Haslam and Bloomberg
In comments here, a reader posted his email exchange with the mayor Haslam’s office about his membership in Mayors Against Guns. It’s reprinted here (read from bottom up):
To: Mayor
Cc: cchesney@cityofknoxville.org
Subject: Still really disappointed
Date: Oct 11, 2006 2:57 PM
Nice try Cathy Chesney but you didn’t come close to touching on the issue which was about Haslam JOINING Mayor Bllomberg’s “Alliance of Mayors Against Guns.” Mayor Bloomberg is a very virulent anti gun person and supports all kinds of anti gun legislation. While the “Statement of Principle” leaves something to be desired, I am more concerned that Mayor Haslam has JOINED Bloomberg’s anti gun AMAG.Michael Silence had these observations on his web blog and I have to agree with him:
Then the mayor has picked the wrong group to join. For example, they oppose H.R. 5092, the BATFE Modernization and Reform Act. The oppose just about every pro-gun bill coming down the pike.
They support microstamping. They support maintaining a registry of gun offenders. They support suing gun dealers.HR 5092 was a bill to reform the BATFE, formerly known as BATF or “Burn All Toddlers First,” after their PR scheme at the Branch Davidian;s home in Waco Texas was burned to the ground, killing some 80 women and children. Micro stamping would drive the cost of ammunition out of sight as it calls for EACH individual bullet to be stamped with a unique number. President Bush has already signed the bill to prevent Bloomberg and his cronies from filing frivilous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and FFL dealers. Nobody sues General Motors when their cars are involved in a deadly accident, and suing gun manufacturers for misuse of their products by criminal doesn’t make any sense either’ however, Mayor Bloomberg supports these ideas.
The “Statement of Principles” is nothing more than a piece of “feel good” legislation but the major problem is Haslam JOINING Bloomberg’s “Alliance.” It would also be intersting to know what Mayor Haslam’s definition of an “illegal gun” is. Guns are inantimate objects and cannot in and of themselves break any laws. It takes a criminal to misue a gun.
Your response did nothing to allay my concerns. I just can’t fathom why Mayor Haslam would join an anti gun alliance. This certainly won’t sit well with many of us in Knoxville or Tennessee.
Sincerely,
William Noll
—–Original Message—–
From: Mayor
Sent: Oct 11, 2006 10:12 AM
To: wsnoll@peoplepc.com
Subject: Fwd: really disappointedThe Mayor signed a Statement of Principles against illegal guns. This is an effort to protect our citizens and our neighborhoods from violence as a result of illegal activities including possession of illegal firearms. I have attached the Statement of Principles for your review. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is working to help Mayors across the country with problems in our cities and this is just one of those initiatives.
Thank you for your interest,
Cathy Chesney
Office of Policy Development
215-2029
cchesney@cityofknoxville.org>>> Bill Noll 10/10/2006 12:54 AM >>>
Dear Mayor Haslam:
I realize that you and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York are both republicans but it seems a dumb stunt to join his “Alliance of Mayors against Guns.” We expect New Yorkers to be anti gun but not those in Tennessee. Bloomberg has waged war against legitimate gun dealers to include his infamous “sting” to entrap law abiding gun dealers. To support such a violation of our second amendment rights is a travesty. If Bloomberg would spend more time and money chasing down criminals as opposed to law abiding gun dealer, the crime rate in NYC would go down. To sum it up, it’s not the gun, it’s the criminals. Of course I suppose it is asking too much for you not to follow in the anti gun footsteps of Mayor Victor Ashe who sponsored a number of “gun buybacks” in Knoxville. You’re a smart guy but joining Bloomberg’s Alliance against Guns is not the smartest thing you have done recently. It’s still the criminals, not the guns. I’m quite disappointed to learn you have this anti gun bias.
William Noll
October 21st, 2006 at 11:53 am
One of the pieces you re-published uses the faulty “car equals gun” logic. I wish R2KBA proponents would quit using that one, because it sucks, precisely because it refers to a lack of lawsuits against automakers following deadly ACCIDENTS. Since a crook using a gun is never involved in an accident, but an intentional act, the analogy doesn’t past the first logic test.
The analogy could be converted to logical, simply by saying that after homicide-by-auto convictions, you never see a lawsuit, etc…
You gotta get the word “accident” out of this case, as it makes us all look like dumkopfs.
October 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Vehicular homicide is the term you want. That and car jackings, etc., but there is still some validity to mentioning accidents, since so many anti-gun proposals involve “safety” i.e. requiring trigger locks, keeping the gun locked up separate from the ammo, etc., etc…
This is good: Keep their feet to the fire and force them to declare their bigoted, irrational positions. I like the concept of tying them to an open conspiracy aimed at violating the 2A, disarming potential victims and leaving them vulnerable. If someone is effectively disarmed and then becomes a victim of a violent crime, there has to be some responsibility on the part of those Anti-Americans who violated their Oath to uphold the Constitution, effectively opening the doors to the criminal.
Some further elaboration:
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/10/12/We+Have+Not+Yet+Begun+To+Fight.aspx