Page 1 of 2
Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:11 am
by A-R
Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkazyi said:
“I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. … MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. Gun control will actually make a bad situation worse.”
“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. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.”
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/ny-ma ... z2sjuQZhhq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:46 am
by chasfm11
What would be great is for one of these departing mayors to provide written evidence of the gun confiscation plans. No doubt that Bloomberg and his inner circle are careful to make sure that doesn't happen. What we need is a whistleblower who will break ranks.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:27 am
by mojo84
From the horses mouth.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... wsCarousel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Even their former leader admits what they propose would have no positive impact on reducing our preventing mass shootings.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:33 am
by mamabearCali
Uh huh.....as anyone who was paying attention already knew.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:34 am
by Beiruty
Yeah, it was simple enough, Sandy Hook incident, was in state that all firearms have to be registered and the owner passes a background check. The mom, did all of that and secured all or some of her firearms. So, what law would prevent her son from what he did?
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:53 am
by Pawpaw
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
NOT!
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:16 am
by mojo84
Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:55 pm
by RoyGBiv
mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Hogwash!
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:47 pm
by JP171
mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:16 pm
by VoiceofReason
Don’t the idiots that want to confiscate guns know what would happen if they got their legislative wish and some government organizations started trying to confiscate all guns?
Don’t they realize that to a lot of people “come and take it” is not just a catch phrase?
What do you think Bloomberg, Feinstein, the other gun grabbers and the government would do if thousands(plural) started resisting with force?
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:35 pm
by mojo84
JP171 wrote:mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Smoking is how those chemicals get in your body. Therefore, smoking causes cancer. This is not something that is arguable.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:39 pm
by OldCurlyWolf
mojo84 wrote:JP171 wrote:mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Smoking is how those chemicals get in your body. Therefore, smoking causes cancer. This is not something that is arguable.
Mojo,
No matter how illogical your statements may be????
The direct cause is the substances. The other is just a method of delivery. The same chemicals will have the same result with a different delivery method. Ergo, per your logic the other delivery method also causes cancer. NOPE. Just doesn't pass the smell test.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:33 pm
by mojo84
OldCurlyWolf wrote:mojo84 wrote:JP171 wrote:mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Smoking is how those chemicals get in your body. Therefore, smoking causes cancer. This is not something that is arguable.
Mojo,
No matter how illogical your statements may be????
The direct cause is the substances. The other is just a method of delivery. The same chemicals will have the same result with a different delivery method. Ergo, per your logic the other delivery method also causes cancer. NOPE. Just doesn't pass the smell test.
Illogical? Show me a credible study that says smoking does not cause cancer. So does dipping snuff and chewing tobacco. If you argue the points you are only arguing for arguments sake.
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:41 pm
by VoiceofReason
mojo84 wrote:OldCurlyWolf wrote:mojo84 wrote:JP171 wrote:mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Smoking is how those chemicals get in your body. Therefore, smoking causes cancer. This is not something that is arguable.
Mojo,
No matter how illogical your statements may be????
The direct cause is the substances. The other is just a method of delivery. The same chemicals will have the same result with a different delivery method. Ergo, per your logic the other delivery method also causes cancer. NOPE. Just doesn't pass the smell test.
Illogical? Show me a credible study that says smoking does not cause cancer. So does dipping snuff and chewing tobacco. If you argue the points you are only arguing for arguments sake.
Smoking is one thing that causes cancer. So does a few dozen other things. Doctors and Coroners are quick to label a case of cancer as being caused by smoking no matter how long or how long ago. Is it even possible to tell if a case of cancer is caused by smoking twenty years ago, or the 14th X-ray you had?
Re: Ex-member says MAIG's goal is confiscate legal guns
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:23 am
by mojo84
VoiceofReason wrote:mojo84 wrote:OldCurlyWolf wrote:mojo84 wrote:JP171 wrote:mojo84 wrote:Crazy isn't it. Next we'll hear smoking causes cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, its all the chemicals they add to make it more addictive that cause cancer, just look at several countries that don't allow all those additives, way low cancer rate. I do admit that smoking causes other things, kinda like bullets cause lead poisoning stoopidity causes lead poisoning not bullets
Smoking is how those chemicals get in your body. Therefore, smoking causes cancer. This is not something that is arguable.
Mojo,
No matter how illogical your statements may be????
The direct cause is the substances. The other is just a method of delivery. The same chemicals will have the same result with a different delivery method. Ergo, per your logic the other delivery method also causes cancer. NOPE. Just doesn't pass the smell test.
Illogical? Show me a credible study that says smoking does not cause cancer. So does dipping snuff and chewing tobacco. If you argue the points you are only arguing for arguments sake.
Smoking is one thing that causes cancer. So does a few dozen other things. Doctors and Coroners are quick to label a case of cancer as being caused by smoking no matter how long or how long ago. Is it even possible to tell if a case of cancer is caused by smoking twenty years ago, or the 14th X-ray you had?
Your point? We all know there are things in addition to smoking that cause cancer.
I made a simple joke and some feel the need to make a point of argument out of it.