EXCLUSIVE: Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

I feel sorry for you sir. How hard is it to understand the concept of hypocrisy?

... But not only do you not understand it, you try to justify it.

I would call you a boot-licker but I think thats pretty obvious.

reply to post by xedocodex



Same old crap...

Cant you come up with a better argument than: " if you dont agree with me, you need therapy" ??

In the future please bring something better to the table instead of just playing devils advocate or making pedantic remarks about the mental health of people who dont agree with your flawed logic.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Superior my ass; they are just flies on a piece of #!

Originally posted by Indigo5
....
....
Either way, your ability to own an automatic rifle seems an irrational, if not ineffective response to either threat to our democracy.

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I see it spouted all over the place by people who support ruining the rights of other Americans.

We are a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy.

I know what they are "teaching" in school and it's obviously not even remotely correct since a good portion of Americans can't figure out what type of government we even have.


Don't like other peoples' rights listed in the Constitution? Leave the country. Avoid Brazil though, they are also a Constitutional Republic and they may have things in their constitution that you would dislike as well.

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense.

The point that gets lost on people like you every time is that the reason he needs 5 armed guards around him at all times is that NY is a gun-free zone, and therefore only the criminals have guns.

You are either feigning ignorance or embracing it. I'm just not sure which.

Originally posted by spacedog1973
We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

Sorry I'm going to call HorseCrap on that stance, the value of one life against another is the only broken and crippled leg it has, a persons position does not increase nor decrease the value of their life.
All people have the right to defend themselves and be secure, from the lowliest in title to the most high.

Originally posted by FaithandArms

Originally posted by Indigo5
....
....
Either way, your ability to own an automatic rifle seems an irrational, if not ineffective response to either threat to our democracy.

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I see it spouted all over the place by people who support ruining the rights of other Americans.

We are a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy.

I know what they are "teaching" in school and it's obviously not even remotely correct since a good portion of Americans can't figure out what type of government we even have.


Don't like other peoples' rights listed in the Constitution? Leave the country. Avoid Brazil though, they are also a Constitutional Republic and they may have things in their constitution that you would dislike as well.

edit on 30-1-2013 by FaithandArms because: Spelling (because of my publik educatian lol)

Irrational or not, Fear does not trump Guaranteed rights.

Since Indigo5 fears the automatic Firearm, then Indigo5 should stay away from it.
But, since Indigo5 fears it, then it should be restricted from others owning? Crazy.

Originally posted by Majiq1

And there have been restrictions placed on it. I can't go and legally buy a fully automatic weapon, rocket launchers, etc.. Now they are trying to place more restrictions on it. Do you really think if we allow new restrictions that they will be the last?

The thing that is entertaining to me is that you can't have a full auto, but you can have a flame thrower.

Some teens in my high school when I was younger made a video project depicting this classical story where a hero fought a dragon. One of the guys got or made a costume to look like a crude dragon and then they got their hands on a flamethrower and made the dragon breathe fire on top on a hill some distance from the camera man. It looked really cool. It did however set the forest on fire so in the video you all of a sudden see the hero and the dragon jumping around and swatting at the ground for several minutes. Future classes were told they were not allowed to use fire in their videos.

(By no means am I advocating restriction of flamethrowers, I just find it funny that something capable of far more monetary damage if it takes off and spreads is legal, but people are horrified at the thought of full auto guns)

I think that people are so scared of full autos because of action movies where they just mow people down with them. Anyone who has shot a gun capable of burst fire can tell you someone standing there with a full auto just obliterating people like he is taking a Sunday stroll is ridiculous. Just as it's silly to think holding a gun sideways and firing is the way to do it......

Originally posted by macman

Irrational or not, Fear does not trump Guaranteed rights.

Since Indigo5 fears the automatic Firearm, then Indigo5 should stay away from it.
But, since Indigo5 fears it, then it should be restricted from others owning? Crazy.

Agreed. If you don't like guns, don't own one. Don't go to ranges, don't rob people's homes where they might point them at you, etc.

Originally posted by FaithandArms

I think that people are so scared of full autos because of action movies where they just mow people down with them. Anyone who has shot a gun capable of burst fire can tell you someone standing there with a full auto just obliterating people like he is taking a Sunday stroll is ridiculous. Just as it's silly to think holding a gun sideways and firing is the way to do it......

So true!

Reminds me of religious fundamentalists who are anti-sex, just because they haven't gotten to try it out yet!

Originally posted by macman

Since Indigo5 fears the automatic Firearm, then Indigo5 should stay away from it.
But, since Indigo5 fears it, then it should be restricted from others owning? Crazy.

Nice bait I am making an intellectual argument, apparently something that you would like to avoid. Fear in the emotional sense is something I am not good at. Honestly I am wired a little different. It is an advantage in circumstances where fear is a disadvantage, a disadvantage in scenarios where the "flee" "duck" "panic" reaction is warranted. I have a poor "startle" reflex for lack of a better word. In my youth it cost me a fair amount of stitches as my friends knew when they were outnumbered in a tussle, while I just thought differently. Not bravado...like I said it's a strength as much as a weakness..folks who survive plane crashes are almost always the ones who freak out and climb over seats and people etc. I think about that sometimes because my instincts are always toa asses the situation and lean toward deliberate action...not neccessarily fight or flee. But honestly...what do you care? back to throwing punches...right?

I do not "fear" automatic weapons. Nor am I a proponent of all out gun bans...I do support discussing restricting certain types of weapons...and all guns from certain areas...

Something you have derided as unconstituional.

I have seen you argue that fully automatic weapons should be able to be acrried on airplanes etc.

I have seen you argue that the supreme court has no place interpreting or defending the constitution.

Otherwise....I know where this discussion with you is headed...nowhere beyond the baiting BS above.

Peace ..

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by FaithandArms

I think that people are so scared of full autos because of action movies where they just mow people down with them. Anyone who has shot a gun capable of burst fire can tell you someone standing there with a full auto just obliterating people like he is taking a Sunday stroll is ridiculous. Just as it's silly to think holding a gun sideways and firing is the way to do it......

So true!

Reminds me of religious fundamentalists who are anti-sex, just because they haven't gotten to try it out yet!

I don't think it is a question of "fear"...again, we already restrict weaponry and distinguish between arms that we equip our military with and arms that we allow civilians to own.

And this idea that there is no difference...or frankly the idiotic argument above that Fully Automatic Assault rifles don't enable the shooter to kill more easily and in higher numbers...wow...Why don't we just equip our military with bolt-action rifles instead of M-16s? Or if an AR-15 and derivatives and modified versions are all the same as a 6 shooter in effectiveness...then why not ban them? Everyone can still buy their 6 shooter and no harm no foul?

The failed arguments like...there is no difference in guns..or between a kitchen knife and an AR...damages and discredits the logical arguments being made by 2nd Amendment supporters.

Those arguments offend rational thinking so thoroughly that it allows gun-control proponents to dismiss the opposition as dishonest, intellectually challenged or crazy.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Nice bait

I am making an intellectual argument, apparently something that you would like to avoid.

Oh noes. You made me SO sad with that comment.
Yep, ok then.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Fear in the emotional sense is something I am not good at. Honestly I am wired a little different. It is an advantage in circumstances where fear is a disadvantage, a disadvantage in scenarios where the "flee" "duck" "panic" reaction is warranted. I have a poor "startle" reflex for lack of a better word. In my youth it cost me a fair amount of stitches as my friends knew when they were outnumbered in a tussle, while I just thought differently. Not bravado...like I said it's a strength as much as a weakness..folks who survive plane crashes are almost always the ones who freak out and climb over seats and people etc. I think about that sometimes because my instincts are always toa asses the situation and lean toward deliberate action...not neccessarily fight or flee. But honestly...what do you care? back to throwing punches...right?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Okay I guess.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I do not "fear" automatic weapons. Nor am I a proponent of all out gun bans...I do support discussing restricting certain types of weapons...and all guns from certain areas...

SO, infringing upon is okay.
You, and others fear. Be it fearing the inanimate object, or fear of someone having said object.
That, is irrational.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Something you have derided as unconstituional.

Yes, as I can read the very simple statement from the Constitution. Shall not be infringed upon is very simple.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I have seen you argue that fully automatic weapons should be able to be acrried on airplanes etc.

I said airplanes???? really??? Could you please provide that statement?
Or do you have Joe Biden telling you stories to pitch as truth?

Originally posted by Indigo5
I have seen you argue that the supreme court has no place interpreting or defending the constitution.

Yes, and?????

Originally posted by Indigo5
Otherwise....I know where this discussion with you is headed...nowhere beyond the baiting BS above.

Peace ..

Oh, runaway again.
Too bad.

I guess leave before you are defeated and shown you are wrong.

reply to post by Indigo5

Since you love to hold up the SCOTUS as the end all be all, and want them to interpret law, here you go.

I guess that the acts and laws after this are null and void.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

Oh geez. So, they state that the People/Militia are to have access to arms that are equal to that of the Military.

reply to post by Indigo5

nd this idea that there is no difference...or frankly the idiotic argument above that Fully Automatic Assault rifles don't enable the shooter to kill more easily and in higher numbers...wow...Why don't we just equip our military with bolt-action rifles instead of M-16s?

Perhaps you should study this carefully.

The most accurate of our soldiers do use bolt action rifles. They are called snipers.

Today's soldiers are trained to fire in semi-automatic mode as much as possible.
They use the burst function to provide 'covering fire'.
In other words, they use automatic fire to suppress enemy fire so that the others in their squad may advance on the enemy.

They are trained to use semiautomatic fire to shoot the enemy specifically because semiautomatic fire is more accurate in a shoulder fired weapon like the M16. Soldiers will kill more of the enemy by firing accurately and hitting their target.

Automatic fire wastes ammunition.

Edit to Ask:
Have you ever fired a fully automatic firearm?

Both Obama and Bloomberg have reified and cathected the owning (or hiring) of guns, to the point that we now ask if they wish a fight to the death for the pure prestige of owning (or hiring) guns? In North Korea, only police and military own guns. Elsewhere we have already shown the statistics circa 1930: Chicago homicides over 400 for the year. Police files can digress for the next century as they pull their files to feed Jaba's media and get paid to intensfy violence and fascism: "All that did not get in the news then, will now be thrust upon you in an effort to show that a smuggled Arab son in the White House knows what's best." It's just that, some of us have a hang-up about Salafism and Wahhabism, the latter's origins being in Nejd, Saudi Arabia, the former's connecting to Sayyid Qutb who attended the Colorado School of Education.

reply to post by butcherguy


Also, which can kill more at a time?
Arson or an AR15?

A fertilizer bomb or an AR15?

Flawed logic by a flawed person that fears people having certain firearms.

reply to post by phyrefly





www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by butcherguy
The most accurate of our soldiers do use bolt action rifles. They are called snipers.

You raise an excellent point - I went to Sniper School (a long time ago) in 1988 and the standard issue sniper weapon for the US Army was the M21. The M21 is very simply an M14 with a match grade barrel that has been fit tighter into the stock for better accuracy and an ART2 scope. It was a semi-automatic weapon. The theory was that while accurate and effective as a sniper weapon out to 1400m the semi-auto feature was beneficial for the sniper if compromised. Then sometime later I think 91-92 I forget as I had was no longer in the sniper role we changed to the M24.

Now we have swung back again to some semi-auto variants M110 and even the M82 (.50 cal) as a result of our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. The M24 is still used by true "snipers"; especially in the Marine corps. However, with the inclusion and reintegration of designated marksman the semi-auto weapons serve a dual purpose.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Today's soldiers are trained to fire in semi-automatic mode as much as possible.
They use the burst function to provide 'covering fire'.
In other words, they use automatic fire to suppress enemy fire so that the others in their squad may advance on the enemy.

I am a retired SF Officer - I am certainly no Weapons Sergeant technically knowledgeable on all weapons functions but I would say my knowledge of tactics of the proper selection and deployment of various weapons systems is sound.

Again, the military went through a phase in which all of our infantryman's personal weapons were capable of full-auto (Vietnam era to late 80's) then because we realized that when every soldier had that option, poor discipline would have them chose it over aimed semi-auto fire we took that option away for some time. This was a drain on the logistical system and slowed the pace of combat for frequent resupply.

The problem was that without that full auto capability building clearing became difficult and with the Iraq lessons learned we reintegrated the full auto selector.

In SF we had lots of options when it comes to weapons; however, with the exception of convoy escort I can count on my fingers the times we used full auto fire in any engagement.

Auto-fire is sexy and to be honest downright fun but you hardly can hit anything which in combat is kind of the whole point...

We once did a range that involved driving through a lane we had 3 vehicles on each were full auto belt fed weapons. We had the 2x MK 19 (the 40mm grenade launcher), the 3x M240, and M2, a 3x SAW. The lane was about 1000 m long with pop-up targets from 50-800m out. I think there were a total of 40 targets. We fired 3000 rounds per iteration. I think on average the most hits per iteration (including grenade shrapnel) were about 20. That’s a rather poor ratio…

In sum:

Originally posted by butcherguy
Automatic fire wastes ammunition.

Full auto has its place but it is hardly to mow people down... like in the movies.

reply to post by spacedog1973

BS! Just because he ~chose~ to put himself on the public pedestal, a choice he freely made, does not make him any more worthy of protection than the little old lady who sleeps in the cardboard box behind a dumpster!