PDA

View Full Version : "Debunking the Myths of Gun Control" Bloomberg columnist


ronlglock
01-02-2013, 7:13 AM
Sorry if this is a dup, but this seems like an intelligently written article that's on the Bloomberg website no less:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/debunking-nine-myths-of-the-gun-control-debate.html

NytWolf
01-02-2013, 7:18 AM
“Assault weapons” are defined as such mainly because they have the appearance of military-style rifles. In my definition, any device that can fire a metal projectile at a high rate of speed into a human body is assaultive in nature.

So according to Bloomberg, the semi-auto's AR and AK type rifles that the masses own is completely legal in any form.

email
01-02-2013, 7:32 AM
Soft control piece.

Full Clip
01-02-2013, 7:41 AM
"President Barack Obama is going to confiscate your legally owned weapons... There’s no constitutional mechanism for him to do so."

Uh, no, there isn't, because the POTUS does not MAKE LAW -- he supposedly enforces it.
So BHO has flunkies like DiFi to give him the "mechanism" to do it.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-02-2013, 7:48 AM
Soft control piece.


Not immediately apparent here. But when combined with Part I, definitely.


The Raisuli

guns4life
01-02-2013, 8:01 AM
That may have some of you fooled...

furyous68
01-02-2013, 9:47 AM
That may have some of you fooled...

He was right on one thing:

Simply that we aren’t even close to having a serious conversation about protecting ourselves from death by gun...

And this is because his boss & others like him use made-up "facts" & statistics to make law abiding gun owners the boogeymen/women of the 21'st century. "WE" can't have a reasonable discussion because those in charge won't listen to reason. While I do applaud him for stating some actual facts in his story, the usual liberal standbys are still there.

As for this statement:
I wouldn’t mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century.

What century could need it more? Did the founding fathers face drug cartels taking over their recreational areas? Did they have to deal with crazy people going on shooting sprees? Did they have to deal with a government that was trying to intrude on every... wait, they did deal with that :43:

sixtringr
01-02-2013, 10:14 AM
He was right on one thing:





As for this statement:


What century could need it more? Did the founding fathers face drug cartels taking over their recreational areas? Did they have to deal with crazy people going on shooting sprees? Did they have to deal with a government that was trying to intrude on every... wait, they did deal with that :43:

Right on- exactly!

artoaster
01-02-2013, 10:30 AM
"I wouldn’t mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we’re not even having a serious debate on the margins."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is where the revisionists see moral questions where there is no moral question.

jwkincal
01-02-2013, 10:34 AM
"I wouldn’t mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we’re not even having a serious debate on the margins."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is where the revisionists see moral questions where there is no moral question.

How is it ever moral to take away a persons right to defend themselves, and the instrument of their authority to hold their government accountable?

Precisely what is up for debate in that context?

Clearly there will always be some whom we cannot reach.

Scott Connors
01-02-2013, 8:25 PM
Reading this, I deduce that the antis are going to play good cop, bad cop with us. Feinstein's draconian proposal will be opposed by "moderates" who suggest "common sense gun laws" like banning standard capacity magazines and eliminating private gun sales (the misnamed and misbegotten "gun show loophole"). We need to let our elected reps know that this is not acceptable. In fact, we ought to try to punish them for bringing this up again: maybe make SBRs a $5 NFA tax item, or eliminate sound suppresssors from the NFA entirely, or push another MG amnesty to correct the abysmal condition of the NFA Registry (which BATFE admits is full of errors and missing records). I hope that NRA shows Obama the real Chicago way!

dfletcher
01-02-2013, 9:33 PM
With Corey Bookers recent comments on guns this is the new "term of art" approach to gun control. Super soft pedal. When they assert "assault weapons" aren't any different than other guns they don't mean it as a benefit to the AW, they mean the "regular gun" should be treated in the same manner as an AW - which is to ban it.