It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Cool. But here's a posting from last year.
Anyone know what's really going on?

According to an old version of its member list, saved on a blog dated back to early February, more than 50 mayors who were then listed on MAIG’s website are no longer there. Most of the mayors whose names are no longer affiliated with the group are off the list either because they resigned or lost an election, but others have specifically asked to be removed.

www.buzzfeed.com...




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Phage
Cool. But here's a posting from last year.
Anyone know what's really going on?

According to an old version of its member list, saved on a blog dated back to early February, more than 50 mayors who were then listed on MAIG’s website are no longer there. Most of the mayors whose names are no longer affiliated with the group are off the list either because they resigned or lost an election, but others have specifically asked to be removed.

www.buzzfeed.com...


I think this looks to just be a coincidence. The number "50" being in both articles.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Well, this recent article says:

Nearly 50 mayors have left MAIG since last year

townhall.com...
So it's still kind of confusing.

What about this part? Any information about how many have actually quit the group as opposed to just not being mayors any more?

Most of the mayors whose names are no longer affiliated with the group are off the list either because they resigned or lost an election, but others have specifically asked to be removed.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Well, this recent article says:

Nearly 50 mayors have left MAIG since last year

townhall.com...
So it's still kind of confusing.

What about this part? Any information about how many have actually quit the group as opposed to just not being mayors any more?

Most of the mayors whose names are no longer affiliated with the group are off the list either because they resigned or lost an election, but others have specifically asked to be removed.


you make an interesting point and made me go re-read the article. The "50" number in the article came directly from the Mayor's statement to the press.

The question would then be....does he personally know of 50 mayors that left or is he regurgitating the "50" number from these earlier articles.

My thoughts are that it is unlikely that he even knows of these earlier articles....but he could have.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Yeah.
And...he's a politician.
edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Yeah.
And...he's a politician.


there is that!

he did say that he "personally" knows of 50 mayors that left for the same exact reason as he did.

but .... it is a pretty big coincidence if it is one.....

interesting



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

A politician who is running for higher office...against a democrat incumbent.
www.dailyfreeman.com...

I wonder if anything was "leaked" at all.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

A politician who is running for higher office...against a democrat incumbent.
www.dailyfreeman.com...

I wonder if anything was "leaked" at all.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



so......he holds his position with the anti-gun club until he decides to run for Senate ...... then he is "leaked" the "real" agenda and not only absconds himself but starts to attack the organization once outside of it.

hmmm....this is a bit smelly



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Yup. Just politics. I was just doing some reading about his Republican opponents.
From January 7:

Coughlan added, “The law is a mess, law abiding gun owners, gun sellers and even law enforcement officials are confused and don’t understand which provisions are to be enforced when. Now we have and Obamacare 2.0 mess on top of it making it even more of a disaster. As Senator, I will fight to repeal the law but in the meantime the administration should provide a six month delay in implementation.”

jimcoughlan.com...

From January 3:

State Senate candidate Robert Rolison says the recent federal court ruling upholding much of New York’s gun-control law is “nothing more than a continued slap in the face to law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen of New York State.”

www.dailyfreeman.com...

Seems like Tkazyik felt a bit under the gun (get it) and behind the power curve so had to come up with something dramatic.

I'm not real familiar with MAIG but I have seen slimey politicians before. On both sides.


edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


sounds like we are going to get more hope and change


this might not be the smoking gun (pun intended) that the pro-gun groups were hoping for (including me).

unless.....the information is still true.....he just chose to use it at a time when it was an advantage to his senate run.

Edit:

PS....thanks for bringing your insight and research into this.....
edit on 11-2-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 

Just one more. I can't resist,


It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.

www.poughkeepsiejournal.com...

It didn't take long? He's been a member since 2009 (at least). If it didn't take long, why was he a member for 4 years and decide to quit now, after his Republican opponents had come out with strong gun rights statements?
www.nraila.org...



edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I have a few thoughts so far...

I'm not seeing anything here that's officially from MAIG about gun confiscation. Granted if that is their endgame then they probably don't want to let the cat out of the bag until they have a plan to implement it.

The only thing I've gotten out of this thread so far has been that there is an organization of mayors that want to curb crime and that at least 50 have left for various reasons. One mayor out of that 50 said (with no evidence) that he left because the endgame of MAIG is gun confiscation. Bloomberg is definitely a bit to far left for even me so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he wanted personally but, I get stuck on the whole confiscation thing. How in the bloody hell would they pull it off? Send SWAT teams to every house? 99% of citizens would not be willing to give up their guns. It's just not feasible IMO.

Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that. I think people too often see the "shall not be infringed" part and stop reading before the "well regulated part". I have guns myself and would not be willing to give them up but we have to be reasonable. Being extreme in either direction isn't going to solve any problems.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

moresco

99% of citizens would not be willing to give up their guns. It's just not feasible IMO.


Doubtful. You got a wife, kids, a home, a good job. Going to throw all that away to keep a gun?


I have guns myself and would not be willing to give them up but we have to be reasonable. Being extreme in either direction isn't going to solve any problems.


And that's why you'll be giving yours up along with the majority of soft-on-liberty gun owners out there.

Same goes for every liberty raping government action. Live free or die sounds nice until they're knocking on your door and your children are crying.
edit on 11-2-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by moresco
 




Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control.

They don't go hand in hand.

You either don't understand the meaning and importance of the second amendment... or you don't care about it if you support gun control.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 



This does not shock me in the slightest. Bloomberg is the most extreme progressive I have ever witnessed in my life. He is al about the Government being in every aspect of citizens lives. Simply put. This man is terrified of the people. He wears it like a badge too. He thinks the American population must be under complete control at all times.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

moresco
I have a few thoughts so far...

I'm not seeing anything here that's officially from MAIG about gun confiscation. Granted if that is their endgame then they probably don't want to let the cat out of the bag until they have a plan to implement it.

The only thing I've gotten out of this thread so far has been that there is an organization of mayors that want to curb crime and that at least 50 have left for various reasons. One mayor out of that 50 said (with no evidence) that he left because the endgame of MAIG is gun confiscation. Bloomberg is definitely a bit to far left for even me so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he wanted personally but, I get stuck on the whole confiscation thing. How in the bloody hell would they pull it off? Send SWAT teams to every house? 99% of citizens would not be willing to give up their guns. It's just not feasible IMO.

Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control....universal background checks, proper training and licencing, stuff like that. I think people too often see the "shall not be infringed" part and stop reading before the "well regulated part". I have guns myself and would not be willing to give them up but we have to be reasonable. Being extreme in either direction isn't going to solve any problems.



Actually "well regulated" means "well organized, trained and armed" .... it does not mean controlled by the government as in "regulations". The militia was required to be armed with the finest weapons of their time and were required to train (practice shooting) and were required to be organized (meet regularly to perform battle training). None of this had anything to do with the Government.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Don't get rid of the guns. Get rid of the drug king pins, leaders of gangs and their thugs. Its so easy even though they don't want to do it. New York Law Enforcement, S.W.A.T team, U.S troops and all U.S law enforcement > crazy criminals. This is not a way to clean up a part of America.

Because they are beating around the bush with this situation (not getting rid of criminals that deal with drugs) - if they really do confiscate their law abiding citizens guns, its not going to be for a good purpose. Another note - if they do, I wouldn't be suprized if there is an attack similar to when Syria bombed its own people.

There is no doubting how far countries governments will go - The Syrian government is an example of this!



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you think John Tkazyik is comming out and saying this to get votes from 2nd amendment supporters that more than likely wouldn't of voted for him or maybe he knew that voters would look down on him being a part of Bloomberg's group so he wanted to distance himself? I think Tkazyik would of given his opponents plenty of ammo to attack his Senate run if he stayed a member of left the group on good terms.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 

Either way it's obviously a political move rather than one based on his convictions.
It "didn't take long" for him to realize MAIG's "real purpose" but he's been a member for more than 4 years. He waits until he announces that he's running for state senate to quit and denounce MAIG.

If it were my district I don't know who I would vote for but I do know it wouldn't be him.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by moresco
 




Mind you I'm not anti 2nd Amendment but I am pro reasonable gun control.

They don't go hand in hand.

You either don't understand the meaning and importance of the second amendment... or you don't care about it if you support gun control.


No kidding they must not have any idea of what 'reasonable' is.

There is not a single 'gun control' law on the books that the LAWS against hurting/murdering someone else doesn't already cover.

And they think it is 'reasonable' to add more LAWS that are going to get ignored ?

Geez.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join