Look what I stumbled across tonight.
Looks like Bloomberg’s flunkies are going to argue that if you object to localities and municipalities (read: Bloomberg and his private investigator stooges) using and abusing federal gun trace data to persecute gun dealers, you must not want to protect the police.
Interestingly enough, as we saw about a month ago when Police Magazine polled the LEO community, 88% of the rank and file law enforcement folks out there don’t believe more gun control is going to help. Cops really don’t think Bloomberg’s scheming is going to make them safer. How better to hide inconvenient truths like that than to suggest that disagreeing with the Mayors Against Illegal Guns means you don’t want to protect police? How better to mask your agenda than with a benevolent sounding URL like “protectpolice.org?” Who would ever be against “protecting police?”
Ah yes, if only that were really their agenda. Like any other gun control issue, the desired end (more safety) isn’t achieved by cracking down on or surveilling/registering/spying on law abiding citizens. This is where it gets interesting.
The boogieman according to the protectpolice.org folks is the Tiahrt Amendment. What’s so bad about the Tiahrt Amendment? Of course the anti gunners don’t like it–it eliminates a backdoor gun registry of law abiding gun owners.
Read up on it. The real agenda of the protectpolice.org folks becomes pretty clear, pretty quick. Hint: protecting cops ain’t it.
[…] The Tiahrt amendment also prohibits the release of documents that can be kept on gun owners (such as if you b*uy 3 or more handguns in five days, your info goes to the ATF). And the bill also prohibits release of trace data to entities who are not police. This latter fact is apparently ignored by the anti-gunners who push the notion that this bill is anti-police. PGP has more. […]
Pingback by SayUncle » Bloomberg and guns again — April 16, 2007 @ 7:22 am