Looks like Moms Demand Action is directly funneling money into Mayors Against illegal guns. This couples with a video I watched last night from John Lott.
The audio is crap in the video unfortunately, as Dr. Lott really looks like he’s bringing the whoop-ass, but you just can’t hear the points being made. Still fast forward to 14:50 in that video and look at resource slide. She links to Mayors Against Illegal guns, but the website is the URL for Moms Demand action.
The debate was in October of 2013, and today the MAIG website is still up, so why the link to Moms, when she’s openly plugging MAIG? She must have gotten a Memo.
Bloomberg knows that MAIG’s days are numbers. First up the founders, Bloomberg and Menino are no longer mayors, and it doesn’t appear that other mayors are willing to step up and chair the PAC. Further the meme has gotten out that if you’re a Member of MAIG there’s a good chance you’ll end up serving time for criminal activities, further MAIG has had trouble with Mayors abandoning the cause in a massive desertion.
Bloomberg is really a sole crusader, and I think his plan is to fight on his own as a billionaire king-maker for the cause, and Astro Turf his lack of individual support by funneling money into Moms Demand Action, while abandoning his Mayors Against Illegal guns which has become a liability.
They’re losing, is the end result!
Oh and the only audio that is good on that video is the first 15 mins, and BOY does it show that the antis really have no interest or ability to understand our cause. John Lott abandons most of his presentation to attack her flawed studies and citations, because her entire talk was based on studies that have been disproven for decades now.
The first step to forming a solid debate is to know your opponents argument and stay away from the pitfalls. This is why I’ve completely abandoned arguing against the “Made for Killing” argument for gun control. Yes, we all know there are guns that are specifically made for target shooting and other non-lethal activities, still your long-range bench-rest rifle may not be great for hunting or defense, but it still would work damn well as a sniper rifle in a pinch, and your open-class 1911 race-gun may be made for competition, but it doesn’t make it any less lethal if you shoot it at people. But still we own guns BECAUSE they can be used to kill attackers if need be, and that is 100% legal, so why argue a point that will just bog down in a quagmire.
Same with my abandonment of defending hunting guns. Yes hunting is a legitimate sport, and is wonderful, but its not an activity we can defend against the regulators, because nobody NEEDS to bag game to survive anymore. But people NEED guns to protect their lives every day. That they can’t argue against.
Seems the antis are incapable of making the evolutions we can do.