Mayor of Chester: “We need to ban all these illegal guns!”
— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) March 30, 2013
This was an unintentional laugh line during the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-sponsored rally in suburban Philadelphia today, but it reflected the non-sensical rambling of many of the speakers. Earlier this week, the local organizers of the MAIG rally told the media that they expected NRA would bus in people to oppose their gun control event. As is so common in the gun control movement, it was really a case of projection when the gun control crowd from OFA actually brought people in from DC.
The message of the MAIG-sponsored event was that we’re uncivilized if we don’t believe that more gun control is the answer and that 97% of American voters support Obama’s agenda of the background check bill and the modern sporting rifle ban. Not even Bloomberg himself makes such outlandish claims, but the speakers chosen to run his rallies argue that absurdity.
Interestingly, the rally featured a speaker who called gun confiscation plans “a political miracle,” and he made it clear that confiscation of at least some firearms was part of his larger agenda for the MAIG-sponsored rally. So the next time that Bloomberg says that he’s not trying to take guns from people, ask why his organization sponsored Rev. Robert Moore to talk about how wonderful confiscation was as a political goal. If Bloomberg wants MAIG to sponsor rallies, he can own the false statistics and the political agendas of his speakers.
When the anti-gun speaker says Congress has listened to NRA, cheers went up from pro-2A crowd.
— bitterb (@bitterb) March 30, 2013
The MAIG mayor who stepped up to the mic after the raving Reverend tried to claim that they were just pushing policies that respect people’s Second Amendment rights, but he did not denounce the previous claims that confiscation is a great political goal. Funny how they call us paranoid for pointing out when their own leaders are calling for taking guns.
They are importing mayors from cities with high crime rates telling us we should support their policies. Um, no thanks.
— bitterb (@bitterb) March 30, 2013
Pro-gun protesters were out in force. It was tough to gauge exactly how many were there compared to the anti-gun rally since gun owners were spread out down the sidewalks and actually at the back of the rally crowd. The rally crowd was crammed into a small space so that no matter how many turned up, it would look full. Overall, I’d say they were roughly equal crowds. If one side was larger than the other, it would be by no more than about 20%.
Neither side can claim a moral high ground on behavior. There were some pro-gun folks who crossed the line from respectful while agressive into flat out rude. However, the anti-gun crowd wasn’t exactly a model of good behavior with one little old woman going around trying to pick fights with “big bad gun owners” even after a cop stepped in and asked her to knock it off. Then a bunch of other older women walked back to the pro-rights crowd and spoke loudly about how the only reason we weren’t in support of more gun control is simply because we are not capable of any serious thought. The raving Reverend felt he needed to step up to the microphone in closing and remind his supporters that before they set out down the sidewalks and encounter the pro-gun crowds, they needed to remember that they are believers in non-violence, so they shouldn’t try to start fights.
There were many folks open carrying, but it really didn’t seem to make a difference with the crowd at the rally. Many were as visibly disgusted and annoyed by the people with peaceful signs and American flags as they were at the open carry crowd. They were simply that hostile to any kind of dissenting thought.
My protest sign for Bloomberg’s sponsored rally was somewhat subtle, but I feel like the branding of a nice “red state” company was like extra sugary frosting on top of the cake. (Sonic is based in Oklahoma, a state that is actively reaching out to gun companies being attacked in anti-gun states.)
Hey bitter,
So how many people actually showed up for MAIG?
Hard to say. Probably about 100 on their side, give or take a dozen or so. Same for our side.
“they needed to remember that they are believers in non-violence, so they shouldn’t try to start fights.”
So how do they plan to get our guns then? Through proxy-violence I assume.
There was some heckling on that subject, actually, from some in the crowd.
According to the old lady in the video, we should give up Second Amendment rights simply because it wouldn’t be a fair fight. That type of defeatist attitude is disgusting to me. If it were left up to her, we’d probably all be bowing to the queen of England or hailing der fuhrer.
She talked about growing up in post-war Germany. So how is she any expert in what you can or can’t do during a war, since, err, she was there after the war?
That stipulates that we believe her at all. The left has shown, time and again, the willingness to spout shocking mendacities when they believe that they will help them advance toward their political goals.
Was the “1 Gun = 1 Death” sign actually calling out for the killing of gun owners? Capital Punishment for the possession of a firearm?
I’ve heard that demand before, but I thought it was a solitary nutter.
The sign could be claiming that every gun will kill exactly one person, which if it were so, then there would be almost no American alive today–because there’s pretty much a gun for every man, woman, and child alive today, give or take a million (out of 300 million).
So either the sign is highly ignorant, or it is highly malicious–or perhaps it’s a little bit of both. Take your pick. Neither option causes me to develop any level of trust for the gun-banning side of things!
Bucks Co looks to be coming quite a battle ground. Keep us updated, especially when campaign season draws near.
“Bucks Co looks to be coming quite a battle ground.”
Yes and no — IMO.
I can imagine there being some interesting local battles, most of which should be settled by the existing state preemption laws. By that I mean, anti-gun local officials could try to do things they “can’t” do, under the law, and someone may have to take them on in court. I had to do that twice, but the cases were about 30 years apart.
At the state legislator level, IMO most of our state reps and two state senators have safe seats. Maybe there is one of those that is arguable, and maybe Sebastian will comment. But, even though the majority are Republicans, safe seats are not necessarily good news. Most of those Republicans are willing to vote for Gun Control Lite, and can get away with it. I guess it’s better to be nibbled to death than have your head chopped off, but you wind up dead either way. I’m hoping the emerging generation in our RKBA movement may wake up.
The two Democratic state reps in the lower end of the county (one of them mine) also are in safe seats, doubly safe because in the past the Republican Party has never mounted a serious challenge to them, being perfectly happy with them because they would play ball on the real, non-ideological issues (i.e., business) that political parties exist to control. One of them was a virtual poster-child for the anti-gun movement, with his car plastered with anti-gun stickers, but still he was untouchable in his district. He has since retired and passed away, but his Democratic replacement appears just as secure.
Anyway, how interesting the battles will be, remains to be seen. Perhaps the most interesting thing will be to see if there are any battles at all, or just replays of charades that have gone on for decades.
Man those freedom grabbers are some violent people. If AR are so scary and gun owners are so dangerous why would they go picking fights with guys carrying ARs? It’s not adding up for me.
Not the highest quality video but some of the anti’s were actually willing to engage in civilized debate (we disagreed but it didn’t escalate into shouting matches). Some… not so much. The Pastor (one of their key speakers) kept getting louder and louder until reminded to calm down. At the end he was asked if he supported our Jewish brothers and sisters (he answered in the affirmative) and then asked if he supported or condemned the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising who fought back against the Nazis with firearms (some of which of course were assault weapons) – he weakly claimed he wasn’t familiar with that and suddenly insisted on getting to his pressing lunch appointment.
The anti’s are a movement of cowards.
So banning illegal guns is O.K. but banning illegal aliens is not?
Uhm, if they are “illegal” guns that they are talking about, then why would they need “banned”?
Think about it……
I don’t recall the beginnings of MAIG, but wasn’t their shtick all about how they are wouldn’t go after bans (i.e guns that are currently legal) but would focus on criminal access? Hence the name.
Playing the name game is their shtick. Assault weapons, weapons of war, gun show loophole, cop killer bullets, high capacity, etc.
Originally, yes, but I don’t think anyone believed that was anything more than a tactic.
I’m just wondering if there is a mission statement or something even less formal that we can throw back at them.
I would really like to ask the bozos carrying “Protect Children not Guns” signs what exactly they intend to protect their children with then if a madman had them at gunpoint?
Stern words?
A piece of paper?
Nasty looks?
What?
I can think of nothing more effective than a gun to counter a gun.
Is there anyway to get a transcript and or video of his speech about confiscating peoples guns?
Please let me know.
Rick
You can look online and see if anyone has video of the entire event.