Hickenlooper to Gunowners: "I will take your guns"

[Irving]

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.

[Eow]

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]

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.

[SU405]

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!

[Moviestar]

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...

[Irving]

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.

[funkfool]

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/FactShe...=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. Click here for more information on the Tiahrt amendment.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

[Moviestar]

@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.

[Irving]

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?

[sniper7]

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.