Bloomberg says, "blah, blah, blah, illegal guns". Same old, same old.

[Rick]

This time against Armslist.com. I wonder what they consider "high volume".....2?

Bloomberg says the Internet is “flooded with guns.” Well, yeah! Score 1 for the good guys.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/12/bloo...uns_illegally/

[LowKey]

They're capitalizing on the Newtown anniversary. There's been at least 2 articles on NPR every day this week. Some of it is pretty amusing. In a disgusted sort of way.
I have to wonder why the nanny people always get their terminology wrong. Do they do it on purpose to goad the uninformed public, or are they really that stupid?

[crashdive123]

They really ARE that stupid.

[LowKey]

I'm not so sure.
It is not a mistake when a former Navy SEAL starts spewing MAIG rhetoric and calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and uses the term clip.

A Navy SEAL said this:

My opposition to banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines was based on my experience as a platoon commander and as a member of the US Navy SEALs. My fellow SEAL team members are the most highly trained, professional warriors in the world.

Navy SEALs can handle assault weapons and high capacity magazines with complete competency and safety. Others cannot. I can show virtually anybody how to change a high capacity magazine clip in five seconds. But that does not mean virtually anybody should have one.

This guy should know better.
Saying anything further about this guy would move this thread.

[Phaedrus]

A SEAL is entitled to his opinion on politics but I don't give it any more weight than anyone elses. One of my best friends was a SEAL and while he's a great guy he was no Rhodes Scholar. Special forces guys aren't necessarily experts on the Constitution.

[Rick]

Assuming he really was a SEAL. Truth can sometimes be hard to find these days. There are probably 3 or 4 times as many SEALs out there as actually passed the training.

[crashdive123]

I have very serious doubts that he is in fact a SEAL.

[crashdive123]

Oh - and if it takes a SEAL five seconds to change a "magazine clip" it probably means he rang the bell on the first day of BUDs. Their lies speak volumes about their desperation.

[Seniorman]

Bloomberg is another of the mega-billionaire wannabee tyrants who believes his own publicity. "I'm so rich and smart I can tell anyone and everyone what they can and can not do, what they can and can not own, and I'll use my Praetorian Guard with their guns to enforce it, too."

As for the "SEAL," as mentioned, that doesn't mean he's ever read the Constitution, much less have any understanding of it. I would submit that very, very few military men and women, officers and enlisted, and cops, Federal, State, and local, have actually read the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, if someone has the actual name of the "SEAL," it is not at all difficult to find out if he is a "real deal SEAL" or not. Imposters are everywhere.

What's that old saying? "Of the 300 SEALs who actually served in Vietnam, 3,000 of them are here in the U.S."

S.M.

[GreatUsername]

I'm not so sure.
It is not a mistake when a former Navy SEAL starts spewing MAIG rhetoric and calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and uses the term clip.

A Navy SEAL said this:


This guy should know better.
Saying anything further about this guy would move this thread.

Although he is using incorrect terminology, I think I understand what he is going for with this statement. He's calling AR-15s assault weapons and standard cap magazines as high capacity because when you're trying to make a short soundbite that can be consumed by anti-gunners and understood more easily by people with the wrong vernaculer, you're more likely to keep their interest if you use that incorrect language. Otherwise, they won't know what you're talking about when you say "military-styled semi-automatic rifle with standard capacity magazines" <--- (anti-gunners think you're talking about a Marlin model 60 or ruger 10/22 with tacticool hardware on it when you call it that, in my experience)

Secondly, he's not saying that these sorts of weapons should be banned, he's calling for the restriction that makes a lot of sense: people who are untrained should not own a gun. They are a danger to themselves and to others. He says it in a way that sounds like he's saying "AR-15s are for seals, not joe shmoe", but notice he is making a juxtaposition between those with training (seals "highly trained" etc) and some shmuck he just spend five seconds showing how to swap a mag.

I mean... it comes across as anti-black-gun, but I'd have to see the context to be sure. I think that making it ambiguous in this way makes sense for the guy, since it gives him an out if people got really violently angry with him for saying that "assault rifles" are okay for anyone who has the training.

Then again, I may be reading this totally wrong, and just hearing what I want to hear. I'd surely like it if someone would come out and say that it's not the guns we need to restrict, it's the people who don't have the training or presence of mind to use them. The same way we restrict cars: you have to show you are safe behind the wheel, but once you are, sure, go buy something that's way more powerful than you'll need 99% of the time, like a 200hp sportscar of some sort.

I would feel a lot better about my future childrens' safety if I knew that all my gun-owning neighbors had proven their safe-use and safety knowledge before buying. I don't believe in registration, but I believe that liscencing in order to buy can be done in such a way that preserves anonymity, and only alerts the government to the fact that you own guns, not how many or what type. If things come down to the point of confiscation, and you don't have your better stuff hidden already, I don't think you were very serious about trying to hold onto your guns anyways.

[randyt]

In regards to gun safety in our little backwoods school "hunters safety" is a class most of the students attend. Even though it's a hunters oriented class gun handling and safety is number one topic.

[LowKey]

Here is his whole "confession:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...dIL/story.html
Nothing lost in context there.

Bloomberg is just another rich guy who just has too much money and time on his hands.

[crashdive123]

Although he is using incorrect terminology, I think I understand what he is going for with this statement. He's calling AR-15s assault weapons and standard cap magazines as high capacity because when you're trying to make a short soundbite that can be consumed by anti-gunners and understood more easily by people with the wrong vernaculer, you're more likely to keep their interest if you use that incorrect language. Otherwise, they won't know what you're talking about when you say "military-styled semi-automatic rifle with standard capacity magazines" <--- (anti-gunners think you're talking about a Marlin model 60 or ruger 10/22 with tacticool hardware on it when you call it that, in my experience)

Secondly, he's not saying that these sorts of weapons should be banned, he's calling for the restriction that makes a lot of sense: people who are untrained should not own a gun. They are a danger to themselves and to others. He says it in a way that sounds like he's saying "AR-15s are for seals, not joe shmoe", but notice he is making a juxtaposition between those with training (seals "highly trained" etc) and some shmuck he just spend five seconds showing how to swap a mag.

I mean... it comes across as anti-black-gun, but I'd have to see the context to be sure. I think that making it ambiguous in this way makes sense for the guy, since it gives him an out if people got really violently angry with him for saying that "assault rifles" are okay for anyone who has the training.

Then again, I may be reading this totally wrong, and just hearing what I want to hear. I'd surely like it if someone would come out and say that it's not the guns we need to restrict, it's the people who don't have the training or presence of mind to use them. The same way we restrict cars: you have to show you are safe behind the wheel, but once you are, sure, go buy something that's way more powerful than you'll need 99% of the time, like a 200hp sportscar of some sort.

I would feel a lot better about my future childrens' safety if I knew that all my gun-owning neighbors had proven their safe-use and safety knowledge before buying. I don't believe in registration, but I believe that liscencing in order to buy can be done in such a way that preserves anonymity, and only alerts the government to the fact that you own guns, not how many or what type. If things come down to the point of confiscation, and you don't have your better stuff hidden already, I don't think you were very serious about trying to hold onto your guns anyways.

I strongly disagree - here's why.

A Navy SEAL is not going to use incorrect terminology regarding weapons. It's just not going to happen.

I think everybody that buys a weapon should be familiar with how it works, safety features and safe handling of it. I do not believe it is the job of the government to do that, but rather the parents. Guns safety, just like bicycle safety - how to safely cross a street (or river) should be taught to children at an early age. Many do just that, and there are some great programs for kids (starting with Eddie the Eagle by the NRA) available to parents for their kids if they so choose.

Licensing to purchase a weapon is tantamount to registration which will in turn lead to gun confiscation. If you doubt that - take a look at what New York is now doing. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-york-n1758137

You even describe it as confiscation in your statement, but that you should be smart enough to hide them. All that will do is make you a felon and put you in jail.

Rights are not licensed. Privileges are licensed.

[Seniorman]

Crashdive 123, please stop clouding the issue with the facts. It really screws up one's emotions and sensations.

S.M.

[rebel]

Something in these quotes should fit: http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes/a...Archie_Bunker/

[BENESSE]

Ipso fatso.

[Wildernesstech]

It always amazes me when people who are so sure that their opinion is the only correct opinion get
the bit in their teeth! Yesterday, because I was bored, I got in an online arguement with a die-hard anti-gunner. Usually I just ignore them, but I sensed that this gal actually believed she would make a difference if she helped to ban firearms. Long-story-short, in the end, after all of her arguements had been proven to be inaccurate propoganda she did what many do; She fell back to, "Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook." I quietly responded with; "You do realize that you are talking to someone who has buried their 3 year old and their 13 year old, and your ignorance won't bring back any of the kids from Sandy Hook." She slowed a bit. I then took the time to explain to her that while I fully believe that she means well, I have a need for her to understand some universal truths: Firearms or not, the monsters of this world will find a way to accomplish harm against others. Fire and explosives can do far more damage than the weapons the anti-gunners are focusing on! And after loosing many of my loved-ones, I have a real problem with her working with others to try to take away my one realistic GOD GIVEN RIGHT to protect my family from those monsters by taking away my firearms! Firearms that I "have" used to defend this country, and would gladly use to defend her and her loved-ones!

I doubt that she understood, but to fail to try leads to failure every time.

There really are two types of people in this world: Those who take care of themselves (and often others), and those that think someone should take care of them. The gaps in thinking between the two seem to widen more daily! Let me never fall into that second catagory!!!

[rebel]

Ipso fatso.

Fatso....facto?

[SlowRide13]

There really are two types of people in this world: Those who take care of themselves (and often others), and those that think someone should take care of them. The gaps in thinking between the two seem to widen more daily!

I don't know if that quote is a "new one" or an "old one," but it sums up everything. You can bet I'll repeat it.

[2dumb2kwit]

I strongly disagree - here's why.

A Navy SEAL is not going to use incorrect terminology regarding weapons. It's just not going to happen.

I think everybody that buys a weapon should be familiar with how it works, safety features and safe handling of it. I do not believe it is the job of the government to do that, but rather the parents. Guns safety, just like bicycle safety - how to safely cross a street (or river) should be taught to children at an early age. Many do just that, and there are some great programs for kids (starting with Eddie the Eagle by the NRA) available to parents for their kids if they so choose.

Licensing to purchase a weapon is tantamount to registration which will in turn lead to gun confiscation. If you doubt that - take a look at what New York is now doing. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-york-n1758137

You even describe it as confiscation in your statement, but that you should be smart enough to hide them. All that will do is make you a felon and put you in jail.

Rights are not licensed. Privileges are licensed.

I agree with crash, on this....but I want to add one thing. Cars are not restricted. Their use on public roads is. You can buy a car and use it all you want, at home, or on a race track, or on your own private road, without registration, license, or insurance.

Heck, you can even build your own car.........with mufflers even. (Try that with a gun. I think it's ten years for building it, and ten more for having a suppressor, without the right paperwork.) You can build it any way you want, with as much horsepower as you want. Make it hold as much gas as you want. (As long as you drive it only on private property.)