It’s interesting if you take a look at the comments from Primanti Brothers’ Facebook, you can see just how effective Mayors Against Illegal Guns branding really is. This is a reason why I believe this group is the current biggest threat to our continued success preserving the Second Amendment.
Note the guy that comments “Is anyone really FOR illegal guns?” The assumption is made that the MAIG title reflects an honest communication of the agenda of the group, and no question is made as to what the group’s true agenda might be. They do not bother to think that perhaps the way Mayor Bloomberg and his group intents to curb illegal guns is by making more guns illegal, making it harder to get guns legally, and making it unattractive to keep a firearm for self-defense, hunting, or target shooting. Anyone who doubts need only look at the strict gun laws in New York City, or examine the fact that Bloomberg’s group of Mayors supports a law that would allow people to be entirely stripped of their Second Amendment rights without a trial, or really any form of due process. Bloomberg’s strategy is to front measures which, on the surface, sound eminently reasonable to someone who hasn’t bothered to dig further and find that the devil is in the fine print. It’s a brilliant strategy, and it’s working here, and perhaps even with Primanti, who may not have realized they were stepping into something controversial. Because who is for illegal guns, after all. Sorry guys, you were rooked. The group is about restricting lawful gun owners.
9 thoughts on “The Effectiveness of What MAIG Is Doing”
I am for illegal guns.
I’m for making it so that there is no such thing as an illegal gun.
Its effective branding only to those who listen to soundbites. Would anybody cook with Light Olive Oil and think they’re getting “Diet Fat”? Or Light Cigarettes and think that their pack-a-day habit is really a half-pack habit now?
Of course not. People MIGHT have thought that when they were ignorant, but as soon as the truth is exposed the whole ruse falls apart.
Now Light Olive oil is lighter in color and flavor than the others, Light Cigarettes have a milder flavor.
Bloomberg is NOT against illegal guns, nor are any of his mayors. Did Tom Menino (Co-Chair of MAIG) say anything about this case?
Or the countless other cases in Boston where violent gang members plea bargain away their weapons charges?
The same goes on in New York City…as well as I’d assume just about every other MAIG city.
No, the illegal guns are just fine! What they don’t want is a lawful citizen with a gun that holds eleven or more rounds. What they don’t want is a family members giving guns as gifts outside of their watchful eyes. What they don’t want is a poor person who lives in their gang invest streets to be able to afford a handgun they could use to protect themselves.
“Mayors Against Illegal Guns” is a lie. All we need to do is expose the lie, and the house of cards collapses.
“Its effective branding only to those who listen to soundbites.”
Which is the VAST majority of voters (and Americans and humans). Most folks, even most gun owners don’t spend much time thinking or reading about any politics, let along the gun politics niche. People who care about rights shouldn’t blame the ignorance public – we should blame ourselves for doing a bad job of getting the message out.
NRA does some preaching to the unconverted, but they seem to prefer the choir – and the elected folks they buy, which has been an effective strategy.
Of course they’re against illegal guns: once they make them illegal they’ll be against them.
“Note the guy that comments â€œIs anyone really FOR illegal guns?â€ ”
Looking at the picture of the commenter, I read that as mocking the idiocy of MAIG’s choice of name.
There’s no such thing as an illegal gun. There is such a thing as illegal gun ownership, which should only refer to possession of firearms by convicted felons and legally declared mental incompetents. It’s the “ownership” word that gets left off, which is a pity because that’s where the real problem is. MAIG’s proposals for blanket gun restrictions would be ineffective in doing anything besides disarming the law-abiding public. Why they pursue such a strategy is beyond my ability to understand.
“Because who is for illegal guns, after all. ”
I am! I won’t own any myself, I’ll wait until I’m rich to buy my machineguns and silencers with official permission. Every time I read of someone being arrested for an “illegal gun” or accessory at the federal or state or local level I cringe and say “drats” but then I think of all the people who haven’t and won’t be caught and it makes me happy. While I’m not daring enough to take that risk, I’m very supportive of those folks who do so. This also applies to other countries where most or all guns are illegal – I fully endorse all such firearms.
Now, if you are talking about illegal possession (i.e. stolen guns) or illegal uses of guns – that’s a whole different thing that I don’t support at all.
Comments are closed.