Surprise! gun control really means gun confiscation

According to

Nearly 50 mayors have jumped ship on former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” campaign over allegations that the group’s ultimate goal is outright gun confiscation, according to one former member.

According to Poughkeepsie Mayor John Tkazyik:

“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

Why do people want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens? Especially people like Michael “Nanny” Bloomberg, who has armed bodyguards, and this guy:

anti-gun activist caught with gun

He’s anti-gun activist Dwayne Ferguson. According to wizbang:

Dwayne Ferguson an African American community activist and vehement anti-gun campaigner who worked tirelessly for New York’s gun grabbing SAFE Act was arrested last week for carrying a concealed weapon into a grade school. He said he “forgot” he had the gun on him and wants to be given a pass on the violation.

The hypocrisy is sickening. So, what’s the real reason they want to take our guns? Is it so the world will be a safer place? Would we all be more safe if good people didn’t own guns?

From Fox News:

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C…

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate…

Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis, AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN:

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

  • In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

  • Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

  • Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

From Fox News:

Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. So it is in the United States, too — all the multiple victim public shootings (where more than three people have been killed) have taken place where civilians are not allowed to have a gun.

According to Slate, in Switzerland there are 46 guns for every 100 people. From

Switzerland offers one of the highest personal and property safety in the world.

Homejacking and carjacking is unheard of.

Murders are very rare and almost only involve passional crimes and quarrels in political refugees centers.


Last month, Detroit’s Police Chief James Craig told reporters that legal gun owners deter crime.

“Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of Carrying Concealed Weapon [permits], and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation,” he said. “I changed my orientation real quick; Maine is one of the safest places in America.”

Am I not more safe when I am carrying a gun than when I am not? How about the people around me? In every case of mass shootings, wouldn’t the massacre have ended if other citizens had been armed?

The anti-gun crowd should stay out of my affairs. What right do they have to leave me vulnerable to criminal activities, particularly when those activities could result in my death? My right to carry a firearm comes from the Constitution. The same document gives them the right to free speech and they sure enjoy using it, but they should find something truly worthwhile to squawk about.

Again I ask, why do they want to leave us unable to protect ourselves? There is no rationality or humanity involved in their goal to leave us defenseless. On the other hand, perhaps the rationality lies in their belief that good people are expendable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s