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

reply to post by Indigo5


Very simple, why?

Why do you want people not to have Fully Automatic Firearms?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I didn't call you an idiot...only your argument that guns can't be differentiated by effectiveness.

Indigo, have you ever fired a weapon? Recoil + full auto = walk up if not bolted down. There is no way someone would walk into a mall carrying a full auto.

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

Within 25ft a person wielding a knife can reach you before your weapon can clear it's holster. The jury is still out on zombies though. Depends on if they are the fast kind or the slow staggering kind.

Butcherguy and Golf66 already addressed your comments about bolt-action rifles vs full autos above.

Originally posted by Golf66
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.

Exactly! This is the point that I was trying to make to Indigo. You and Butcherguy made the point nicely. It's just not practical, regardless of the media hype.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Breitbart. com

In an explosive exchange outside the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C., security guards for billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accosted senior Talk Radio Network investigative reporter Jason Mattera when he asked the mayor about his strong support for gun control.

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”
Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”
“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

You see, civilians can't have guns, but put on a government uniform and you magically exempt yourself from laws. Laws are for us common folk, not the rich so called elites. They pass laws, then exempt themselves and all the mega corporations. They pass gun control, but they won't disarm themselves. They can have guns and body guards, but we can't. The hypocrisy is ridiculous, these people are a joke. The man is surrounded by no less than five armed guards, then points the finger and says guns are bad.

Here is a link to the journalist's page:
www.jasonmattera.com...

We know what you corrupt people are planning. You are being exposed more and more everyday. We see you.

You are absolutely correct but it's just unfortunate that the masses are so easily swayed by the opinions of the rich and famous! I have never been an Idol worshipper and always held contempt for the snobbery that exist in our society. Maybe this is why I have never been swayed by the opinions of the rich and powerful but I see how easily they can use our fear in manipulating us and as such I expect oppression to increase at ever increasing magnitudes! I don't expect the majority to awaken, mostly because we are so wrapped up in our selves!
I expect this world to get much worse before it can get any better! Fear is an enemy of logical thought and only when we can overwhelm this fear can we see the rational solution for contention!

Originally posted by macman

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?

It's hard for me to search through the tonnage of your postings...but here is where you argued that KIDS and CRIMINALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS and you also in that thread said any and all restrictions on owning and carrying is unconstitutional..

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I did not ask what the Supreme Court has bastardized it into.

I asked what the 2nd Amendment states.

The first portion states the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

should a 6 year old be allowed to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle? A convicted felon?

Yes, as the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by FaithandArms

Exactly! This is the point that I was trying to make to Indigo. You and Butcherguy made the point nicely. It's just not practical, regardless of the media hype.

I get what you are saying for "trained" shooters or military applications...full auto best suited for suppressive fire, but I think you are attributing too much strategic thought to gang-bangers, who routinely end up shooting civilians and unintended targets in a spray of bullets or mentally unstable folks who might not have military training. In those scenarios the targets are crowded and unprepared and the shooter is untrained.

Originally posted by Indigo5

It's hard for me to search through the tonnage of your postings...but here is where you argued that KIDS and CRIMINALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS and you also in that thread said any and all restrictions on owning and carrying is unconstitutional..

Oh, that is nice.
But, where was it that I stated Firearms on airlines?
Oh, I forgot. Just like every other Liberal/Progressive, you like to spin what was said/stated into something that it is not.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I did not ask what the Supreme Court has bastardized it into.

I asked what the 2nd Amendment states.

The first portion states the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74

should a 6 year old be allowed to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle? A convicted felon?

Yes, as the 2nd Amendment states shall not be infringed upon.

Still don't see where the aircraft thing comes into play.

But, like always, it doesn't play into your narrative, so you will dismiss it and try to spin more.

You typical BS is on display for all to see.

reply to post by Indigo5


So, the criminals with illegal firearms commit crimes and the rest of the law abiding people need to suffer because of this?

You truly are a collective people person.
No doubt about that.

Originally posted by macman

But, where was it that I stated Firearms on airlines?
Oh, I forgot. Just like every other Liberal/Progressive, you like to spin what was said/stated into something that it is not.

Don't remember...don't care...you made the case that there should be zero restrictions, including letting criminals and kids buy guns.

Why not skip the BS and answer the question? Should you be able to carry firearms onto an commercial airliner?

I'll wait for that answer.

Aren't full auto weapons class 3 weapons? I thought you need a class 3 license to even buy a full auto weapon.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I think you are attributing too much strategic thought to gang-bangers, who routinely end up shooting civilians and unintended targets in a spray of bullets or mentally unstable folks who might not have military training.

I think you are confusing gangbangers with people who are law abiding...

I doubt it matters very much to the career criminal (gangbanger) if the weapons he has are legal or illegal. I doubt they waltz in for a background check...I could be wrong?

Making the "assault weapons" illegal (like during the Clinton AWB) did absolutely zero to deter crime...zero effect on the numbers.

California, the home and origin of the term Gangbanger (along with NYC, Chicago, D.C. etc.) is the home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States and yet they (gangbangers) continue to flourish and thrive.

However, where I live out here in rural Missouri we haven't had a gun crime in 3 years. Every single person I know owns a firearm of some kind and I dare say 50% have a CCW. The one gun crime we had in the last three years was a domestic situation - husband shot his wife.

However, we did have a guy rape and kill a mother and her 13 year old daughter then burn down the house - killed them by strangling with a lamp cord. We thought seriously about banning all indoor lighting devices with a cord longer than 3 feet (the estimated amount needed to be an "assault cord") but we decided that the rapist was the problem not the cord on the lamps. Besides, we didn't want to take home decor choices away from the people who use lamps in a lawful manner. It’s called common sense.

No one has home invasions here because you will be killed - there is no "poor drug addled kid just looking for a quick score" defense that will fly with people here. Don't want to die - don't go into people’s houses.

The biggest problem we have out here ironically is cattle rustlers... Because people have dispersed plots on which they do not reside and only visit once a week or so - rustlers can show up load 4 steer and make a quick 4k at an auction 3 counties over. Lip tattoos are becoming the norm to counter this...

Out here a jury doesn't care about how nice and polite you are or that your daddy didn't love you enough - whatever passes for a defense in liberal-land.

Originally posted by peashooter
Aren't full auto weapons class 3 weapons? I thought you need a class 3 license to even buy a full auto weapon.

They entered in the debate via the zero restrictions/equal arms as government angle.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Indigo5
I think you are attributing too much strategic thought to gang-bangers, who routinely end up shooting civilians and unintended targets in a spray of bullets or mentally unstable folks who might not have military training.

I think you are confusing gangbangers with people who are law abiding...

Not at all...I was responding to the argument that fully automatic rifles weren't a more reckless and damaging weapon in the hands of a crominal than say a semi-automatic handgun.

Originally posted by Golf66
I doubt it matters very much to the career criminal (gangbanger) if the weapons he has are legal or illegal. I doubt they waltz in for a background check...I could be wrong?

Not sure what you are getting at, but most weapons in the hands of criminals originate with "legal" purchases that are resold to criminals?

Originally posted by Golf66
Making the "assault weapons" illegal (like during the Clinton AWB) did absolutely zero to deter crime...zero effect on the numbers.

Not sure I agree there, but I do agree there are other ways to help tackle the problem.
The AWB was in place 94-2004

Originally posted by Golf66

No one has home invasions here because you will be killed - there is no "poor drug addled kid just looking for a quick score" defense that will fly with people here. Don't want to die - don't go into people’s houses.

No doubt in rural areas..but in cities, guns are often stolen from homes...in Chicago an ex-cop had 23 guns stolen from his home...that ended up sold on the street to criminals...again...just saying...in more populated places, owning a gun doesn't mean you won't get broken into.

reply to post by Golf66

I doubt it matters very much to the career criminal (gangbanger) if the weapons he has are legal or illegal. I doubt they waltz in for a background check...I could be wrong?

You mean to tell us that there are people in our country that would break the law?



Say it ain't so!

The anti-gunners have yet to address this basic problem with outlawing guns or a group of guns....
The bad guys, who are the real problem, still exist, and they don't mind breaking a law to possess a gun anyway.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Golf66

 

I doubt it matters very much to the career criminal (gangbanger) if the weapons he has are legal or illegal. I doubt they waltz in for a background check...I could be wrong?

You mean to tell us that there are people in our country that would break the law?

Say it ain't so!

The anti-gunners have yet to address this basic problem with outlawing guns or a group of guns....
The bad guys, who are the real problem, still exist, and they don't mind breaking a law to possess a gun anyway.

I am confused? Didn't the President suggest 20 some-odd ways to enforce current laws and crack down on the bad guys getting guns? And the NRA went ballistic and responded with an ad about the Presidents children?

And as far as "illegal" and "legal" guns...ALL guns begin as legal guns...when they leave the manufacturer...why is it hellfire when someone suggests we try to prevent that gun getting into the hands of criminals?

I know personally 5 people right off the top that I went to school with that can take steel and turn it to a gun in 5 days.

The black market will explode with underground gun making.. what will they do then... ban the equipment makers and raw material... Ha Good Luck with that one.

so go ahead...I could care less

and as I type this the News Alert: Arizona, Chicago, Alabama, people are getting shot up yet again..

Hows that taking prayer out of schools working out for ya..*wink*

Originally posted by Indigo5


Don't remember...don't care...you made the case that there should be zero restrictions, including letting criminals and kids buy guns.

But in a world where "words" matter, you made the incorrect statement, pressed that I stated it, have been called out on it and are now trying to spin it in your favor.

You are dishonest. Plain and simple.
You lied about me making a specific statement, and now your out, instead of correcting your action, is to pitch "Don't remember.....don't care".
See the issue?

I did say, that the Constitution does not restrict Criminals or children from purchasing firearms.
I do support the Constitution, unlike you.
If you and other like you want to make it actually Constitutional for those regulations, the correct and lawful way is the amend the Document, not circumvent it with Govt policy and a creation of new laws.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Why not skip the BS and answer the question? Should you be able to carry firearms onto an commercial airliner?

Oh really??? I do believe it is you that has issues with answering direct questions.
So, how about you answer the questions proposed to you before you got all high and mighty, before demanding others answer you?

Originally posted by Indigo5
I'll wait for that answer.

Right after you answer the questions posed to you before all of your dramatic flair.

reply to post by Indigo5


To bad your graph clear states "Handguns" and does not reflect assault weapons, which is what was restricted by the AWB.

reply to post by Indigo5

I am confused? Didn't the President suggest 20 some-odd ways to enforce current laws and crack down on the bad guys getting guns? And the NRA went ballistic and responded with an ad about the Presidents children?

You are the one trying to confuse the issue with this statement.

What does the President's failure to prosecute gun crimes in his first four years have to do with banning assault rifles, limiting magazine size and pistols/magazines?

ETA: If you want a case in point, try the Ft. Hood shootings. They are still trying to get the shooter to shave his beard. When did that shooting happen?

reply to post by Indigo5

And as far as "illegal" and "legal" guns...ALL guns begin as legal guns...when they leave the manufacturer...why is it hellfire when someone suggests we try to prevent that gun getting into the hands of criminals?

I am sure that you are not that naive to believe that a whole class of guns will cease to exist if they are banned.

Do you believe that heroin purchased on the streets of your hometown today has been in the US since 1970? Or do you think that maybe they bring fresh shipments in from Afghanistan once in a while?