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

page: 13
54
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post 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.

we have gone over this before. no one tried to shoot up the school that obama's daughters attend. people have, however, shot up school campuses and a movie theater were guns were banned (indeed, the only theater out of 7 possible theaters that specifically prevented concealed carry with a sign at the entrance), and no armed guards existed.

why is that?
the options are:
a) obama's daughters aren't a target
or
b) the presence of guns dissuades violence


c) None of the above. There were armed guards at Columbine, and there were armed guards at Virginia Tech. Adam Lanza's mother had guns in her home, yet it didn't stop Adam Lanza - it only helped him commit his violence.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

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.


No you just have to find a transferable gun that you can afford. Pay the $200.00 tax stamp and file NFA paperwork with the ATF. Takes 6-8 weeks to do a transfer. There is no yearly fee and owning a machinegun does not surrender any of your rights etc..

While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer. A previous director of the ATF testified before Congress that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.


You didn't get what I was saying at all actually. Trained, untrained, random gang banger... doesn't matter. That person can not walk into a mall carrying a gun set to full auto firing and squeeze the trigger while swinging the gun from his left to his right and successfully mow tons of people down.

You didn't answer my question about whether you have ever fired a gun. My guess from how you responded is no. I clearly stated that full auto + recoil = walking up. When the muzzle of the weapon pulls up from the force of the recoil you have to pull it back in line with your target. If you are squeezing the trigger on a full auto it is firing as rapidly as possible so long as you are holding the trigger down. There is no chance and no one is that strong that they can hold it in a steady line or on target. That is why full autos are mounted onto buildings, posts and vehicles for the most part. They are stable and prevent walk up.

If a gang banger (which I agree are pretty dumb) got their hands on one, they would just end up spraying bullets in a straight line up into the air until the weapon broke their grip and they dropped it. I would laugh at them, but that is just me. If you want to kill lots of people quickly and at once, you are not going to use a full auto (unless you have it mounted to something big, heavy and mobile).
edit on 31-1-2013 by FaithandArms because: wrong word



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So the presence of guns around Obama and his family increases the likelihood that they will be injured or killed by a gun?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman
 


Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?


Really???
How about, again, instead of selectively answering questions that suit your narrative, why not be honest and answer all the question.

[SNIP]

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/31/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman
 


Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?


Still waiting for where I stated I wanted people on aircraft to be armed.

Here, this may help **Jeopardy Music On**



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.



If you are SERIOUS...if you honestly are open to actual discussion and ideas that don't outright support your worldview...Your answer here...here's hoping for actual honest discussion...

www.thedailyshow.com...
sorry. I am not at home right now and the video from a television show on Comedy Network will not play on my Galaxy III.
I guess you could not put your reply into words. That's okay. It isn't like I haven't seen this from you before.

I am going to go down to the Mexican border and get some free Obama guns from the ATF. You are right, he has been proactive on guns these last four years.


Perfect...Ask a question...I provide and honest answer

Response when answer provided? I can't watch....I won't watch...and ad insult and BS...

Thanks for affirming my opinion of you. Not much use in further discussion with some plugging thier ears and ramblming insults..
edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.



If you are SERIOUS...if you honestly are open to actual discussion and ideas that don't outright support your worldview...Your answer here...here's hoping for actual honest discussion...

www.thedailyshow.com...
sorry. I am not at home right now and the video from a television show on Comedy Network will not play on my Galaxy III.
I guess you could not put your reply into words. That's okay. It isn't like I haven't seen this from you before.

I am going to go down to the Mexican border and get some free Obama guns from the ATF. You are right, he has been proactive on guns these last four years.


Perfect...Ask a question...I provide and honest answer

I can't watch....I won't watch...and ad insult and BS...

Thanks for affirming my opinion of you. Not much use in further discussion with some plugging thier ears and ramblming insults..
Ha, you make me chuckle.
This whole thread has been full of your insults. You also decline to answer the difficult questions.
OOOOOh, you have an opinion of me. I feel so terrible about what you think of me.
I will worry about that when we pass in the street and neither one of us knows each other personally.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jibeho

Up until today they could not even agree that he should face the death penalty for killing 13 innocent people


A judge has decided a Fort Hood shooting suspect still can face the death penalty if convicted in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation.

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Wednesday denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's request to remove the death penalty as a punishment option.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...


No...they always thought he should face the death penalty...the only one who disagreed was Hasan? And they denied the request.



The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Wednesday denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's request to remove the death penalty as a punishment option.


Remove...as in the death penalty has been on the table?...Denied the request?...as in he asked for it to be taken off the table and they said no?

And what does this have to do with the topic?


I was not talking to you in that response. Funny how you missed my post that was directed at you and your comments....

AS for Hasan the death penalty debate has been going on since 2010.. the never ending ping pong match.. then it was one court delay and one continuance after another.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



c) None of the above. There were armed guards at Columbine, and there were armed guards at Virginia Tech. Adam Lanza's mother had guns in her home, yet it didn't stop Adam Lanza - it only helped him commit his violence.

personally i'm in favor of teachers and college students with concealed carry permits being able to carry guns on campuses, not armed guards.

so, from what you've said, armed guards have zero negating effect? the president doesn't need them, nor does mayor bloomberg, because they obviously have no effect, right?

btw, there were 2 armed guards at columbine, and because they engaged the shooters more people were able to escape. at virginia tech citizens with guns helped finally take the shooter out by pinning him down with gunfire.

if it truly doesn't matter, then why do most shootings happen where guns are prohibited?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman
 


Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?


Still waiting for where I stated I wanted people on aircraft to be armed.

Here, this may help **Jeopardy Music On**


Sorry...still not interested in having a discussion with someone that thinks the Mentally ill, Criminals and Children should have the right to buy guns.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
You also decline to answer the difficult questions.


Said the poster that has decided not to review my last answer to the question they asked.

Maybe you want to point out some question of yours that I failed to answer?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

OOOOOh, you have an opinion of me. I feel so terrible about what you think of me.
I will worry about that when we pass in the street and neither one of us knows each other personally.


I operate on the premise that anonymity permits me to be dishonest...the man in the mirror knows who you are and his opinion of you is the most important IMHO.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Interesting point regarding Columbine, it happened in the middle of the 1994 assault weapon ban as well as the restriction on magazine capacity (10 rounds) The shooters simply bought more 10 round magazines and changed them accordingly. That same scenario was brought up during yesterday's Committee hearing... 6 seconds to change a magazine. These laws are pointless. Plus those shooters also used IED's in advance of the shooting to disorient, injure, flush out and confuse those inside...

Good article on magazine capacity debate
www.policymic.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy

OOOOOh, you have an opinion of me. I feel so terrible about what you think of me.
I will worry about that when we pass in the street and neither one of us knows each other personally.


I operate on the premise that anonymity doesn't permit me to be dishonest...the man in the mirror knows who you are and his opinion of you is the most important IMHO.


Michael Jackson could not have said it better himself You just brought a tear to my eye




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

I was not talking to you in that response. Funny how you missed my post that was directed at you and your comments....



The Hasan question was originally posted to me by Golf...What again is the relevance? Golf didn't answer that question either.

As for me not answering you post about current laws being enforced, I answered it here, but again...not expecting anyone to actually watch...no one wants thier questions answered.


Originally posted by jibeho




“How do we expect to have any impact on a society and say, ‘We’re going to pass a law. Hey this is inexcusable. We can’t allow any more of this. Let’s pass a law that will change the course of the future’ when we don’t enforce the laws that we have on the books — the most important laws?,”



Answer here on enforcing current laws...
www.thedailyshow.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho


Michael Jackson could not have said it better himself You just brought a tear to my eye



Actually I was referring to the Poem from the 30's...



The Man in the Glass



When you get what you want in your struggle for self

And the world makes you king for a day,

Just go to a mirror and look at yourself,

And see what that man has to say.



For it isn't your father or mother or wife,

Who judgment upon you must pass;

The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life

Is the one starring back from the glass.



He's the fellow to please, never mind all the rest.

For he's with you clear up to the end,

And you've passed the most dangerous, difficult test

If the man in the glass is your friend.



You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum,

And think you're a wonderful guy,

But the man in the glass says you're only a bum

If you can't look him straight in the eye.



You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years.

And get pats on the back as you pass,

But your final reward will be the heartaches and tears

If you've cheated the man in the glass.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


Maybe you want to point out some question of yours that I failed to answer?


Oh......oh **Raising had**..Oh.....I can.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
they want ya to believe they are more important. no doubt - the taxpayers are paying all that security.
let's keep in mind they are our public servants.





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join