Former member of Bloomberg gun group: Yep, they’re trying to confiscate legal guns

posted at 10:01 pm on February 12, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

It’s worth checking in with this quickly dwindling activist group of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” every now and then, many of whom have discovered the group was a tad too much “Mayors Against Law-Abiding Citizens With Legal Guns” for their taste. The group got so much ink for their allegedly reasonable gun-control position post-Newtown, we should occasionally discuss why 50 mayors have left the group, including the mayor of Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Via The Free Beacon, here’s Mayor John Tkazyik:

I’m the mayor of one of the largest cities in the Hudson Valley, just 90 minutes north of New York City. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association and a former member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or MAIG, started by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006.

I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. And I’m not alone: Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. […]

It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.

Buzzfeed has reported on MAIG’s falling numbers before.

As Jazz Shaw has pointed out, the group’s leadership is likely to get worse, not better.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

guns shouldn’t be legal in the first place

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:01 PM

I agree. Let’s make all the police give theirs up first. Then all the Federal agencies ATF, FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, Post Office etc. Next we’ll take all the guns away from body guards for the elites such as movie stars and politicians. Once we confiscate all their guns we’ll make the military give up all theirs and fight wars with harsh words and hyperbole. Once all those violence prone groups have surrendered their guns then all us law abiding gun owning citizens will give up ours. You Ok with that?

Oldnuke on February 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 10:33 PM

No, but that is an interesting factoid you have there, Pol. Thank you!

Newtie and the Beauty on February 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM

And the emboldened comment specifically and say “yawn”, then you’re a disingenuous hack.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM

The interesting thing about both of these idiots is that if they suddenly found themselves being victimized by a criminal, they would be thrilled to be rescued by anyone with a firearm, cop or average citizen. They just refuse to put themselves into that position in their own minds.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

This Mayor John Tkazyik guy seems like just another political whore. Seriously, how dumb would you have to be to think Bloomberg would do anything but grab all guns. This whore (a Republican, apparently)knew all along what Bloomberg was about. And it looks like he just announced his candidacy for State Senate. He’s tacking slightly to the right on the gun issue for his own purposes. Next week he’ll be saying all guns need to be confiscated if it suits his purposes. I don’t believe a word he says.

WhatSlushfund on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Ground Squirrel?

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Yep, prolly 2-1/2 lbs, teeth long thumb tacks, and meaner than all get out.

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

cherries!

nonpartisan on January 28, 2014 at 10:55 PM

What the dimwit meant was ‘cheerio’.

But keep trying Harvard grad!!!

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

The Second Amendment empowers the common citizens to ENFORCE the rest of the Constitution … period.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 10:26 PM

.
Every true Leftist believes the Constitution is outdated and needs to be scrapped.

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

should a guy with mental issues be able to get a gun? I mean, after all, the constitution doesn’t limit guns to only normal functioning citizens…right, riiiIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:29 PM

You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have an right to be sold one.

nobar on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

(And that was a real Yawn. It’s late.)

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Then please do go while the adults talk about this man divulging that we were quite correct in our very serious concerns that legal gun owners are being targeted for confiscation.

Gnite.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Now THAT is insight that only a college perfesser can give you, chock full of sciency goodness and facts.

Bishop on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM
Ground Squirrels are cute.
I like rodents-alas…so my cats. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Is there some prize that I don’t know about for the posting the stupidest first comment?

John Deaux on February 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM

No, but that is an interesting factoid you have there, Pol. Thank you!

Newtie and the Beauty on February 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM


You’re welcome!

Facts – the kryptonite of every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Leftist

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM

When there are no robbers, no theives, no rapists, no carjackers, no gangbangers, no terrorists, no murderers, no criminals of any sort, then…
We will still need guns to deter Tyrants.
And THAT is what the second amendment is really about.

So, nonpartisan, buzz off, and go read some history.

Doc Holliday on February 12, 2014 at 10:39 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Not to her.

I should just keep walking… but thanks, just effing thanks for everything that you are. Please, don’t forget to insist that government outlaw sharp objects, hurtful words and unkind thoughts. I think that the worst thing I could wish on you is to be forced to live in the world that you wish on others.

I actually have my 1911 union switch and signal out on the blotter next to the mouse as I write this: I hope it’s existence gives you a fatal panic attack.

V7_Sport on February 12, 2014 at 10:40 PM

.
switzerland is a racially homogenous country, its conclusions cannot be applied to the US, a racially heterogenous country

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM
I’ll bite. Why would that be?

MJBrutus on January 3, 2014 at 12:14 PM
a study of cardiac medicine on white subjects would not necessarily be applicable to african american populace

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

So, based on this and the fact that this discussion is about guns and violence, you believe that all non-whites are more violent that whites.

That is pure Bigotry.

Hammie on January 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:40 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

That’s a new low in stupidity for you.

And that’s saying something.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM

should a guy with mental issues be able to get a gun? I mean, after all, the constitution doesn’t limit guns to only normal functioning citizens…right, riiiIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Apparently not. This guy had one.

Oldnuke on February 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM

WhatSlushfund on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Yeah, it all sounds a little too convenient.

To Bloomy and all the other leftist scum: MOLON LABE, jagoffs.

PatriotGal2257 on February 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Now we know what he eats when his mom puts him in his high chair!

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM

should a guy with mental issues be able to get a gun? I mean, after all, the constitution doesn’t limit guns to only normal functioning citizens…right, riiiIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:29 PM

The real question is should a guy with mental issues be allowed to post on this site? I think not.

BeachBum on February 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

The lil’ b@st@rd has been digging under the barn for months and always one step ahead of me and the dog til yesterday. The dog gave him a decent burial.

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:42 PM

As Kipling wrote, ‘Nature is red in tooth and claw’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

How many women were forcibly raped last year?

How many people were killed in “gun massacres” last year?

Alien on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

How many women were forcibly raped last year?

How many people were killed in “gun massacres” last year?

Alien on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Great question but the faux Harvard grad has no answers.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

How many women were forcibly raped last year?

How many people were killed in “gun massacres” last year?

Alien on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Off topic, but this aptly describes why most Dims vote Dimly.

SPITE

StubbornGreenBurros on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Now THAT is insight that only a college perfesser can give you, chock full of sciency goodness and facts.

Bishop on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

.
The FACT that it is completely UNTRUE (check N.O.W.’s stats on women’s rape risk) is of NO concern to the TROLL.

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Think of the photos you have seen of the Jews during WWII being taken from their homes and led to slaughter. Picture in your mind their quiet submission. Now imagine how things might have been different if they had been allowed to own a gun. And their neighbors…

viaggiatore on February 12, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Any thread that starts with a troll post should automatically be considered under trollcot. You guys need to stop helping noncompos get its jollies.

bofh on February 12, 2014 at 10:46 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Rape in 2010: 27.3 per 100,000
Homicides in 2011: 3.6 per 100,000

John Deaux on February 12, 2014 at 10:46 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Not.Real. Bright.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/drivers-say-georgia-police-search-inside-underwear-normal-traffic-stops-video

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:46 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

89,000 rapes are reported on average each year in the US. (And that;s just the reported ones–other estimates range up to 693,000)
Less than 150 people are killed in mass shootings on average in a year

Math iz hard.

Doc Holliday on February 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Wonder if you’d feel that way if you got raped.

Scumbag.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Wow you are one mysoginist little prick aren’t you? I guess you believe they should just lay back and enjoy it. As someone who HAS been raped, I hope someone rapes you someday little boy. GFY

BeachBum on February 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM

The math still ain’t working out for you, bud.

Doc Holliday on February 12, 2014 at 10:48 PM

300,000,000 guns. Good luck Sparky!

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:49 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

But it’s a serious enough event that happens so so much we need to keep the abortion mills running full time. Right?

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

I like to respond appropriately…but I’ve already been banned once.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Me and my little .380 or .38-and others like me-can help stop ‘gun massacres’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:34 PM

Now don’t go being a hero.
You’d be little match/threat for what the typical mass shooter shows up with.
I’m sure you imagine some perfect scenario where you have a steady hand, perfect aim, and a golden opportunity.
Maybe even a karate chop.
But in reality you’d likely be wisely seeking cover under a desk.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Wow. This misogynistic line really lays it all out, doesn’t it.

Newtie and the Beauty on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Say there mister score keeper, who put you in charge of moral equivalence? I hear women and children have died during rapes.

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:51 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Nothing redeemable here, moving on.

V7_Sport on February 12, 2014 at 10:51 PM

Karma is my wish for the troll.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:51 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

If ever there were a comment to keep for future use, this would be it.

Bishop on February 12, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Alien on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

WTF?

At this point I do not believe you are actually a liberal professing all of the idiotic tripe you advocate here. No one can be this stupid. Please, please tell me you are Conservative trolling us for yucks.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Gnite.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Goodnight, hawkdriver.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

You don’t get it. We Texans like our second amendment. It wouldn’t be just little me.
Also-70′s years ago in Europe, my people sought cover under ‘desks’.
We know how THAT turned out.
NEVER AGAIN!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

For the gun grabbers: Link

Which of course is why leftists seek gun laws, because they wish to reenact this scene. And why conservatives fight for the right to bear arms, because we do NOT.

It’s that simple.

Vanceone on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

One death is worth more than 10 rapes nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

One death can prevent more than ten rapes.

Mull on that.

wolly4321 on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

One death can prevent more than ten rapes.

Mull on that.

wolly4321 on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

Like your math better.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

I’m saving this because there is a very good chance that you will be banned real soon.

nobar on February 12, 2014 at 10:54 PM

But in reality you’d likely be wisely seeking cover under a desk.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Until the guy comes your way.

I suppose you could point out to him the Gun Free Zone! sign, unless he can’t read too well in which case you’re in trouble.

Bishop on February 12, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Me and my little .380 or .38-and others like me-can help stop ‘gun massacres’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:34 PM

BTW, congrats on your CCW, hope you never have to test it out. I’ve had mine for 20 odd years.

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:55 PM

But in reality you’d likely be wisely seeking cover under a desk.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

In reality, you don’t know.

Funny you freaks say we need to trust women but…hmmm…not with guns. You’re so full of shite.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:55 PM

no, I would beat your ass and call the cops on you

nonpartisan on January 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Verbaluce: your move.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:56 PM

The inalienable right to life includes the right to defend that life.
How that happens is a personal decision.

Nonpartisan, why do you get to determine what people “need” to defend themselves? And
by what criteria could you judge such a thing? And what if I or anyone else disagrees?

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

How much more? Be specific. I want to know the Dead rapist:live rapist ratio you would find satisfactory.

Doc Holliday on February 12, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Guns Don’t Kill People, Democrats Kill People

Some quotes from the article:

Even a casual reader of local news headlines should not be shocked to learn that firearm-related homicides are more prevalent in some neighborhoods than others. However, what may be shocking is the near exclusivity of firearm-related homicides to a small subset of neighborhoods; neighborhoods that vote predominately for Democrat candidates.

The majority of firearm homicides in Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota occurred in the small fraction of precincts that contains concentrated Democrat voters.

For example, the precincts that gave President Obama more than 90% of the vote contained 13% of the Louisiana population and almost 56% of the firearm homicides. The resulting firearm homicide rate was 33.4 per 100,000 people; a level only seen in the most violent third-world countries.

In contrast, the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people for the precincts that gave President Obama less than 50% of the vote was 2.5, 1.0, and 0.4 for Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota, respectively.

guns shouldn’t be legal for Democrats in the first place

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:01 PM

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 10:57 PM

One death can prevent more than ten rapes.

Mull on that.

wolly4321 on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

+1

antipc on February 12, 2014 at 10:57 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

This line on the same night as this Headline. Says it all.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 10:58 PM

imagine how many those two muslim animals could’ve killed if they had semi-automatic rifles?

nonpartisan on January 3, 2014 at 11:47 AM

That sounds pretty racist to me.

I guess no-pee is just one of those KKK bigot-type racists.

Solaratov on February 12, 2014 at 10:58 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

You know, I’m not a person who advocates banning of
anyone…but I have to say this post is truly despicable.

I sincerely hope you find a better outlook on Life at some point…

ToddPA on February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM

“angry white men”…so there were no nonwhite soldiers?

interesting how your bigotry reveals itself in a thread that has nothing to do with race

I’ll take your name down on my list of hotair bigots

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

A reminder for you all on who the real bigot is; this is from a Gosnell abortion thread:

I hate to say it, but while what gosnell did was morally wrong, ultimately it was probably a net positive in terms of societal costs

nonpartisan on May 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

those babies would’ve been born into households that don’t want them

the parents would’ve likely applied for welfare, etc and sucked up taxpayer money

think about it, the tsarnaevs used $100k of taxpayer money…wouldn’t the world have been much better had the tsarnaev brothers just been aborted at birth

nonpartisan on May 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM

slickwillie2001 on February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM

How many women were forcibly raped last year?

How many people were killed in “gun massacres” last year?

Alien on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM

.
one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

.
Victims of rape, not available for comment.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Hey HotAir, GFY.

I’ve seen much worse than what I typed that keeps going into moderation.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

In reality, you don’t know.

Funny you freaks say we need to trust women but…hmmm…not with guns. You’re so full of shite.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Yeah. So, let me try to run this down. We don’t want guns even if it would prevent a rape, so we draw a line in the sand with killing babies in abortion procedures because we don’t trust law abiding women with guns because they can kill people but the result of a rape can be a human being which …

We’re going to kill?

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

I’ll take your name down on my list of hotair bigots

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

You got your ass kicked in middle school a lot, I’m guessing.

fresh air on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

You’ve never been in a gunfight, have you?

Solaratov on February 12, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Me and my little .380 or .38-and others like me-can help stop ‘gun massacres’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2014 at 10:34 PM

.
Now don’t go being a hero.
You’d be little match/threat for what the typical mass shooter shows up with.
I’m sure you imagine some perfect scenario where you have a steady hand, perfect aim, and a golden opportunity.
Maybe even a karate chop.
But in reality you’d likely be wisely seeking cover under a desk.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

.
What . . . . . does the “typical mass shooter” show up, with ?

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Now don’t go being a hero.
You’d be little match/threat for what the typical mass shooter shows up with.
I’m sure you imagine some perfect scenario where you have a steady hand, perfect aim, and a golden opportunity.
Maybe even a karate chop.
But in reality you’d likely be wisely seeking cover under a desk.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Not everyone quivers in fear like you.

Imagine if the principal at Newtown had a firearm with her when she willingly went to confront the shooter without one. We wonder how many kids might have been saved.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Just remember, leftists don’t want YOU to have a gun. Their side? They want them heavily armed, and using those guns on their political enemies. Just ask Stalin.

Vanceone on February 12, 2014 at 11:05 PM

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM
You’ve never been in a gunfight, have you?

Solaratov on February 12, 2014 at 11:02 PM

He and Libfree have had sword fights….I have heard.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:05 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Forcible rape victims for 2012: 84,376
Mass shooting victims for 2012: 88

Nonpartisan was only off by 95881% For a liberal, that’s pretty close.

Socratease on February 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM

What . . . . . does the “typical mass shooter” show up, with ?

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Bazookas! Don’t ya know? Silly boy.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:07 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM
.

One death can prevent more than ten rapes.

Mull on that.

wolly4321 on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

.
Like your math better.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM

.
Aw yeah … dittos . . . . . that adds up much better.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I’m still waiting nonpartisan…allow me to repeat the question:
What would you consider an acceptable dead rapist:live rapist ratio?

Doc Holliday on February 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

You’d be little match/threat for what the typical mass shooter shows up with.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Actually, that’s not true. While no one can predict how the next loonie will act when confronted, the fact is that most mass shooters do 1 of 2 things when confronted – surrender or commit suicide.

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

your risk of being raped is less serious in the grand scheme of things than innocents being killed in a gun massacre

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM
Forcible rape victims for 2012: 84,376
Mass shooting victims for 2012: 88

Nonpartisan was only off by 95881% For a liberal, that’s pretty close.

Socratease on February 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM

It is clear Non-non-nonpartisan likes rape.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Wow you are one mysoginist little prick aren’t you? I guess you believe they should just lay back and enjoy it. As someone who HAS been raped, I hope someone rapes you someday little boy. GFY

BeachBum on February 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM

.
Tips@hotair.com

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

cherries!

nonpartisan on January 28, 2014 at 10:55 PM

What the dimwit meant was ‘cheerio’.

But keep trying Harvard grad!!!

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Ask him if he ‘capish‘. Always one of my favorites.

slickwillie2001 on February 12, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Forcible rape victims for 2012: 84,376
Mass shooting victims for 2012: 88

Nonpartisan was only off by 95881% For a liberal, that’s pretty close.

Socratease on February 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM

We still sound like a violent society. Too bad we’re not allowed to own firearms.

Hey! Wait … a minute.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM

Imagine if the principal at Newtown had a firearm with her when she willingly went to confront the shooter without one. We wonder how many kids might have been saved.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Yes. Let’s also imagine who many lives could have been saved if the cops hadn’t taken TWENTY minutes to arrive. I have never seen an explanation for that.

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

If you were a burglar and you walked up to House A with intent to rob it and it has a sign that says “Protected by Smith and Wesson” would you be more likely to break into it
-or- into House B that had a sign that said “Ban all guns.”.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Actually, that’s not true. While no one can predict how the next loonie will act when confronted, the fact is that most mass shooters do 1 of 2 things when confronted – surrender or commit suicide.

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

.
You are presenting FACTS to a TROLL … it will NEVER acknowledge a FACT.

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

What . . . . . does the “typical mass shooter” show up, with ?

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:02 PM

.
Bazookas! Don’t ya know? Silly boy.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:07 PM

.
Years ago, I was conversing with an acquaintance who had an FFL#3 license, and he said flame throwers, and bazookas could be legally owned with a higher-grade, much more expensive license.

Can anyone here confirm this?

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Gun control statists like rape. It is clear.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

It is clear Non-non-nonpartisan likes rape.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Most leftists do.

For example: WJ Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

Solaratov on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

What’s funny is he capitalized Cheerios. It must be his favorite cereal.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Glenn-

I found this and it seems legit:

The short answer is yes, it is legal. At least in some states.

The long answer:

Federally, machine guns and “destructive devices” (a bazooka would be a destructive device) require registration with the BATFE under the National Firearms Act. For each weapon, you must submit an application, a set of fingerprints, a photograph of yourself, and a $200 payment. BATFE may take up to six months or more to approve your first application, although subsequent applications will go through quicker. It isn’t as bad as it sounds though – if you’re thinking about buying don’t let the paperwork discourage you. :-)

In addition, machine guns that were manufactured after 1986 cannot be sold to regular civilians. This means that the supply of machine guns that you’re allowed to buy is fixed, and the result is that they’re expensive. Mac-10s generally go for about $5000, depending on condition. An M-16 will be at least $10000.

The 1986 limitation only applies to machine guns, not destructive devices, silencers, short-barreled rifles, or any of the other weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. So you can legally buy a silencer that was manufactured in 2007 or a grenade launcher from 1996.

Now, that was just the federal laws. Some states have have their own additional restrictions. For example, Connecticut bans select fire machine guns but allows all other NFA items. In Vermont, silencers are banned but all other NFA items are allowed. Your home state probably also has its own set of explosives laws, so even if you owned a bazooka or grenade launcher, you might not be able to own the ammunition or there might be special regulations about how you store it (or owning the ammunition may require an explosives license issued by the state).

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:15 PM

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

You don’t need any sort of license to make, buy, possess or use a flamethrower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMmXninm7Ew

Solaratov on February 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Nice, but we could use some specifics. What were MAIG’s goals? What were their plans to reach them?

Socratease on February 12, 2014 at 11:18 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

So, nonpartisan is…pro rape.

After all you can’t make an omelet better society without breaking a few eggs a few rapes.

Jeff Weimer on February 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM

“angry white men”…so there were no nonwhite soldiers?

interesting how your bigotry reveals itself in a thread that has nothing to do with race

I’ll take your name down on my list of hotair bigots

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

I woulod be honored if you would put me on that list as well. The first day I freely admitted to my polygamy bigamy big ‘o tiresCRAP!

I’M A FLAMING RACIST!

UnstChem on February 12, 2014 at 11:23 PM

You are presenting FACTS to a TROLL … it will NEVER acknowledge a FACT.

PolAgnostic on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

True. My bad.

climbnjump on February 12, 2014 at 11:25 PM

You’d be little match/threat for what the typical mass shooter shows up with.

verbaluce on February 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM

We don’t know when or where the next mass shooting takes place, or who will commit it, or if the cops will be there to stop it. But we do know a couple of things:

1) We know at least two of the people who will be there when it happens: The murderer, and his victim.

2) We know the murderer will be armed.

verbaluce wants to make sure that the victim is disarmed when this happens. So, tell me: What do you think the murderer would prefer?

And: Who’s side is verbaluce on?

Socratease on February 12, 2014 at 11:36 PM

I’ll take your name down on my list of hotair bigots

Cheerios!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

This coming from the Harvard Law grad who thinks blacks are genetically predisposed against firearm ownership.

NotCoach on February 12, 2014 at 11:38 PM

should a guy with mental issues be able to get a gun? I mean, after all, the constitution doesn’t limit guns to only normal functioning citizens…right, riiiIIIGHT?!

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:29 PM

You mean like being gay?

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2014 at 11:41 PM

Bazookas! Don’t ya know? Silly boy.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I watched MSNBC exclusively during the Navy Yard shooting, and we know that guy showed up with an AR15 shotgun equipped with mandatory grenade launcher.

NotCoach on February 12, 2014 at 11:44 PM

one death is worth more than 10 rapes

nonpartisan on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 PM

War on Women

SubmarineDoc on February 12, 2014 at 11:56 PM

Years ago, I was conversing with an acquaintance who had an FFL#3 license, and he said flame throwers, and bazookas could be legally owned with a higher-grade, much more expensive license.

Can anyone here confirm this?

listens2glenn on February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Like previously said, destructive devices (short-barreled shotguns, grenades, rocket launchers, fertilizer bombs), automatic weapons, and sound-suppressors can legally be owned/purchased with the proper ATF license, BUT ONLY if your state allows it.

I know that in Colorado a Judge or Sheriff must approve your application before you can send it to the ATF.

(No, I don’t have one, but I know people that do.)

UnstChem on February 13, 2014 at 12:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3