Based on everything I have learned, seen and heard from the citizens of this Commonwealth, I can no longer support legislation that would allow the continued sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and here is why:
My opposition to banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines was based on my experience as a platoon commander and as a member of the US Navy SEALs. My fellow SEAL team members are the most highly trained, professional warriors in the world.
Navy SEALs can handle assault weapons and high capacity magazines with complete competency and safety. Others cannot. I can show virtually anybody how to change a high capacity magazine clip in five seconds. But that does not mean virtually anybody should have one.
Despite the political risks my decision may pose, the risks to schoolchildren and to other innocent victims caused by assault weapons are simply unacceptable.
I remain a strong, proud proponent of the Second Amendment. I will continue to speak out when politicians play politics and fear monger on guns. However, I will also continue to listen, learn and consider new evidence and arguments from the other side.
Many people of good will may honestly disagree with my decision. Some will be tempted to say my support for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines runs contrary to the Constitution and to the Second Amendment.
I respect them. I spent a good portion of my life protecting and defending the Constitution, and to protecting their right to speak their minds.
To the professional political critics, I simply offer this: volunteer for the Navy or for the other armed services, successfully go through SEAL or other special forces training. Then you will be fully qualified and prepared to fire as many assault weapons with unlimited high capacity magazines as you desire.
Five seconds is a very generous time allotment for a magazine swap. This can also be accomplished with a "low capacity" magazine, so why does that matter?
ReplyDeleteI wondered about the five second thing. It didn't sound too impressive, I mean for a Navy Seal and all.
DeleteI'd like to know what this guy did to defend and protect the Constitution. I am highly skeptical that he did any such thing - probably the opposite.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
His argument for banning assault weapons: we're not operator-y enough to be worthy of having that much fun.
ReplyDeleteHe is only arguing that we should ban "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," not all semi-autos and low capacity magazines. His argument about training makes no sense when applied to such a ban--one does not need tons of extra training to make the transition from semi-auto hunting rifles with 3-5 shot magazines, or M-1 Garands with 8 shots, over to a M-14 which uses 10, 20, or 30 round magazines.
This argument seems to make sense on an emotional level, but when one analyzes it logically, it falls apart.
Well pardon people all to hell for being emotional about needless death! You think emotion has no place in deciding law? You NRA dudes have made it clear that death is acceptable as a numerical reality of your rights. BS!
DeleteYes, I always wondered about he pro-gun attempt to paint emotion as a negative. It doesn't even make sense. T., is just repeating what his betters have taught him by their nonsensical example.
DeleteWow! Do you realize how idiotic you look jumping on the "Emotion is Good!" bandwagon with Jim?
DeleteWhat I said wasn't a condemnation of emotion as evil. It was an argument that the suggested dividing line between legal and illegal firearms was not a logical line that matched the stated reasons for the ban.
Whatever one's emotions on a topic, it's kinda important that the law one passes make logical sense in that way.
That's why you oppose background check requirements for private sales, right? Because you're logical and not emotional?
DeleteI've given you my logical reasoning for opposing the type of background checks you want and the laws you've proposed--you even had to agree with us that the latest proposal was problematically written (you just decided to go full speed ahead anyway).
DeleteBut that's a different topic, and you're trying to distract from the fact that this guy's argument is not logically linked to his proposal to ban "assault weapons."
His argument for the AWB is the same as all the others. Military style weapons with a huge killing capacity are not safe in the hands of minimally trained civilians. To me that's very logical.
DeleteAnd so you argue for the law based on your general, emotional terms that tell us that we have to ban the evil, extra dangerous weapon, but you still don't explain the logical division between these "assault weapons" and other semi-auto, magazine fed firearms.
DeleteYou also fail to explain what amount training is needed--especially since he talks about how easy it is to learn to use the weapons effectively.
Mikeb, since you want to be logical here--for the first time--explain why it makes any sense to target "assault rifles," since rifles of any kind are involved in such a tiny percentage of firearms deaths. It sounds like sour grapes instead, considering that you can't ban handguns.
DeleteWell, first of all, the reports that such a tiny percentage of gun crimes have been done with long guns have been proven to be false. The numbers are higher than you guys say. Secondly, those guns ARE used in most of the mass shootings, of which we still lead the industrialized world, thanks to you.
DeleteWhere is this proof that long guns are used in a higher number of crimes, and why would the Obama DOJ lie to suppress the number of long guns used?
DeleteOnce again, Mikeb asserts without evidence.
DeleteWell, no one is necessarily lying. It's a question of reporting. It's faulty.
DeleteHave some proof, or just pulling that assertion out of your ass too?
DeleteAnd while you're here, are you going to ever issue that apology for lying about what TS and I said and calling us "lying sacks of shit" or are you just going to ignore your fault and let it get pushed down tomorrow when a new week of posts starts?
You must be shittin' me? Apologize? For what? I showed you guys over and over again where you were lying. TS, at least, had the integrity to admit the statements in question were ambiguous. But all you can do is keep getting the last word. That doesn't merit an apology. You're a proven liar and trickster. Live with it.
DeleteAnd the truth is still not in you.
DeleteIn the exchange below, I also admitted that the source article's comments were slightly ambiguous.
TS and I agreed that his statement should be interpreted in the same way TS first interpreted it in the first comment on this post.
We stuck with that position.
You kept calling us liars, accusing us, alternately, of sticking to that position or changing positions.
If you were capable of admitting you were wrong, you would apologize for calling us "lying sacks of shit", but you don't have the integrity or even capability of doing so.
And so you will go on calling me a "proven liar" while I keep on disproving you each time.
It's just sad since you used to argue with integrity instead of slander.
Despite his whining to the contrary, he's now gone from a protector of the Second Amendment to an opponent. I am curious to know at what point in SEAL training they cover constitutional law and the theory of rights. He does not qualify as an expert on those subjects, and so his judgement on that is worth no more than anyone else's, and I won't be submitting my rights to his approval.
ReplyDeleteBut the toothless grin NRA hillbilly is an expert? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
DeleteMainly what he's saying is that the training required for gun ownership is inadequate. I agree with that.
DeleteActually, he said nothing of the kind. He only singled out "assault weapons" for requiring all that special training.
DeleteBasically, the guy wants to keep the "cool" guns for operators. That's the kind of soft-headedness that got us the Brady Bill. Most of us have learned since then.
DeleteTo further expand on my point above, this man is using an argument that runs contrary to the core argument for banning magazines above an arbitrary capacity. The gun control side tells us that swapping magazines is a substantial enough burden that if you make a shooter do it more often, lives will be saved. Then he comes along and says its super easy to swap- but we should still ban them.
ReplyDeleteWe see the same contradictory logic in the "assault weapon" debate:
"We need to ban then because they are easy to control!"
"I say we need to ban them because they are difficult to control, and wildly spray bullets!"
"who cares why? Let's just ban them sonsabitches!"
What he said was that HE and other highly trained people could change the magazines quickly.
DeleteNo, he said he could show virtually anyone how to do it in five seconds. With skill and practice the assumption would be much faster. He didn't say how fast he could do it. He could also show anyone how you don't have to run the gun empty before reloading, and by not doing that, you save yourself the step of manipulating the slide/bolt, and more importantly, you are never empty. You still have the chambered round if you need to fire an emergency shot during a mag change.
DeleteStill, even with you misreading what he said, any argument that it is fast and easy is an argument agaisnt this need for frequent reloading. The need for magazine limitations approaches zero as the burden of changing magazines approaches zero.
DeleteGee, Mike, I must be super highly trained since I can do 1-3 second changes in an AR, AK, PSL, SVD, M14, FAL, G-3/CETME, Saiga, M-1 Carbine, Mini-14, and various other rifles and pistols!
DeleteTS, in your first comment it sounds like you misread it too.
Delete"Five seconds is a very generous time allotment for a magazine swap. "
And dishonest Mike twists words again when his position can't stand up to scrutiny.
DeleteI still stand by my statement. Five seconds is a generous allotment even for an amateur.
DeleteMike,
DeleteYou are the one that misstated what the guy said in his editorial. TS merely offered an opinion on what the guy said--so you misrepresented what he said too.
Getting a bit desperate are we?
At first I understood the man to say he takes 5 seconds to change a magazine. TS thought that too based on his first comment. But, later TS clarified the statement, which really is ambiguous, to mean in 5 seconds the ex-Seal could teach someone to change a magazine quickly.
DeleteThe guy's statement could be clearer, but it either means what you said at the end there, or, more likely from context, that he can teach anyone to change a magazine so that they can do it within 5 seconds.
DeleteTHAT is how TS interpreted it consistently, first commenting that it was a overly generous time limit, and later noting that further practice would likely reduce the time needed significantly.
Why do you have to misrepresent TS's obvious statements? Is it because you can't answer his argument that this shows the futility of banning high capacity magazines since easy changes don't break up shooting significantly?
Spot on, Tennessean.
DeleteT., you and TS are both lying sacks of shit. TS was not referring to the time it would take to teach someone to change a magazine. He said this:
Delete"Five seconds is a very generous time allotment for a magazine swap."
FOR A MAGAZINE SWAP, not to teach someone to do it quickly.
You fucking guys are really too much with your difficulty in admitting a mistake. You'd lie through your teeth until you turn blue rather than admit anything.
Check you attitude and re-read my statement.
DeleteI NEVER said that TS was referring to the time it would take to teach someone to swap a magazine. I said the OPPOSITE of that.
I said that 5 seconds to teach interpretation, which you proposed, was a potential interpretation of the SEAL's statement which I agreed was slightly ambiguous. I then proposed that the alternative interpretation, which TS made--that the 5 seconds referred to the magazine swap rather than the teaching time--was another valid interpretation and that it was more likely given the context. I also noted that this was was how TS and I interpreted his statement. TS agreed.
You agree that that is how we interpreted it.
We're saying that's how we STILL interpret it.
I don't see where you are getting the idea that we're lying unless you are taking this statement of TS's, "No, he said he could show virtually anyone how to do it in five seconds," to mean "No, he said that in five seconds he could show virtually anyone how to do it."
Look at the context of TS's statements before that comment, within that comment, and after that comment--the words "in five seconds" were clearly meant to modify the phrase "how to do it."
You are completely misconstruing TS's statement either because you are being blinded by your determination to find duplicity where there is none, or because you are being deliberately mendacious.
I expect a full apology for calling us both lying sacks of shit.
I would ask for an answer to the question raised, but I'm afraid you'll keep lying about what we said rather than answer it--especially since acknowledging the question would mean admitting that you are wrong about TS's supposed change in position--the question makes no sense if he had changed his position to the one you accuse him of.
Again, Tennessean explained exactly what was going on. I never interpreted the five seconds as the time it takes to show someone. Though, I can see how it can be read that way- and honestly, five seconds is probably about the time it would take to show someone how to change a magazine in five seconds. Nobody is lying. It’s clear to me what he meant, but I can see how it can read the other way too, including the way I first said it. My original statement that you misread what he said was only because you thought he meant only Navy Seals and other highly trained people could swap out a magazine that fast, and I pointed how he clearly said that anyone can do it (and that five seconds is actually rather slow even for a beginner).
DeleteMikeb, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make that person a liar.
Delete"Look at the context of TS's statements before that comment, within that comment, and after that comment--the words "in five seconds" were clearly meant to modify the phrase "how to do it.""
DeleteT., the comment I've been talking about is the VERY FIRST ONE. What the fuck are you talking about?
TS, you're as good as Greg in never admitting anything and never giving in.
Greg, you and your friends are daily liars, not because you say things that I disagree with, but because you say things you know are untrue. You do this, I suppose, because you're in a fight for your rights and anything's fair.
The problem, Mikeb, is that you have yet to catch any of us in a lie. You play quibbling games with interpretation, but that doesn't prove a falsehood.
DeleteMike,
DeleteYou're talking about the very first one?
So, the one where he interpreted it as "It would take 5 seconds or less to change the magazine."
The interpretation that he and I have stuck with.
The interpretation I have been arguing is correct. The interpretation TS agrees with.
And yet we're somehow lying and saying we Don't agree with that?
You keep skipping all over the place to avoid answering TS's argument, and you keep calling us liars when we've showed that we did not change our opinion from that first statement.
You are the one twisting our statements, and you have shown that you have ZERO integrity since you keep refusing to issue an apology for lying about us.
This is off topic, but has anyone else seen the news stories of armed folks helping rescue people during the mall attack in Kenya?
ReplyDeleteA former Royal Marine, a couple of guys who had been at an IDPA match who worked for a security company, and even a real estate executive who had his carry piece, and joined the security and police:
http://gma.yahoo.com/kenyan-heros-harrowing-tale-rescues-mall-massacre-134150330--abc-news-topstories.html
Apparently people with guns are capable of lending a hand in a rational way where they help rather than getting shot by the cops on scene for running around aimlessly with their guns out.
Do you realize how silly that sounds. First it was people with guns who created the problem, proving the law of nature which states that guns do more harm than good.
Delete1. There is no such law of nature.
Delete2. It is impossible to remove enough firearms, once a society has an abundance of them, to achieve your goals. The choice that remains is to disarm the good guys or to let them defend themselves.
Yes, kill, or be killed, that is this troglodytes only options. Now that's a civilized society. What NRA garbage.
DeleteAs Greg says, that is not a law of Nature. It is just a mantra you keep chanting despite proof to the contrary.
DeleteAs for the situation, yes, it was started by bad guys with guns that they had gotten in spite of the local gun control. How does that negate my point that Laci and Jade were wrong when they stated that the only thing that could come of carrying around a mass shooting was getting shot by the police?
That question is asked of Mike, Laci, Jade, Baldr, Joan, etc. I couldn't care less what Jim thinks since he's shown that he's nothing but a poo flinging monkey who likes to spout non sequitur replies to everything we say.
Just responding in kind. If you are going to act like a jack ass, I will treat you like a jack ass.
DeleteWhat's the point,T.? An armed civilian did some good in the Nairobi situation? Is that a big deal? Did anyone say that NEVER happens?
DeleteSeveral did some good. Your side has often claimed that armed civilians haven't done any good, and a week or two ago you were going on about how armed citizens couldn't do good, and would, in fact, cause more harm. You were going on with this with such certainty that any dissent was met with total ridicule. But go on and try to minimize this case, the Oregon Mall, Appalachian School of Law, the Church in Colorado, etc. etc. etc.
DeleteYou're making shit up again, T. I often refer to the Laughner shooting as an example of what typically happens when there are armed civilians around. But I never said never.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, you keep claiming that there were armed citizens available at the Tucson shooting, but you never provide evidence.
DeleteYou never show evidence that anyone was armed in the crowd at Tuscon, you merely assume it based on an improper application of statistics.
DeleteYou consistently ignore or refuse to answer about the other shootings, and you post analyses from "Mother Jones" and others which lie and say that mass shootings have Never been stopped by civilians.
As for the comments about the naval yard, yes, you didn't say that an armed individual could never have made a difference, but your co-bloggers went on at length about how such a person would invariably have been shot by police.
If you want to make a break here with other gun controllers and your co-bloggers by acknowledging these stories and the potential of armed citizens to do good, then do so. Otherwise, stop playing games, claiming to know that there were carriers at Tuscon and holding these imaginary individuals up as normative examples while all of these others are ignored as mere flukes.