May 5, 2013
Okay. Enough. I try not to use insults in my posts. I do use what I believe to be accurate descriptions of behavior, like when I say someone is lying. But this guy pushed my button today, so let me be clear. MSNBC's ARI MELBER IS A MORON! I'll leave it at that and to your imaginations as to what other words I'd like to use to describe him. I don't know who this guy is or if he was ever considered a journalist but he certainly isn't now. He's proven that with this 2:21 video segment that is EXTREMELY biased in which he, once again, misinforms and spouts lies typical of outspoken gun control advocates. Let's take things in order, shall we?
"Explosives are illegal because they're weapons for attack, not defense. They are designed and operated to assault, not defend. In plain English, they're assault weapons." Now, I'm not going to advocate that bombs, homemade, commercial or military grade, should be covered under the 2nd Amendment. I don't think they should be. But here's a typical and incorrect description of bombs and explosives that shows either Melber doesn't know what he's talking about or that he's too biased to report or comment objectively. He mentions hand grenades in his rant. Is a hand grenade used to assault? Yes, absolutely. Do you know what else it's used for? It's used to DEFEND! Have you heard of Claymore Mines? Are they used to attack? Yes, attacking a fixed point as in setting up an ambush. But they're also used to DEFEND a fixed position! Artillery, known as the "king of battle" and mortars are used to attack. They're also used to DEFEND! Air strikes and naval gunfire are used to attack and DEFEND! To claim a certain type of weapon is used only to attack and has no legitimate defensive purpose is to be at least one of the following and probably a selection: naive, ignorant, liar, intellectually dishonest, short sighted, stupid, moronic, etc.
"...I'm going to take a small leap here..." Melber goes on to connect the "assault" characteristics of bombs to those of military style, so-called "assault weapons", claiming we should regulate "similar weapons" (meaning that bombs and "assault weapons" are similar).
He mentions M-320 grenade launchers which are relatively new in the US Army's arsenal. He doesn't mention its predecessor, the M-203, that is much more familiar and populous. But why does he mention either? To my knowledge, neither has ever been used in crime in our nation and they're already banned for private, consumer use anyway, so they add no value to the discussion except to attempt to demonize so-called "assault weapons" by association.
"...there are no legitimate uses for them ("assault weapons)..." How can any honest person make this claim? He's certainly not the first. But that just means that he has plenty of other liars for company. There are MILLIONS of so-called "assault weapons" in private hands. Rifles of ALL types are used in less than 3% of crime. So-called "assault weapons" are a subcategory of rifle. They're used in an estimated 0.6% of crime. So what are those MILLIONS of rifles being used for then? They're certainly not being used to kill people. What they're being used for is target shooting, competitive sport shooting, hunting small game and DEFENSE. The Department of Homeland Security purchased 7000 "assault weapons" as "personal defense weapons". Police officers, your typical patrolman, not SWAT, have shotguns and "assault weapons" for DEFENSE of themselves and innocents.
"...just like explosives, they ("assault weapons") sacrifice precision for maximum impact..." Again, Melber has NO IDEA what he's talking about. An AR-15 in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is VERY precise. It's not a long-range sniper rifle. I wouldn't recommend it for a small, specific target at 1000 yards. But Marines can hit targets reliably at 500 yards with them. That's within their intended maximum effective range. You know why they're not all that accurate at 1000 yards? Because they're NOT powerful enough. They're on the low end of caliber and power.
"You don't need an AR-15 to hunt." Isn't this one getting boring even to the "gun grabbers"? The same statement can be made about ANY firearm. You don't need a 30.06 to hunt. You don't need a 12 gauge shotgun to hunt. You don't need a .50 caliber handgun to hunt. But they're ALL used for hunting. But more importantly, hunting is NOT the point of the 2nd Amendment! And it's not for him or like-minded people to decide for others what they need or should use for hunting, sport, personal defense, or defending from tyranny.
And here's a "WOW" moment: "And no responsible gun owner wants an AR-15 to repel intruders from his apartment." So this idiot thinks he speaks for all responsible gun owners? From his rhetoric it's questionable that he even knows any gun owners or anything about firearms. Each situation and person is different and there is no single best solution for all scenarios. The AR-15 is perfectly suited for some of them but not all of them. And why would he use the word "apartment"? Is it because that word is best for his ridiculous argument? What about homes? What about businesses? What about farms or ranches?
Here's a very recent article, in fact, that shows someone using his AR-15 for DEFENSE from robbery at his workplace. This is the 3rd use this year of an AR-15 for DEFENSE that I'm aware of. There are probably more. I don't go looking for them. I only see what makes it into my normal news feed. And there's also the well known story of Korean store owners using so-called "assault weapons" to defend their stores during the Los Angeles riots. Their neighborhood burned around them. They stood their ground and saved themselves, their property and their business.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/02/national-guardsman-store-clerk-scares-off-burglars-assault/
"But as we all know, AR-15s provide a fast killing machine for murderers." He uses Newtown and Aurora to demonstrate the point. One of the things I keep wondering is, what would all the gun control advocates be doing now if handguns were the only firearms used at Newtown, like at Fort Hood and Columbine? Their proposed legislation is already well known to not have been able to stop Newtown. They're attacking "things" in an illogical way. They claim they're trying to solve a problem but they haven't done the analysis to be any more clear about what the problem is except to say "gun violence" while they ignore the real root causes and focus on a classification of firearms that is TINY in the gun violence spectrum.
"To me, bombs and assault weapons are pretty much the same. So don't let the NRA or their friends in DC tell you any differently." Right, we should ignore the words of the NRA and take this idiot's 'professional opinion' about firearms. Like the NRA or not, they at least know something about guns and their uses. And, by the way, they represent 5 MILLION gun owning members and are looked to by many millions more for leadership, training and more. This bozo, Melber, represents... who? Idiot! Moron! Liar!
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/51649688#51649688
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
No comments:
Post a Comment