One Reason I Hate Bloomberg’s Group

Every time I use the term “illegal gun” now, I feel like I’m playing into Bloomberg’s hands. Bloomberg’s real innovation in the gun control movement was figuring out what to call it. Originally we had “gun control,” but that ended up with negative connotations being associated with it. Then you had Andrew McKelvey‘s group Americans for Gun Safety, adopt the “gun safety” model, with a newly renamed Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) buying into this model for a while as well. Perhaps because most people of reasonable intelligence know guns are dangerous, and are meant to be dangerous, the “gun safety” mantra didn’t fare too well, so the gun control movement tried to do a false flag model with AHSA, which also failed, and was forced to turn to a shill for the Democratic Party in order to survive.

Bloomberg’s real genius, or I should say the real genius of the people he has working for him, is that they understood there’s one thing pretty much everyone agrees we ought to do something about, and that’s illegal guns, which most people take to mean guns in the hands of criminals. By reframing the current gun control agenda into a righteous struggle to battle illegal guns, Bloomberg can steal more legitimacy, and get people to listen, who might not otherwise care about “gun control” and its closely related and equally discredited cousin “gun safety.” So when I use the term “illegal guns” I feel like I’m playing right into Bloomberg’s hands in trying to recast the whole Brady agenda in a positive light.

This is disappointing, because we ought to be able to have a real dialog about illegal guns (criminals with guns) in this country without having to worry about the bait and switch tactics of a group like MAIG confounding the issue by pushing for more gun control on the law abiding under the ruse of something we’re all legitimately concerned about.

20 thoughts on “One Reason I Hate Bloomberg’s Group”

  1. Yes we should. And we should take control of his agenda. . The NRA should attack the illegal gun problem first and foremost by attacking those politicians who are unwilling to throw criminals with guns in jail. Why not a national campaign targeting the cities of Bloomberg Mayors : Philly for starters

  2. Do you call a illegally *obtained* car and illegal car?

    Anyhow, kudos you to you for picking up on that. It’s why I don’t like the phrase ‘law abiding citizen’ and prefer ‘peaceable citizen’. Some laws, are just begging to be broken. (Case in point is the recent FTC regulations…though technically, it’s not ‘law’, for all intents and purposes, it is.)

  3. That’s a good point, but the absence of that term for cars probably has to do with the fact that cars generally aren’t illegal under too many circumstances, and in those circumstances when they are (unregistered and stolen) have more descriptive terms.

    For instance, if you have some Oxycontin in your medicine cabinet, most people would call that prescription drugs, but it wouldn’t be unheard of to say someone who bought it on the streets “He bought illegal drugs.” and we generally accept that prescription drugs being sold on the streets fit into the set of “illegal drugs.”

  4. I find it heartening that the gun-control movement feels it must resort to bait and switch tactics to have any chance with swaying public opinion. That fact demonstrates the fundamental weakness of the gun-control movement. Bait and switch is a losers tactic; that tactic cannot win the contest in the long run and can only garner short term gains.

  5. A couple of posters already beat me to it. There are no illegal guns, but there are guns that are owned or used illegally.

    All firearms that are made by legitimate firms are legally made and sold and legally possessed by someone. That’s not to say that a small portion of those firearms don’t end up being possessed by restricted persons by illegal means, but those guns were not manufactured illegally.

    Meth is an illegal drug, its manufacture is illegal, its sale is illegal, and its possession is illegal. Everything about it is hidden from authorities. Not so with firearms, because the vast majority of them are entirely legal.

    You’re right though, Sebastian. Clever framing by Bloomberg.

  6. The term “illegal gun” is disingenuous. It “illegal gun” makes as much sense as “illegal wrench”, “illegal hammer”, or “illegal baseball bat”. As others have pointed out, there are illegally possessed and illegally used firearms.

    [O/T] There are licit sources of methamphetamine. It is a Schedule II drug available by prescription.

  7. Nicely said. But as I have opined repeated, and you do too. There is no such thing as an “illegal gun.” Just people who are not permitted to own them for various reasons.

    Smoke and mirrors and some of the best PR people Mayor Mike’s personal fortune can buy.

  8. Indeed, very well said. But I agree, “illegal guns” means nothing..guns are not illegal, it’s just when people use them without permission which makes it illegal to possess them.

  9. Hey, me, I’m happy about him using this term.

    When the group loses and discredits themselves, they’ll take the term down along with them.

  10. Sebastian, I’m not convinced that Bloomberg and other gun control advocates have such sinister and calculating motives. I think it’s entirely possible they mean exactly what they say. They want less gun violence, they want fewer guns in the hands of criminals, etc. Their way of accomplishing this you may not like, and indeed it may “infringe” on your rights and lifestyle, but I really don’t see the reason for such animosity on your part.

  11. I’m pretty damn positive you are sinister MikeB, making your statement about MAIG a confirmation of our beliefs.

    When an admitted criminal and a known liar who is an unrepentant troll and pusher of ignorance tells me a group isn’t Evil, I know who to trust and who not to.

    So thanks for that confirmation Mike, We know you only want more innocent blood to be spilled, and No we won’t let you win!

  12. MikeB302000,

    There are groups out there trying to reduce the heinous crime of child pron — since it is a good goal, you shouldn’t mind a few restrictions on your right of free speech, eh?

    We’ve talked about this before and you’ve rejected the idea — makes me wonder about motivation on your part.

    Apply the same “reasonable restrictions” or slight infringements sought by gun banners/control advocates like you to your free speech and you won’t have any of it. Why not?

    If the infringements are so reasonable, surely they should be applied across the board to all the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights?

  13. I don’t think their motives are sinister. They may, in their minds, justify what they are doing by convincing themselves it’s all about controlling gun violence. But I think Blloomberg and Menino are fearful that they are largely going to lose the ability to control guns in their cities. They are afraid of that because they do not trust the people.

  14. Posted by: Sebastian …
    Every time I use the term “illegal gun” now, I feel like I’m playing into Bloomberg’s hands.

    That’s because you are.

  15. I 100% think they are sinister. They are fighting to remove lawful people’s rights, and doing in the name of ideas and polices that get innocent people killed.

    What would you call that?

  16. They don’t see it that way though. I think they are wrong, but I don’t think they are evil. A lot of gun control activist, actually, I’d say most gun control activists, are people grieving loved ones who were killed with guns.

  17. I dunno. Who has Helmke, Sugarmann, Menino, Bloomberg, Rosenthal, and Schoenke lost?

    Certainly these groups like to parade around victims and use their grief for their own gains.

    But do you even think that people who fit your narrow little bill like Miller and McCarthy are doing it out of grief, rather than to make political hay and headlines?

  18. Please note that the above “Grieving ” antis that I mention not only have pushed anti-gun agendas in a more cavalier fashion than I would expect one in grief, but they also have access and claim to be experts on the subject, and are intentionally skewing the data of gun control, that points to MORE crime and MORE death.

    If Bryon Miller wants less people like his Brother, why does he push legislation that only cause more death?

Comments are closed.