Gun-Control Battle Spills Over To Super Bowl Ads

Got your beer and Nacho hat ready?

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is airing a 30-second spot in the Washington, D.C., area calling for background checks on all gun sales.

Story at NPR

Boo bring on the cheerleaders!

The ad, which will air during the third-quarter break of the Super Bowl, shows video footage of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre supporting background checks in May 1999, a month after the mass shooting at Columbine High School.

Now wait a sec this doesn't sound all that unreasonable, do it?

"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show," LaPierre can be seen saying. "No loopholes anywhere for anyone."

Well now, I have no objections to background checks for everyone--- not that it would have stopped any of the recent string of mass shooting--- bad guys don't walk into a store or gun show and buy a weapon-- they break-in to peoples houses and steal them.
But this is a proposal I could live with




Edit add one comment. Who's gonna win it this year?

Personally I have A LOT of objection to this. Nothing BUT objections, as a matter of fact.

They couch it in 'reasonable' terms and make it sound like the most logical thing imaginable. Why, they make it sound like something everyone assumed was happening anyway and so OF COURSE! Who in their right mind wants guns changing hands without checking?

How about a Father selling a cherished firearm to a son or a cousin to an uncle? How about one good friend selling an old shotgun to another friend? Make no mistake. What they want to accomplish here will make felons out of those people if they don't involve local Police/Authorities to make the transfer. No legal transfer? No way to explain how it's now in the possession of a different person.

After all.....to make THIS system work, national registration is a GIVEN...but they don't emphasize that no brainer side of it. No need to confuse us poor peasants with too much at once. The fact is though, as the above examples indicate, one CANNOT work without the other ...or there is no way to know if illegal transfers are taking place. Anyone can claim they owned this or that before the law ....and without registrations MANDATORY? It's all a big joke and 100% unenforceable.

In Government as in Organized Crime, enemies don't come with hate in their eyes and blood lust in their hearts. They come as your friends with smiles and handshakes while assuring all is well and things are how they need to be for everyone's best interests..........then put a bullet into you the first time your back is turned.

I also have problems with politics during the super bowl and among them are begging for Government permision to own a firearm which is what a background check is.

reply to post by MajorMayhem


May the 'Mayors against illegal guns' cut their BS and hypocrisy.

They had been, and ARE Oath Breakers of the sacred Constitution that they had sworn before taking up office. While every law abidding citizen would welcome background checks, thing is, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ANTI GUN LAWS that this traitor Bloomberg and his other fellow traitorous conspirators mayors and disneyland inhabitants supporters had passed?

Those are infringements of the 2nd amendment, and they had BROKEN the very law that american society had passed and followed for 200+years. They are right now, criminals and it is insane that they still have the cheek to be ruling over law abidding citizens!

Can oath breakers and traitors be trusted ever again?

May Bloomberg resign. He had failed to uphold the sacred Constitution, whereby many thousands of american citizens had believed in and died on foreign soil supporting oaths to the nation.

He is a blight upon the great nation of America with his blatant hypocrisies and insidious attempts to undermine the 2nd Amendment, and worse, with solutions that WILL NOT work but endanger law abidding citizens whom had given up on their weapons, and not the criminals and the insane.

I have every intention of "boycotting" the broadcast of the super bowl this year. I disagree with the ad campaign and I disagree with them exploiting the children and having the school chorus perform. It's exploitation to me and I disagree with it. These people need the opportunity to work through the different stages of grief, not paraded around...

The only thing I can do is NOT watch...I'm sure no one will care but it is the only tool those that do not agree with the charade can do.

Maybe if enough of us "do not" watch, someone will take notice. But I am sure the MSM will report that there was record viewers and everyone loved and agreed with the propaganda campaign and side show displays...

Disgusting!!! May these MAYORS rot in hell.....

Sure, what the hell do they care or give a flying flip if you or I can protect ourselves,
they have highly trained and highly expensive armed guards with every CCW CWP auto, semi, got a freaking UZI...


Let them run around armless... Hell lets get rid of the secret service, what a waste of money...

I can't be bothered to weight into a gun argument, but it's fascinating the way that America has political ads like this for opinion issues. Here in the UK it never happens, although I don't think it's banned or anything.

The most we get are 'party political broadcasts' which are (usually) 5/10 minute TV slots without ads where the parties can make their case. I think each party gets a set number each year, mainly concentrated around election times.

As for the Super Bowl - I'm a soccer man myself, but I'm tempted to stay up and enjoy the razzmatazz.

Edit: Here's a typical PPB in Britain if anyone's interested... I'll make it a link rather than an imbed as it's a bit off topic.

Conservative PPB April 2012

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


In a way I agree... I mean you look at the kid who shot up the school.
Not his guns.
He killed his mom and took 'HER' legally owned firearms.

this proposal would not have stopped what happened--- better mental health care might have.
But guns are scary and no one wants to address how our health care system is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

So guns bad! bad bad bad---

Untreated psychopaths on the streets because of budget cuts backs?

Lets not bring reality into this debate were talking about knee jerk reaction here so

So guns bad! bad bad bad---

I disagree with ANYTHING Michael Bloomberg suggests on principle. Elitist douchebag. So because a person may have committed a crime of some sort they automatically forfeit their right to protect themselves? No thanks Mikey. I also support the right to drink a large soda. Deal with it.

I do not agree with the message wrabbit pretty much summed up why but running adds is a form of free speech and I am not for infringing on any rights besides commercials do not sway my beliefs maybe some people are that gullible in which case adds are the least of problems their education on such matters are more concerning.

reply to post by MajorMayhem


Of course all ads on both sides are going to be smarmy and attempt to appeal to the emotional side of the voter.

Originally posted by MajorMayhem
bad guys don't walk into a store or gun show and buy a weapon-- they break-in to peoples houses and steal them.

While I'm sure SOME bad guys are willing to take the time and take the chance on breaking and entering (and getting caught or killed) to steal a gun, I'm quite sure that many more get their weapons at gun shows and other places that don't perform background checks. In fact, only 10%-15% steal their guns.

How Criminals Get Guns

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.
...
Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.
...
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.

That article didn't mention gun shows, but there are many that do. According to the ATF, it's the third biggest source after straw and illegal purchases.

How Criminals Get Guns Illegally

Fourteen percent of ATF’s criminal trafficking investigations between 1996 and 1998 involved guns purchased from gun shows, the third-highest trafficking channel after straw purchases and unlicensed sellers.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


With regards to that article from PBS considering the federal government regulates FFL licenses how the hell are their criminals getting guns?

I do not trust a thing PBS says no one should because they are a mouthpiece for the federal government

So government regulates the entire firearms market in this country and now the government needs more power for not doing what they already have the power for.

Not seeing the common sense there.

Lets not forget the ATF, they give guns to criminals, IE the last scandal invoiling giving guns to criminals and traceing them to Mexico come to find out they lost count and Control of those weapons.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
With regards to that article from PBS considering the federal government regulates FFL licenses how the hell are their criminals getting guns?

By the FFL not checking backgrounds when they should? Or by some other means of corruption, I suppose. But basically, by not adhering to or performing background checks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


As I said I do not buy they aren't its the law and if they don't follow said law they go to jail and they do not get to collect 200 dollars.

The Feds issue FFLS by law which means the FEDS are not doing their jobs and go figure there is a PBS article blaming the FFL dealers.

Right pick any topic government is never responsible for anything always always other people par for the course.

I really fail to comprehend why anyone has or could even have an issue with this

You need to register your cars I assume? anytime it changes hands some sort of record is kept?
At least thats what happens everywhere I know about.

Being concerned about this just comes across a further proof of the average gun owners innate paranoia in my opinion

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I really fail to comprehend why anyone has or could even have an issue with this

You need to register your cars I assume? anytime it changes hands some sort of record is kept?
At least thats what happens everywhere I know about.

Being concerned about this just comes across a further proof of the average gun owners innate paranoia in my opinion

Yeah everyone who wants to own a car has to go through a federal background check and have even a misdeameanor be denied car ownership.

And regulate car accessories that make it look scary

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
Or, law abiding gun owners recognize that criminals do not follow the law, and enacting additional laws is proven to be ineffective. I fail to see why this simple fact is missed by the gun control crowd.

Universal background checks DO make sense. We don't need these little ads to be convinced though do we?

It is clear this super bowl will be propaganda-packed with citizen gun control politics, and the continued exploitation of children the weapon of choice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by neo96

 

Originally posted by neo96
With regards to that article from PBS considering the federal government regulates FFL licenses how the hell are their criminals getting guns?

By the FFL not checking backgrounds when they should? Or by some other means of corruption, I suppose. But basically, by not adhering to or performing background checks.

Here's one to get your head scratching. Back before the '94 AWB, I bought a AR15. Upon getting reassignment orders to Germany, I decided I didn't really need it anymore and decided to sell it to a friend. (This was in North Carolina)

This friend had a TS clearance, but I still wrote up a contract of sale with him and had it notarized along with him filling out a required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473.

After all, I thought at the time, my name was attached to that serial number as I had to fill out the same form. Best to cover my bases I thought, just in case. Good people go bad from time to time after all.

Turns out, I had broken the law by having him fill out that form when I turned in the paperwork. They didn't bust me or anything and actually thanked me for doing what I thought was right. It turns out that the notary stamp was all I needed. Apparently at that time you had to be a FFL holder in order to legally fill out that form.

I learned to study the States that I live in laws after that little lesson.

Here’s a thought; Maybe there should be Notary Publics on hand at Gun Shows, just to provide a Proof of Sale purchase.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff



Your problem is that you fail to comprehend the difference between a right and a privilege.

The insidious nature of this attempt is that once they get to "regulate" via background checks, your right becomes a privilege.

The government doesn't give you rights.