Bailey shoots back

Globe columnist Steve Bailey goes after “the loony gun lobby,” which has worked itself into a lather because a squishy gun deal he wrote about a few years ago — and talked about on the radio recently — turns out to have been charged to his Globe expense account. According to Bailey, authorities have now confiscated the gun. He writes:

This is how it works. Intimidation is the stock in trade of the National Rifle Association and all the NRA knock-offs out there. Dare to say we need fewer, not more guns in this country, dare to say we need a uniform system for monitoring gun sales in this country and you become a target to be hunted down. Democrats and Republicans have allowed themselves to be cowed by this one-issue bloc for too long.

Of course, in this case Bailey is referring to an NRA knock-off — the Second Amendment Foundation, whose leader, Alan Gottlieb, Bailey reports, has had some problems with the Tax Man that were serious enough to strip him of his own right to pack heat, at least temporarily.

More: I want to address the idiotic notion that Bailey was involved in an illegal “straw purchase,” which at least one Media Nation commenter has fallen for. What straw purchase? Bailey gave money to Walter Belair, a former prison guard, in order to buy a gun. Belair didn’t buy the gun for Bailey; he bought it for himself, and, indeed, kept it until it was confiscated by the feds.

The last I checked, you’re still allowed to give people money. Bailey had no responsibility for what Belair chose to do with the money unless he had advance knowledge that Belair was going to use it to break the law. In fact, Belair’s purchase was entirely legal — that was the point of Bailey’s 2005 column. It strikes me as a virtual certainty that the feds will soon be returning Belair’s property to him.

13 thoughts on “Bailey shoots back

  1. Anonymous

    DanSo what? I could get you a gun in about 10 minutes with 50$ in Roxbury. For 240$ you could have a semi automatic weapon if you really need it! Gun laws dont prevent the majority of crimes, enformcement of gun laws actually would. If you use a gun during a crime – you should never get out of prison, ever! But liberals wont allow that type of justice, excuses like the poor kid had a tough life or his parents were on drugs always let the kid walk out of court with a note to be a good boy and go to midnight basketball. Enforce harsh penalities for using guns illegally and then gun violence will subside, me having a gun has nothing to do with the crime problem.

  2. Anonymous

    Some words of encouragement to a very decent guy, a very smart man and an outstanding honest media member, Steve Bailey. The guy is too much class and brains to be cowed by these unamerican degenerates.Suffice to say that 99% of police chiefs and officers -lefty and righty alike- understand the value of decent law-abiding BALANCED citizens owning guns for legit protection reasons and when it is a danger to sell guns to unbalanced, violent-prone morons that either snap and cause harm or are not careful enough and their ‘toys’ end up in the wrong hands, in robberies, hold-ups and law officers shot down. Check the funeral pictures from the recent NY Officer down.What a bunch of misleading huey this pro-gun zealotry is. Tell that to that grieving family in NY or the officers down up in NH recently and in the last couple of years.To the last contributor, if you know how to get guns that easily, then maybe you shold tell law officials how to get to these individuals, maybe they are beyond the usual faces they know and maybe you should help them put stings together as opposed to sounding defeatist. It sounds like you ENJOY seeing guns easily available on the street. Some kind of perverted glee, I flee coming from your puerile post.”If you use a gun during a crime – you should never get out of prison, ever! But liberals wont allow that type of justice,..” THAT rather sounds like a rightwing victimhood soundbite defense rather than a lefty one. You have your index cards mixed up on this one.Let “softhearted liberals” harp all they want about accounting for tough upbringing and poor social factors. THAT is a legit cause but FACT is no matter HOW disaffected, if you put a gun in their hands, you have an exponentially more dangerous situation. So one idiotic approach from the left does not justify the other from the right. Keep GUN supply to a minimum and enough with the idiotic dishonest argumentation.”me having a gun has nothing to do with the crime problem.” umm actually it does…if you are as irresponsible as your post indicates, chances are your gun might end up in some misdeed. Don’t think of yourself as an angel just yet.N.

  3. Bruce

    “In fact, Belair’s purchase was entirely legal — that was the point of Bailey’s 2005 column.”Not true.The original point of his column was to show why, in his mind, we need tougher gun laws in NH.His intention was to show how easy it is for a MA resident to buy a handgun in NH. When he inquired if he could buy a handgun, he was refused.Belair’s purchase was legal. However that wasn;t the point of his story. He was hoping to “expose” how easy it is for MA-based criminals to arm themselves in NH.Turns out it requires both parties involved to be willing to violate state and federal gun laws.Yet, he used his column as evidence for the need for more gun laws.There’s simply no story here.Bailey also forgets to mention that he could have done nearly the EXACT SAME THING (bought 100 guns, though not tax-free, put ’em in the trunk and driven home) in Massachusetts. The only difference being that his buyer would have had to have been a Massachusetts resident who had coughed up the $200 needed ($100 for a pistol class, $100 for a License to Carry) and who lived in any of the gun rights-friendly towns in MA.There are actually quite a few of those, you know.All Bailey was able to demonstrate was that someone willing to violate state and federal gun laws (and able to find someone else willing to do the same) can illegally obtain handguns.Wow!Who knew?For someone allegedly so keen on bringing the “facts” to the table, he sure leaves a lot out of the story.

  4. Bruce

    The guy is too much class and brains to be cowed by these unamerican degenerates.So, if I defend the Constitutional right to bear arms, I’m an “unamerican degenerate”, but if I defend a woman’s right to have an abortion (something found nowhere in my copy of the Constitution), I’m a progressive champion of human rights and civil liberties.Got it. Scorecard duly updated.I guess some rights are more equal than others.To be a liberal today, you have to honestly believe that the right of a crackhead to stick a screwdriver in my wife’s neck and take her purse is more sacrosanct than my right to prevent him from doing so.Very “progressive” indeed.Back to the topic at hand…Listen to the actual recording of Bailey’s explanation of his gun purchasing expedition.It’s simply full of lies an distortions.He claims that a MA resident can buy a handgun in NH, with just a little more of a waiting period involved.He’s either lying or ignorant. I’ll let the listeners decide for themselves.The fact is (unlike the facts Bailey claims in his column to be bringing to the table), it is illegal for ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the country to purchase and take possession of a handgun outside of their state of residence.The ONLY “solution” possible, if you subscribe to Bailey’s line of “reasoning” is to outlaw the possession of all handguns nationwide and to have heavily-armed agents of the government going door-to-door across the country and forcibly confiscating every legally-owned handgun.Hillary Clinton voted (in the minority, thank God) last year to make such an action plausible.And, then, when they find out that the criminals in the inner cities are still arming themselves, it will be the long guns next, you know the kind even John Kerry approves of.And, when that fails to rein in the drug-fueled gang violence, they’ll come up with something equally idiotic and unconstitutional as the next “solution”.It’s the liberal way.Don’t lock up the criminals! It’s SOCIETY’S fault they’re out there killing robbing, raping, etc.I don’t get it.Never did.Never will.

  5. Anonymous

    Nutcase says:”So, if I defend the Constitutional right to bear arms, I’m an “unamerican degenerate”, but if I defend a woman’s right to have an abortion (something found nowhere in my copy of the Constitution), I’m a progressive champion of human rights and civil liberties.Got it. Scorecard duly updated.I guess some rights are more equal than others.To be a liberal today, you have to honestly believe that the right of a crackhead to stick a screwdriver in my wife’s neck and take her purse is more sacrosanct than my right to prevent him from doing so.Very “progressive” indeed.”Twice you are putting words in my mouth and attributing positions to me I haven’t clearly endorsed before and are immaterial to a proliferation of gun problem. I guess you are dragging other warts in so you can establish some desperate sort of equivalence and make yourself look like a ‘heeeerow.’ You failed!I won’t go into abortion now for the purpose of this discussion. That would be conceding to a degenerate ploy. And I won’t go into how unamerican and idiotic of an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you seem to be ginned about. Thirdly, I state clearly that decent law-abiding citizens that need to protect themselves, their family and property should be and ARE WIDELY allowed to buy the guns they need. SO back off your dramatic “screw in my wife’s neck” garbage. It fails again!And please follow your own advice: “Back to the topic at hand”… and read my post before you ‘go on a rampage.’ If you need help with reading and comprehension, let us now, we can help. “It’s simply full of lies an distortions.”If he did indeed lie, then he is in a worse pickle with the US govt and will suffer worse consequence then enraging your ilk, Sir.Many may disagree with Mr Bailey’s politics but most do know he isn’t a liar. He is as straight a shooter as they come in this town. If you had any trace of fairness and objectivity, you’d operate on a bit of that assumption.”blah blah blah …….It’s SOCIETY’S fault they’re out there killing robbing, raping, etc.”Ok, after all the bile, Sir, you pull a “progressive” trick here by deflecting blame to society at large and you escape any duty to provide us with a solution to kids having access to guns and doing terrible things with them. Answer that first before you go nuts!As I stated in my post, I do not care what kind of bad situation one grows up in, it is NO EXCUSE to use drugs, to steal, to be in a gang or to procure guns and commit crime. I understand the harshness many of us are born into. It is a sad affair and we should be trying to undo that and break up these dissafected neighborhoods. It is still is NOT JUSTIFICATION to take your anger on other people’s life and property. MAny have emerged from that environment and were able to stay off trouble. It has been done and it still can be done.We need to attach more importance to caring about these ‘ignored fellow citizens of ours and I need to remind you and others that this problem exists in every other country in the world, but Europe does not have the gun violence proliferation and crime rate we do have, Sir.In closing, and looking at your tone and response, you are the kind of volatile person guns should be kept away from, exactly Mr Bailey’s aim from doing and writing what he did.N.PS: Good luck with the Gun Shoppe…or am I assuming that….oooh… never mind!

  6. Bruce

    Thirdly, I state clearly that decent law-abiding citizens that need to protect themselves, their family and property should be and ARE WIDELY allowed to buy the guns they need.Not in Boston/Cambridge/Brookline/Quincy/etc. they’re not.This is clearly a topic in which you are not well-versed.Ok, after all the bile, Sir, you pull a “progressive” trick here by deflecting blame to society at large…Um, that was me playing the role of whiny liberal. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.SO back off your dramatic “screw in my wife’s neck” garbage.OK, no more “garbage” hypotheticals. Let’s talk about a very real person, Gracie Watson, instead.She was set upon by her estranged husband in a Dollar Store parking lot. This man, undeterred by laws against stabbing people and setting them on fire, proceeded to stab her about 20 times and douse her in gasoline. Before he could light the match, and burn her to death, a passer-by, carrying a concealed handgun, intervened and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.No shots fired, no lives lost.Yet Steve Bailey and John Rosenthal don’t think law-abiding people should be carrying handguns.Now, as to your claim that bailey is a straight shooter, did you read what I wrote?I called out specific instances of him lying and misrepresenting the facts, and explained in simple English the facts behind his mistruths.More here, if you’re not afraid of learning a little something about the topic of gun laws and crime statistics.

  7. Bruce

    And, if you could please clarify:The guy is too much class and brains to be cowed by these unamerican degenerates.I’m a member of the NRA and several other pro-gun rights organizations.On what basis are you labeling me an “unamerican degenerate”?Is it because I believe ALL Americans have the right to self-defense, not just the rich ones.Is it because I choose to take the steps necessary to ensure my family’s well-being.After you explain to me how it is you feel justified in calling me an unamerican degenerate, please explain what it was I wrote that compelled you to call me a “nutcase”.And I won’t go into how unamerican and idiotic of an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you seem to be ginned about.Yeah, it’s all about us rednecks and our bizarre interpretations of the Bill of Rights. You know, the same interpretations held by such radical right-wing neocons as Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz.What a bunch of idiots.I’m gonna go WAAAAAAAAY out on a limb and guess that you’ve never read the Federalist Papers.

  8. Bruce

    but Europe does not have the gun violence proliferation and crime rate we do have, Sir.Gun-related violence has skyrocketed in the UK since they banned civilian possession of handguns there. And that’s based on the crimes that are actually reported.Wake up and get your facts straight.

  9. Anonymous

    This is another deaf-and-dumb gun argument merry-go-around. I keep reinforcing my support for legal and sane ownership and you keep insisting I am against it unless I subscribe wholesale to your positions and goals. You’re nuts.I am quick to assess your position as Unamerican because you and your ilk and the parties that host you don’t care about solving the problem and plugging the necessary holes to limit gun winding up in the wrong places. This is a selfisn all or nothing proposition for you and you don’t care about sound Gun ownership nor the Constitution nor the safety of the pulic nor the health of the democratic process. Instead it is an intimidation tactic for you to claim righteousness and link gun laws with your party/politics prevailing.This is an ideological tug of war that is seizing on some old social divisions and you thrive on division and confusion.I won’t click on your wacko links. Provide some neutral options not a biased blog somewhere – waste of time.Maybe you can look at this or this if you want examples of what happens when guns end up in unstable hands. Your answer to those two, among the thousands slain around the clock? “Tough” right?And who made you counsel for Cambridge or Brookline or Quincy or Boston? The first three are affluent towns that have almost no gun crimes at all. Very very few and the people who commit them in those town usually don’t live there but come from elsewhere, usually from Boston neighborhoods. Why would police chiefs be ok with allowing more guns to be out there waiting to be stolen in home burglaries and unauthorized use when their police depts do a great job of patrolling those towns and have a very noticeable presence, especially in Camb and Brook? There are no spots in those towns that feel unsafe, including Camb projects, even very late at night. Why would anyone would be crazy enough to inject so many more guns there? Boston has a problem of police understaffing but their presence in trouble spots is very visible and effective. If they had more new patrol cars/officers, they be in more spots and prevent some of the fights and gun crimes. But allowing MORE guns into Boston, legal or not is absolutely CRAZY and needless for many regular citizens living in a mostly safe city. Have we broken murder records in Camb or Brook that I am not aware of? And whom do you want to give more guns to in Boston, people in those same troubled neighborhoods and the immediate surrounding areas where the guns can be stolen or sold illegally, or do you want to give them to a bunch of South End, Back Bay, Charlestown Navy Yard neighboornhoods that are trouble free and very safe? That nauseating pit called BackBay T Station seems to be the scene of most violent crimes in BackBay. (Why the MBTA is not renovating/cleaning/srubbing/overpolicing that one very busy station mesmerizes me but that’s for another day.)That’s the problem with gun nuts: that they want NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL on ANY guns. ‘They should be available like burgers and donuts are.’ That’s nuts.And stop refering to the Constitution or the Federalist papers or other great text. I notice you don’t link to them and when you do read them yourself, pay attention to what they say and their spirit. If you did, you’d know they in fact make you look like a very silly, silly unamerican lunatic. Read them carefully. You and your ilk quoting them or the Const or other great AMerican figures out of context does NOT make you right, more patriotic nor entitled to prevail in politcal discussion; it makes you a walking contradiction.The key here is that guns would be a great deterrent in theory. In practice, our society has some very unstable and unreliable gun owners and more and more, violence and rage is creeping to normalcy levels. Enough of that violent and criminal impulse is out there to make gun avaibility become a catalyst for high crime levels.If you want an example of what the framers really meant, look at the Swiss model. Now gun crazies like to use that as proof to their madness. What all of you miss is that Switzerland has on of the highest iincome per capita in the world, is a very small country physically with hundreds of millions of people LESS than the US and with educational levels almost all unanymously high across the board and a very homogenous population make up. That, genius, makes it possible to have a lot of guns around but not have them turn into a scourge.So be realistic and honest once in your angry life. And stop brandishing a US Const and History you know NOTHING about, except how to exploit it for cheap demaguogery.And stop confusing people between dense cities that are mostly safe but have a social/poverty/gang trouble spots, and counties that are so spread out that law enforcement wouldn’t respond in minutes when even your next neighbor is a couple of miles away. Those are two different needs and justifications. So don’t use Montana or Vermont’s reality to ram craziness down Boston’s throat.People don’t need an arsenal of guns or military grade guns for a sick shooting proclivity. That’s pathology that needs restraint, not a legal seal. Funny how these miscreants want to shoot their guns out in the wilderness but don’t want to help stem low Army recruitment levels. True patriots aren’t they?N.

  10. Bruce

    Maybe you can look at this or this if you want examples of what happens when guns end up in unstable hands.OK, your first link goes to the story of the members of that family in CT who were either beaten, starngled, or burned to death, while tied to their beds.I’ll have another look but I don’t see any mention of guns used by anyone involved.And, if they were, it’s not like the thugs in question were eligible to possess said guns. THey would have been stopped from legally acquiring them by the NICS background check laws, which, I support by the way.Your comment of “they want NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL on ANY guns” notwithstanding.And, your second link comes from Gun Ban Central (aka: the UK).Color me less than convinced.How are more gun laws supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns? The same way our drug laws have cleared our inner cities of crack?

  11. Anonymous

    Just to put a close to a near-hopeless conversation here, since we still keep chasing our tail after all the words up above with statements like this:”How are more gun laws supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns?”Oh Lord!Uhhh, read one more time, ok?As for the links, the first is to show you the kind of lovely people you enable with your madness and the kind of story we still hear and continue to hear so long as we have lax gun laws you covet.The second, you didn’t have to read too much into. I was simply pointing to you a recent story that even in Europe, illustrates how degenerates with access to easy guns dispose with innocent life in a wanton fashion.A universal worry which they have more control over, but if you want thier point of view about their skepticism of lax gun laws, look here.Even some police officers don’t carry weapons in Britain, silly as it sounds. That’s a bit much of an extreme measure, especially that recently after a police office shot down they started to question such ‘wisdom.’ But you can see the extent of thier worry about guns being around unless they are absolutely warranted and that the priority is to rear people in a principled way as to minimize criminality and the need to resort to crime and have closeknit communities that deter crime by being alert, caring and aware of each other. You can go out at late hours in most of Europe and you don’t feel threatened by your surrounding as much as you do in some parts here. That’s the point.You can also see what licensing unstable people with no criminal record can look like, let’s see how you defend that one.Or if you want a reminder of the kind of very sane balanced and not-scary-at-all people you stand shoulder to shoulder with, look here and pay special attention to comments by “conservative legal gun owners” reaction and let’s see how you react to THAT one.But you know what, all of the uk is “crazy” and more than half the country that sides against your argument is also “crazy” and the victims of gun violence and their relatives and the officers shot at are all “crazy,” right?Only you are sane, right?”The same way our drug laws have cleared our inner cities of crack?”Another cowardly weasel argument..let’s see…”Why bother prosecuting theft? Rape? Domestic Abuse? Bank Robberies? Securities Fraud? After all they happen everyday, right? What’s the big deal?And if we have prosecuted drugs and gun crimes for so long and they still happen and they are still are popular with a section of the population, then they must be ‘good’ in a way, right? Just like Moonshine, dude…How harmuful is a spliff anyway, right? Impaired is good, maaaaan”Right?What a dopey rotten way of thinking!N.

  12. CaptDMO

    “Many may disagree with Mr Bailey’s politics but most do know he isn’t a liar. He is as straight a shooter as they come in [b]this[/b] town.“And there in lies the rub.

  13. Anonymous

    We need to carry thisfurther. Since people have used the Internetto commit fraud, spread child pornography and computer viruses, it isnecessary to require a permit to access the Internet. The Department of HomelandSecurity should be the licensing authority.All this talk of the First Amendment onlyencourages spammers, virus writers and childpornographers. Those who claim “freedom of speech” are un-American.Does that analogy work for you?

Comments are closed.