned firearms to ILLEGAL owners. They are called Mayors against illegal guns no mayors against legal guns.
Take your tin foil hats off, and read up on stuff before you post it and sound like an idiot. If you actually read it, its common sense. Of course you want to enforce harder laws on people selling to illegal gun owners, would you want to sell a gun to someone who has a criminal record and them have them use it in a crime?
It is honestly silly how bad the reading comprehension level is.
Wow, you actually believe that this organization is only out to protect Americans against illegal guns? I would never have believed that anyone on this forum was that naive. Think about it for even half a second: if your agenda is to prevent the common man from owning guns, are you more successful (a) telling people your real agenda, or (b) telling people you are only against illegal gun owners?
One of these threads AGAIN?
It says clearly in the PDF you posted, they are against illegal trafficking of guns between illegal gun owners. It has NOTHING to do with LEGAL gun owners, as well as the sale of privately owned firearms to ILLEGAL owners. They are called Mayors against illegal guns no mayors against legal guns.
Take your tin foil hats off, and read up on stuff before you post it and sound like an idiot. If you actually read it, its common sense. Of course you want to enforce harder laws on people selling to illegal gun owners, would you want to sell a gun to someone who has a criminal record and them have them use it in a crime?
It is honestly silly how bad the reading comprehension level is.
Was that KoolAid good?
Moviestar
02-17-2010, 01:19
Did any of you actually spend the time and read all 57 pages of that PDF? Seriously, take off the tin foil hats. Everytime someone mentions gun in politics people freak the fuck out. Not everyone is an evil, lying, flip flopping asshole. Its like a cockroach when you flip on the lights. According to you, anyone who isn't pro-gun is anti-gun, there is such a thing as the middle ground. Even people who say Obama is anti-gun is silly, he took the stand saying he was in favor of gun control, but recieved failing grades from the Brady Center on all positions gun control, he doesn't even favor the most anti-gun legislation of all...the AWB signed by Clinton. No one is going to try to take away our guns completely thats just an absurd thing to think about. Even california and new york still allow you to own firearms, and carry concealed. It is absolutely absurd to think that someone would actually try to take away our 2nd rights, which has been a part of our culture and heritage since the country has started.
Bitchtits.
There is a reason all gun owners get concerned when politicians bring up gun control. They feel the only people that SHOULD have guns are the military, law enforcement, and their personal body guards. The rest of us shouldnt have so much as a break action .22, in their eyes...
The 1994 gun ban banned AR-15s, but not Ruger Mini-14s, despite firing the same round in the same manner. They banned guns based on LOOKS. NYC has banned guns that are painted. England has banned guns, bb guns and airsoft guns.
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.
Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.
Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.
Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.
Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
Amen Stuart, you are exactly right. Those who think 'it can't happen here' have not read their history. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
alan0269
02-17-2010, 09:09
There is a reason all gun owners get concerned when politicians bring up gun control. They feel the only people that SHOULD have guns are the military, law enforcement, and their personal body guards. The rest of us shouldnt have so much as a break action .22, in their eyes...
The 1994 gun ban banned AR-15s, but not Ruger Mini-14s, despite firing the same round in the same manner. They banned guns based on LOOKS. NYC has banned guns that are painted. England has banned guns, bb guns and airsoft guns.
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.
Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.
Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
You both have hit the nail on the head! They don't feel that the "common folk" should have guns, only the police, military, federal agents, personal body guards, and anyone "important" enough to need one. They say they are against "illegal" guns, but what they don't say is that they would like to make it illegal for most people to own them. I wonder why they would want more laws regarding illegal guns if it wasn't their agenda to take them out of more law abiding citizens hands??? Why wouldn't they just enforce the existing laws? If it's already illegal for someone to own a firearm, would new laws make it more illegal? I didn't realize there was a gray area there.
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.
Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.
Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
THIS ^^^^ X A MILLION!
One of these threads AGAIN?
It says clearly in the PDF you posted, they are against illegal trafficking of guns between illegal gun owners. It has NOTHING to do with LEGAL gun owners, as well as the sale of privately owned firearms to ILLEGAL owners. They are called Mayors against illegal guns no mayors against legal guns.
Take your tin foil hats off, and read up on stuff before you post it and sound like an idiot. If you actually read it, its common sense. Of course you want to enforce harder laws on people selling to illegal gun owners, would you want to sell a gun to someone who has a criminal record and them have them use it in a crime?
It is honestly silly how bad the reading comprehension level is.
you must not be a member of the NRA, or read american rifleman, or look into an organization.
you do realize this group was founded by Michael Bloomberg...the most anti-gun mayor out there, a billionaire with a plan to rid the streets of america of guns.
he duped a bunch of mayors into joining the MAIG and several of them pulled out, made public comments about its illegal actions (such as setting up FFLs by bringing in an agent with a fake ID, which passed the background check only to find out he should not have passed and had actions taken against that FFL.
I'll keep my tin foil hat on and my defenses up. when you let your guard down you get snipered straight in the face (literally and figuratively.)
oh, and most of the items MAIG wants to limit should be illegal via the bill or rights. there isn't any disclaimers that allow certain rights to have limits. if you read the 2nd amendment...which I happen to have right here next to me, but you can google it...says nothing about limiting gun ownership, says nothing about background checks, says nothing about anything other than it is the right for me and every other citizen of this country to bear arms.
letting groups like this flourish in our society is a direct threat against those rights, not going full force against them is a huge mistake, even thinking hickenlooper isn't against guns is pure ignorance.
not only that but I want that fuckers voice off the train at DIA. I am tired of hearing him.
Moviestar
02-17-2010, 11:23
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.
Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.
Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.
2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.
3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.
Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.
Besides this is the only post the OP has...
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/turtlesoup9/Boxxy_yous_trollin.jpg
I can't even respond to this, except that there was a time that I was in college as well. I recognize that tone anytime I hear/read it.
Moviestar, you do seem like a wide-eyed college kid who has grown up in an increasingly far left school system we have in America. When I was your age, I believed as you did. You think you look at both sides of the issue, but the way you have been educated you actually spend most of your time learning from liberal professors and liberal news media. I would appeal to your sense of reason and obvious intelligence, by asking you to read this excellent article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rights-without-exceptions-2/
Once the government forces you to register a gun with them, they know exactly who has what gun, and can move to take them from you. It doesn't happen all at once. It starts with handguns and high caliber semi-auto rifles and goes from there. This actually happened in England very recently (during the lifetime of your college professors). They just made the last of them illegal (hunting rifles and shotguns) in the last decade.
The key consideration is government and its all-consuming need to control. You obviously trust President Obama and other members of government to do the right thing. For instance you say that anyone has the right to plead their case to get permission to get a firearm. This trust in government is a fatal error. Once you give government the right to say who can and who can't possess any given firearm, you have abridged the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms (the Supreme Court recently clarified that it is most definitely an individual right). Government, like any wild beast, grows larger and larger as it consumes more and more of our resources and controls more and more of our daily lives. Today, they may let some citizens who are well connected with politicians have the right to keep a gun. Tomorrow they may decide that they may not keep it, or that only those who pay an exorbitant tax may keep their arms.
Please do some reading of the other side of this debate. You have obviously not done any to date. I can't believe you waded through 45 pages of this raving left wing organization and still call yourself centrist. Please spend as much time reading what organizations like the NRA and Gun Owners of America have to say, and I have no doubt that with your intelligence you will begin to see what organizations like MAIG are all about.
So you mean some dems actually have guns?
Just to be cool I guess......
funkfool
02-17-2010, 12:05
Yes, Stuart... I know it too.
However, I feel that this misperception of MAIG has to be cleared up as uninformed gun owners make things worse for all of us.
It is the constant chipping away of our Second Amendment rights that is at work here.
When the anti-gun groups get one small thing changed, then it is on to the next small thing and sooner, rather than later, the small changes add up to an unrecognizable state of affairs for gun ownership in America.
I did my own research before I wrote Hickenlooper, and the facts I stated are clear.
Bloomberg and MAIG are an ANTI-GUN RIGHTS group.
If you fail to comprehend this, then no amount of restating the facts can change your mind.
Bloomberg insinuates that the NRA supports his group's initiatives when actually the opposite is true.
Reading the material is one thing, comprehension of reality is quite another, and the NRA states the case better than I possibly could.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=255&issue=011
Pro-Gun Groups & Anti-Gun Groups
"Mayors Against Illegal Guns"
Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Menino, two of the most virulently anti-gun politicians in America, were the creators of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) and they are still the driving force behind the group. But do not be fooled by the name: this group would be better named Mayors Against Guns.MAIG has built its membership by selling itself as a group solely interested if fighting “illegal” guns, but a look at its agenda shows that fighting criminals is not what this group is about.Instead, MAIG has focused its efforts on the promotion of new gun laws and regulations and on furthering its anti-gun agenda in the courts. It favors imposing regulations on gun shows that could put them out of existence. It supports repealing the Tiahrt amendment, which keeps law enforcement data confidential, and opposes the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. It is now strongly supporting the use of a secret government list to deny people their Second Amendment rights. All of these positions promote new burdens on law-abiding gun owners and threaten Second Amendment rights.
Targeting Law Enforcement Data
From its inception, one of MAIG’s top priorities has been eliminating the Tiahrt amendment, which protects law enforcement safety and the privacy of gun owners and stops the improper use of sensitive gun trace data in civil lawsuits. MAIG claims it opposes Tiahrt because the amendment ties the hands of law enforcement to investigate illegal gun sales, but that is a smokescreen. Tiahrt does not prevent law enforcement from using firearms trace data in criminal investigations. What Tiahrt does prevent is data abuse in lawsuits such as the ones brought by cities like New York, Boston and Chicago, whose mayors are all part of MAIG. These bogus lawsuits were an abuse of our judicial system and served simply as an attempt to either bankrupt gun makers or force them to submit to regulations on guns that legislatures refused to enact. Civil lawsuits against gun makers and gun sellers are the real reasons Bloomberg made the Tiarht amendment the top priority for MAIG.
The Fraternal Order of Police has rejected the claims made by MAIG and strongly supports the preservation of the Tiahrt amendment. FOP President Chuck Canterbury strongly refuted the claims made by MAIG when he wrote that, “the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) has always supported language protecting firearm trace data, now known as the Tiahrt Amendment. For the men and women in uniform who are fighting illegal guns, it is a matter of officer safety and good police work.” You can read the rest of Canterbury’s column here. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=243&issue=022) Click here for more information on the Tiahrt amendment. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=208&issue=007)
Targeting Gun Shows
MAIG supports new restrictions and regulations on gun shows that could drive them out of existence. These regulations are directly aimed at private transfers of firearms between law-abiding people and family members. A Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder must conduct a background check on every firearm sold, regardless of the venue. The vast majority of firearms sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers. In fact, DOJ reports that less than 2 percent of firearms used by criminals come from gun shows. Federal law allows for law-abiding persons to sell a firearm to another law-abiding resident from their state. The effort to restrict these sales at gun shows is a veiled first step to outlawing all private transfers between law-abiding people, whether they occur at a gun show or between family and friends. Click here for more information on gun shows. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=247&issue=014)
Denying Rights By Secret Information
MAIG has strongly pushed for legislation to prohibit any person listed on the secret “terror watch list” from buying a firearm. This is a serious threat to Second Amendment rights. The “terror watch list” was created as a security tool. It has secret standards for placing a name on the list and no mechanism for removing a name from the list. In almost all cases, a person has no idea he or she is included on the list.
The Transportation Security Agency maintains the “no-fly” list in a similar manner as the “terror watch list.” That list has contained many people who should not have been listed, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy. A secret government list should never be used to deny a person his or her constitutional rights. Click here for more information on the "terror watch list." (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=253&issue=010)
Opposing Self-Defense For Travelers
MAIG has opposed the right to self-defense for law-abiding citizens by opposing interstate reciprocity for carry permit holders. There is nothing about this issue that deals with “illegal” guns. MAIG’s opposition to the rights of law-abiding carry permit holders—persons who have submitted to additional training and background checks—proves that MAIG is not targeting “illegal guns”, but is simply opposed to law-abiding people carrying firearms for self-defense, currently allowed in 48 states. The right to self-defense does not end when one crosses a state boundary. The Thune amendment on interstate carry would have simply allowed law-abiding people who have concealed carry permits to exercise their rights in other states that also have carry permit laws. MAIG’s opposition was based on scare tactics and misinformation about where people would be allowed to carry.Click here for more information on Right-to-Carry reciprocity. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003)
Targeting Legal Transport of Firearms
MAIG has announced opposition to an amendment, sponsored by Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), which would require Amtrak to accept firearms in checked baggage, as commercial airlines do. The amendment passed the Senate by the overwhelming margin of 68-30. Even the Brady Campaign has announced it will not oppose this amendment. MAIG’s rationale for opposing this amendment is to cite the Madrid railway bombing of a few years ago, and claim the ban must be maintained to fight terrorism. In MAIG`s view, legal gun owners should be treated as if they pose the same risk as terrorists, and locked, unloaded firearms should be treated as if they are terrorists’ bombs. No issue more clearly demonstrates that MAIG’s opposition is to legal firearms, and has nothing to do with illegal guns. Click here for more information on the Wicker amendment. (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5142)
Opposing Needed BATFE Reform
MAIG has fought against bills to reform Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) operations. These bills are designed to protect the rights of federally licensed dealers and set standards for regulation and enforcement activities. These reforms are needed to end BATFE abuses and harassment of firearms dealers, as well as to establish clear guidelines for violations and penalties and to create a fair appeals process. MAIG’s opposition to this legislation seems designed to encourage continued harassment of firearms dealers.
Targeting Legal, Not “Illegal” Guns
MAIG claims to be fighting only “illegal” guns, but its agenda does not include a single item that is directly aimed at criminals or illegal guns. Instead, its agenda is a direct attack on law-abiding gun owners and is designed to increase restrictions on those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Does that 'clarify' the issue we are discussing?
Or am I just not 'comprehending' the material?
[NoClue]
1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.
2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.
3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.
Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.
Besides this is the only post the OP has...
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/turtlesoup9/Boxxy_yous_trollin.jpg
there are no two sides to the story. it is plain and simple, written in the constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. where in that do you read anything about a second side, compromise, having to register, having to run a background check or any other bullshit.
I should be able to walk into a gun shop, tell them i want to buy "that" gun, pay, and walk out...none of the other nonsense that goes on.
Your constitutional rights are being stepped on and YOU want to look at the other side. grow a pair.
funkfool
02-17-2010, 12:49
Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies.
So - is THAT why the pro-choice group NOW and others were beating up on CBS for airing the Tim Tebow ad?
What part of pro-choice do you not comprehend?
The part where folks that would advocate pro-choice to choose life are denigrated ridiculed and protested against?
Or the part that makes it obvious to all but the brainwashed that pro-choice really means pro-abortion?
http://www.now.org/issues/media/cbs10.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4891116
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-w_n_436187.html
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
[Peep]
Abortion is a terrible example to use, as it is not a constitutional right.
funkfool
02-17-2010, 13:01
No - not a constitutional right - but does demonstrate that people (legislatively minded groups, really) name their organizations with the GP in mind.
You must understand - in all things of importance, it is a battle for the hearts AND minds.
If the mind hears "Illegal guns" then "Heck yeah - I'm for controlling that!". Just as if the mind hears "pro-choice" vs "pro-abortion".
Your constitutional rights are being stepped on and YOU want to look at the other side. grow a pair.
I knew I liked you for some reason or another.
[Beer]
there are no two sides to the story. it is plain and simple, written in the constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. where in that do you read anything about a second side, compromise, having to register, having to run a background check or any other bullshit.
I should be able to walk into a gun shop, tell them i want to buy "that" gun, pay, and walk out...none of the other nonsense that goes on.
Your constitutional rights are being stepped on and YOU want to look at the other side. grow a pair.
+1 on that.. any deviation is against my religion.
Abortion is a terrible example to use, as it is not a constitutional right.
Actually, it is a constitutional right, according to the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. They somehow 'discovered' that right within the 4th amendment. You may disagree with the court, but it has been the law of the land for decades.
Well, I don't want to get into the abortion issue either way, as I don't think it is an appropriate parallel to guns. I guess that was the point I was making.
Regardless, it doesn't matter how things are perceived in the battle over abortion, because that has nothing to do with guns and is totally irrelevant. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
Well, I don't want to get into the abortion issue either way, as I don't think it is an appropriate parallel to guns. I guess that was the point I was making.
Regardless, it doesn't matter how things are perceived in the battle over abortion, because that has nothing to do with guns and is totally irrelevant. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
Agree completely, let's not bring abortion into this discussion. It has nothing to do with guns.
funkfool
02-17-2010, 14:04
Agreed.
Yet I stand by my post: MAIG is anti-gun.
Moviestar says "yes there is a middle ground".
The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.
I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) .
I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Omnibus_Crime_Control_and_Safe_Streets_Act_of_1968 ) and the Gun Control Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) of 1968.
I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act).
I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act).
I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.
I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.
No more. You want them come and get them.
From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.
cowboykjohnson
02-17-2010, 14:33
there are no two sides to the story. it is plain and simple, written in the constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. where in that do you read anything about a second side, compromise, having to register, having to run a background check or any other bullshit.
I should be able to walk into a gun shop, tell them i want to buy "that" gun, pay, and walk out...none of the other nonsense that goes on.
Your constitutional rights are being stepped on and YOU want to look at the other side. grow a pair.
+1,000
alan0269
02-17-2010, 17:33
Moviestar says "yes there is a middle ground".
The big problem with the "middle ground" or compromise is assumes that the opposition will honor a compromise. The words incrementalism, progressive and slippery slope come to mind.
I compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) .
I compromised in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Omnibus_Crime_Control_and_Safe_Streets_Act_of_1968 ) and the Gun Control Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) of 1968.
I compromised in1986 with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act).
I compromised in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (http://www.co-ar15.com/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act).
I compromised in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban which fortunately self repealed in 2004.
I'm not inclined to compromise and meet someone half way when they come back and want to take more time after time after time. They keep moving the middle ground.
No more. You want them come and get them.
From my Cold Dead Hands.
Steve A.
I agree! Any more into the "middle ground", and we will be rolling downhill towards total gun control. [Bang]
Moviestar
02-17-2010, 17:54
@funkfool Comprehension is seeing both sides of the story, and taking it all into account. All the links you posted were from the NRA-ILA. Thats not both sides, thats a 1 sided argument aka a logical fallacy which makes it invalid as well as unsound.
@sniper7 My constitutional rights were stepped on when the patriot act was signed in to power. that was a direct violation of them, this isn't, you will still be able to own guns.
@SAnd of all those acts you posted the only one specifically designed to "take away guns" was the AWB and even that didn't take away guns. The rest of them just set up guidelines on who can own a pistol and various firearms, as well as the requirements to owning a pistol. Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol? That is the whole purpose of background checks, and criteria for owning. IT WASN'T AT ALL DESIGNED TO STEAL YOUR GUNS. Need I remind you it is still legal to own a fully automatic weapon, so long as you can afford the tax stamp and other fees? How can you say they took your guns away if you can still own full autos?
I seriously can't believe all of you think this means our guns are going to be taken away. It's seriously disturbing how uneducated you sound. You are all aboard the bandwagon that everyone wants to steal your guns. Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.
Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol?
Yes. If you are no longer in jail, then you should have full rights. If you can't be trusted to live in society with full rights, then you can't be trusted to live in society at all and should either be locked up for life or killed.
When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.
Katrina ring a bell?
maybe you should become more educated before you stick your foot in your mouth. read up on hurricane katrina and how the residents of mew orleans had their guns stolen by police...entire collections that were taken from law abiding citizens when they were keeping their property and families safe from looters. thousand of guns were never found/returned and a lot that were returned looked as if they had been thrown down a driveway. you better start listening before i think you are a troll liberal. you can apologize now and admit you are wrong.
Have we been trolled?
i am starting to think so...that or we have a college kid who thinks he knows everything and needs to learn a lesson, admit he doesnt and apologize for it. when you have 2 grand master know it all members posting info, it should be listened to.
Zactly Master, the grasshopper is to young to appreciate the wisdom.
alan0269
02-17-2010, 20:26
@SAnd of all those acts you posted the only one specifically designed to "take away guns" was the AWB and even that didn't take away guns. The rest of them just set up guidelines on who can own a pistol and various firearms, as well as the requirements to owning a pistol. Would you want someone who has been to jail for violent crimes owning a pistol? That is the whole purpose of background checks, and criteria for owning. IT WASN'T AT ALL DESIGNED TO STEAL YOUR GUNS. Need I remind you it is still legal to own a fully automatic weapon, so long as you can afford the tax stamp and other fees? How can you say they took your guns away if you can still own full autos?
I seriously can't believe all of you think this means our guns are going to be taken away. It's seriously disturbing how uneducated you sound. You are all aboard the bandwagon that everyone wants to steal your guns. Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never.
I'm sorry Moviestar, but what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?! I did a search, and anytime someone says we should stand up to someone/something that could take away any of our gun rights, you have posted that we should all take off our tin foil hats, etc. I'm here to tell you that I would much rather be in the overly cautious, tin foil hat wearing, crazies that are worried about losing any part of our rights than an Obama arm band wearing, Hickenlooper pom-pom carrying, closet liberal that is stuck in the "middle ground" and willing to give up some of our rights, which in turn jeopardizes all of our rights over time!
Mista Bukit
02-17-2010, 20:36
1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.
2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.
3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.
Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.
Besides this is the only post the OP has...
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/turtlesoup9/Boxxy_yous_trollin.jpg
The point is;
IF A CITZEN HAS TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT PERMISION TO EXERSIZE A RIGHT, IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT BUT A PRIVLIGE.
The problem with "meeting in the middle" is that the next time, the other side will expect you to meet "halfway" again....halfway between the middle and their side. Do this a few times, and you end up a whoooooole lot closer to their position, than ours.
RMGO/GOA/NAGR has the right idea: No Compromise when it comes to our rights.
What would the liberals have to say if someone expected them to compromise their freedom of speech, religion, freedom from self incrimination?
Troublco
02-17-2010, 23:06
1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.
2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.
3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.
Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.
Register my gun? Why? And don't bring up the "you have to register your car" line. You don't have a Constitutional Right to own a car, and I won't even get into the definition of what the Militia consists of according to the U.S. Code.
I'd like to know how many people have CCW's in New York City, and of the ones who do how many aren't bodyguards for people like Bloomberg. How 'bout you dig that up to support your point?
You're the one who sounds uneducated. Every time the socialists start talking about "Common sense gun control", it is aimed at law abiding gun owners, not criminals, and the Brady Bunch has ADMITTED that their goal is the total elimination of the private ownership of handguns, and they don't like what they consider "assault weapons" (never mind that those are actually defined as SELECT FIRE weapons, not what most of us own) either.
It's good that you look at both sides. However, when you look at the "left" side, or whatever you want to call it, you can either listen to what they spew OR you can look at what they really espouse, and their history and what they recommend. So I suppose we can all sound like tin hat commandos to you, but when Obama says something, listen to his VOTING RECORD and not his words. Same with any politician. Voting records are how you tell what they really think.
So feel free to think we're all sounding ridiculous. Or that we're all paranoid freaks with our tin hats on and our fingers on the trigger. Whatever floats your boat. Your opinion of what we think is just that, your opinion. (As are ours!) And opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one and they all stink.
A lot of us have a lot of years of seeing what the politicians really do, have watched them say one thing and do whatever they want, and then listen to people like you. You're welcome to your opinion. And so are we.
"Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never."
You are flat wrong.
Every one of those laws are a compromise. The antigun people have time after time have tried to ban guns. The assault rifle ban did ban some guns. The 1986 law bans any new machine guns, they wanted them all baned. Yes I can get a Mac but the price went from $250 to $2500 overnight. The NFA act of 1934 is a tax because the Supreme Court ruled congress couldn't outlaw machine guns. They could tax them to a level very few people could afford them so they did that. Ask around to people who had transfers done during the Clinton years how long it took. Or check on how many dealers were harrassed out of business during the same time. I have read the laws that were introduced in congress that did call for bans that scare people into accepting other less restrictive compromise laws. If I work at it I could come up with many more examples.
Every one of those laws are the result of hard fought compromises. The original bills were much worse than was finally passed. You need to research the history of the bills. Read the history of how those bills became law. Check into the bills that never got passed. They may have ended up in the trash but they still were an attempt to take away our gun rights. It won't easy but the facts are out there. They do want all guns banned. To me you sound like a ignorant kid who hasn't bothered to find the histroy behind the gun rights battle. You can't just go by the reasons being given now. You need check what has actually been done and said in the past, something you are obviously ignoring or haven't researched.
Mista Bukit
02-18-2010, 02:28
Don’t forget all of the state sponsored lawsuits against the gun manufacturers for making a “dangerous product” if my memory serves me there were some cities involved in them.
GreenScoutII
02-18-2010, 09:02
I will not compromise any of my rights. There is no such thing as a "common sense" gun law. ANY infringement of my right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Period.
These threads keep popping up. If "they" want my guns, they can come get them. Smile for the flash please. There is no sound reason to register your firearms. There is no sound reason to have a "buy only one handgun a month" law that they were trying to pass. There is no sound reason for blah blah blah. Read the Constitution, read the BoR, read the other founding documents, then make up your mind.
If you don't like firearms, don't buy 'em. As for me and my house... we kind of like 'em.
Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.
GreenScoutII
02-18-2010, 09:35
These threads keep popping up. If "they" want my guns, they can come get them. Smile for the flash please.
Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.
[ROFL3][ROFL3][ROFL3]
Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.
Yeah you guys go get some, we are all stocked up around here[ROFL1][ROFL2]
Moviestar, why don't you enlighten us with an explanation of what the purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is, given that illegal guns are already, well...illegal.
alan0269
02-18-2010, 13:53
There are a few mayoral groups that Hickenlooper can join in lieu of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are:
Mayors Against
- Illegal Drunk Driving
- Illegal Murder
- Illegal Felonies (I hear this group will have a "Crime of the Month")
- Illegal Illegalities (parent group of "Illegal Felonies", but covers misdemeanors, etc also)
Moviestar, I as well applaud you for taking the time to read through the entire PDF in order to keep yourself informed. I would encourage you to read it again, taking the time to read between the lines (sometimes this is more important than what is in the black and white print).
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q21/alan0269/tin_foil_hat_area.jpg
cowboykjohnson
02-18-2010, 14:05
There are a few mayoral groups that Hickenlooper can join in lieu of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are:
Mayors Against
- Illegal Drunk Driving
- Illegal Murder
- Illegal Felonies (I hear this group will have a "Crime of the Month")
- Illegal Illegalities (parent group of "Illegal Felonies", but covers misdemeanors, etc also)
Moviestar, I as well applaud you for taking the time to read through the entire PDF in order to keep yourself informed. I would encourage you to read it again, taking the time to read between the lines (sometimes this is more important than what is in the black and white print).
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q21/alan0269/tin_foil_hat_area.jpg[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3] I want that sign!
that is an awesome sign![Beer]
saddleup
02-25-2010, 10:36
I sent him a letter last August regarding this - never even received a response.
My letter:
Mayor Hickenlooper,
I urge you to resign from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, (MAIG). I believe you need to reassess your membership and support of the MAIG because the organization has more than illegal guns in mind. I believe that the group is also against legal and lawful ownership of firearms. This is evident in their continuous mischaracterization of facts and outright falsehoods as stated by Mayor Bloomberg and other members.
From Mayor Bloomberg:
“The gun laws of one state affect the people of all the other states."
The mayors said they hope to stanch the flow of guns from states that have less-stringent laws by pressing for tougher gun-control measures nationwide...
A MAIG advertisement in PA:
The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” (S. 845) would require Pennsylvania to honor concealed carry permits granted by other states, even when those permit holders could not meet the standards required by Pennsylvania law. This would strip Pennsylvanians of the power to create their own public safety laws, and hand that power to the states with the weakest protections.
The last thing we need in Pennsylvania is to have Congress gut our laws and endanger our police officers by allowing alcohol abusers and people convicted of impersonating a police officer to carry concealed guns in our communities.”
This is a lie.
The concealed carry reciprocity act does not allow this. Individual states have very stringent rules for permits. I challenge anyone to show me where, as MAIG states, “alcohol abusers and people convicted of impersonating a police officer” were allowed to acquire or keep a concealed carry permit.
Concealed carry permit holders are by nature, law-abiding citizens and the incident rate is far lees that the general population, estimates are in the hundredths of one percent for violent acts perpetrated by permit holders.
Bloomberg sponsors violation of Virginia law:
A few years back, Bloomberg hired private investigators to break the law in Virginia. In 2007, following a series of Bloomberg-sponsored undercover “sting” operations at gun shops in states including Virginia, Virginia passed a law prohibiting the Bloomberg practice of sending out civilian investigators who deliberately attempted to simulate straw purchases.
Regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy, Bloomberg stated:
“Lost family members would be alive if Virginia closed the so-called “gun show loophole.””
There are at least two major lies in that statement:
1) Murderer Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally at a regular firearms store and passed the government-mandated background check because mental health folks failed to report him. Then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell worked quickly to resolve that issue. Gun shows had nothing to do with Virginia Tech.
2) There is no “gun show loophole”. Dealers at gun shows must conduct all the background checks at gun shows that they do back at the store.
From the MAIG website:
“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.”
This is NOT their true agenda.
They want stricter gun laws in ALL 50 states.
The MAIG group is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun civil servants.
Civil servants… no, they are trying to push their personal agenda regardless of the safety of their constituents.
Again, I urge you to resign from this anti-gun group, as I firmly believe it is not consistent with your constituent’s rights and beliefs.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXX
I urge every citizen of Denver to send him a letter similar to this...
This is why we need to put pressure on Hickenlooper. We NEED to know where he stands on guns in this state. Otherwise, we are in big trouble.[M2]
Birddog1911
02-26-2010, 09:05
This is why we need to put pressure on Hickenlooper. We NEED to know where he stands on guns in this state. Otherwise, we are in big trouble.[M2]
The SOB will just lie, like every one of those bastards.
funkfool
04-07-2010, 16:59
This seemed like the most appropriate thread for this:
(Although the proposal is from Aug 09 - the tactic to get these changes put in place is morphing somewhat.)
Bloomberg is at it again
Dear friend,
Liberals in places like New York, Boston and Washington D.C. are riding high on the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill. Emboldened by their backdoor success, liberal leaders are already setting their sights on the next round of political priorities.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun front group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) have sent the White House and Congressional leaders a 40-point report outlining the anti-gun measures they would like make into law.
You might be saying to yourself, "We've heard this song before, right?" Wrong.
The anti-gun elitist have changed their tactics. Instead of trying to pass legislation through Congress, they want these changes made by regulation and executive order.
Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun stooges want to bypass the elected representatives of the people and allow unelected bureaucrats in the Obama Administration to violate your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Bloomberg's plan includes the creation of a Federal task force of over seven different agencies from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the White House Office of Budget and Management.
Elements of the proposal, which is titled "A blueprint for Federal Action on illegal guns", includes a laundry list of anti-gun measures.
Just some of the proposed changes in regulation include:
Bans on the importation of "non-sporting use" firearms
Restructuring and expanding the authority of the radically anti-gun and out-of-control BATFE
Mandatory federal "lock-up your safety" regulations
Surprise "residency" checks on buyers who purchase multiple guns
REAL ID and biometric validation of firearms purchaser information
Increasing paperwork and hurdles for gun dealers to jump through
Simply put, the anti-gun lobby is trying to push its unconstitutional wish list through the federal bureaucracy and away from the eyes of voters across the country.
Rest assured, the National Association for Gun Rights will do everything in its power to expose this outrageous, backdoor attempt to force gun control upon the American people.
You can read the full text of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns proposal, here (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/blueprint_federal_action.pdf).
If you think this is outrageous as I do, drop by the National Association for Gun Rights blog (http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=396), and join the conversation.
Keep fighting,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
funkfool
04-26-2010, 09:44
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5765&issue
Another Bloomberg-MAIG Lie About Gun Shows
Friday, April 23, 2010
This week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), began running television ads (http://www.closetheloophole.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=userPetition&s=loophole) urging Congress to "close the gun show loophole." Page 34 of MAIG's Blueprint for Federal Action (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/blueprint_federal_action.pdf) on guns says that the group supports H.R. 2324 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2324:) and S. 843 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.843:)—bills that would require NICS checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows, and which also contain provisions designed to drive gun shows out of business.
MAIG's ads claim "The Columbine school massacre ... killers got their guns because of a gap in the law, called the 'gun show loophole.'" And in a related press release (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr002-10.shtml), MAIG claims "All four guns used in the Columbine shootings were bought from private sellers at gun shows."
The claims are lies, of course. For starters, one of the Columbine criminals' four firearms was not acquired at a gun show. More to the point, however, the other three firearms, while bought at a gun show, were bought for the criminals by a straw purchaser—a woman who was not prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, and who therefore would have passed a NICS check, if she had bought the firearms from a licensed dealer.
Furthermore, Bloomberg and MAIG are not telling the whole story about H.R. 2324 and S. 843. Both bills define "vendor" to include any gun show customer who brings a firearm to a show—even for the purpose of selling it to a dealer—or who doesn't bring a firearm, but who mentions to someone at a show that he might be interested in selling a firearm.
And, H.R. 2324 would impose a "vendor" requirement with which no one could comply. The bill would require show operators to notify the Attorney General, in writing, no later than 30 days in advance of the show, of the name of every "vendor." Of course, there is no way that a show promoter can know 30 days (or 30 seconds) in advance who is going to attend a show, or who might bring a firearm to sell, or who might have a conversation with someone about selling a firearm.
Both bills also seek to register gun owners. Because of how the bills define "vendor," a gun show promoter would be forced to have everyone who attends a show sign the ledger. And the bills require that the "vendor" ledgers be available to BATFE inspectors. Many Americans would refuse to sign a ledger just to walk around a show, which would reduce show attendance.
Both bills also would require registration of gun shows. S. 843 would additionally allow the Attorney General to charge an unspecified fee for registering a gun show. The power to set prohibitively expensive fees is the power to destroy, of course.
Both bills would also authorize the BATFE to conduct warrantless inspections of the required "vendor" (customer) ledger and all records of licensed firearm dealers while dealers are at shows to conduct business—a provision clearly designed to discourage dealers from participating in shows.
We've said it many times, but it bears repeating. Gun shows account for a very small percentage of criminals' guns. The largest study (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) of the subject ever conducted by the federal government found that only 0.7 percent of prison inmates who had used guns, had obtained their guns from gun shows. Furthermore, firearm sales (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/Total%20NICS%20Background%20Checks.pdf) have increased over the last several years, the nation's murder rate fell to a 43-year low (http://www.nraila.org/crime/us.xls) in 2008, and fell another 10 percent in the first half of 2009, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/stats_122109.htm).
And no one should be fooled into thinking that gun control supporters want NICS checks on private firearm sales only at gun shows. In December 2008, the Brady Campaign stated "We agree with the Obama transition agenda that the gun show loophole should be closed, and with Attorney General nominee Eric Holder that background checks should be required for all gun sales. Our national gun policy should be "no background check, no gun, no excuses." (Emphasis in the original.) Their goal is to run all sales through NICS and thereafter change the law so that the FBI would be permitted to retain records of all firearms sales indefinitely. A step in that direction has been introduced in Congress by S. 843 author Sen. Frank Lautenberg. His S. 2820 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.2820:) would allow the FBI to keep records of approved NICS transfers for 180 days.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.