Posted on 12/01/2013 7:27:03 AM PST by rktman
Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a bipartisan coalition that includes more than 200 Pennsylvania mayors in 55 counties — all of whom recognize that support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from criminals.
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
It’s inspiring to hear politicians come out against illegals of any kind. Next thing you know, they will come out against greed and corruption.
Yet they all push for laws that infringe law abiding citizens rights.
We need a Guns Against Illegal Mayors movement. Or, perhaps, Guns Against Corrupt Mayors or Guns Against Political opportunists or Guns Against Mass Murderers.
Yep - they illegally "criminalize" all gun owners so they can ignore the 2nd Amendment. Under current "laws" we are all criminals each and every day.
MAIG’s goal is total disarmament of law-abiding citizens. In their world ALL guns should be “illegal.”
In Arizona, there is a campaign to expose those mayors who joined MAIG. One has already retreated: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/issues
(see “Bloomberg’s Arizona Puppets”)
The gun grabbers want to change the conversation away from the most fundamental argument in support of gun rights. Namely, in a proper and normally functioning society, the criminal must fear the citizen, not the other way around. It then follows that the citizen must be equally or better armed than the criminal.
In my opinion, it is this simply statement that wins over the influential voter. The rabid anti-gun crowd will never agree with that simple logic. The vast majority of others who or reasonable people will agree.
So when I get into a “discussion” about gun control, my first question is always “In a normal society, should the citizen fear the criminal, or the criminal fear the citizen.” and I will NOT let the discussion advance until they answer the question one way or the other.
In Arizona, there is a campaign to expose those mayors who joined MAIG. One has already retreated: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/issues
(see “Bloomberg’s Arizona Puppets”)
Our Arizona local small town mayor came to this conclusion himself I think... I like the blog comment conclusion.
From our local blog (not mine...:^) - http://letorovalleyexcel.blogspot.com/
Hiremath Resigns From MAIG
On October 25, we reported that Mayor Hiremath had signed-on to support NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s ill-conceived effort to restrict gun ownership (MAIG). We were the first to report the fact that Mayor Hiremath had signed on to this group.
Though we did not say it in the posting, we knew, at that time, that his endorsing MAIG was politically dangerous for the Mayor, since what MAIG advocates rankles the “law and order” citizenry. These people are Mayor Hiremath’s political base.
Now, we learn, the Mayor has resigned from MAIG. (Source) Apparently, the Mayor actually looked into the group and, after gun advocacy groups got on his case, decided that it was best politics to get out of it.
We guess that Mayor Hiremath finally decided that a law abiding community like Oro Valley “don't want no more gun control.”
Didn't Mayor Hiremath have enough sense to know this in the first place?
IMHO, if a criminal is too dangerous to own a gun, they should be incarcerated. If not, they have the right to defend themselves.
Hiremath got hammered in a talk radio interview followed by AzCDL’s letter writing campaign. Supposedly the Oro Valley police chief pushed him to join MAIG.
<< IMHO, if a criminal is too dangerous to own a gun, they should be incarcerated. If not, they have the right to defend themselves. >>
I’ve never understood the logic of stating a person is no longer a criminal by releasing them from prison, but saying they are too dangerous to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. If they are that dangerous why were they released from custody?
Makes sense, the Mayor and his three council henchmen are supposedly financed by the police union...
What a BS group. In reality it is;
“Mayors for making privately owned guns illegal”
Because they had served the time imposed by their legal sentence? What do you want, some violation of due process whereby someone other than judge and jury decide whether a sentence should be extended?
support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from criminals.
Neither has anything to do with the other. We have hundreds of laws to keep guns from criminals. Of course they are criminals and already do not obey laws.............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.