TexasCHLforum.com

Gabriel Gomez, ex Navy Seal made this comment as quoted by The Republican from Massachussetts...

Gabriel Gomez wrote:It's not like I take the Constitution lightly. I don't think I'm going against the Second Amendment. I'm not taking our right away to get an assault weapon. I'm just saying if you want an assault weapon, join the Navy, go through SEAL training...

What a jackass. He's not for taking away the right to own a modern sporting rifle, but you should have to join the Navy and qualify by completing SEAL training before you can own one. So how is that different from "I'm not in favor of taking away the right to vote, but I think you should have a graduate degree in political science before you can exercise it?"

Jackass, jackass, jackass, jackass. THIS is what the republican party is coming to. THIS is why I no longer consider myself a republican. More and more, republicans are coming to the conclusion that they need to speak and act like democrats to get elected. If my choices are democrat, or wannabe democrat, why should I not not simply remain an independent and vote for the least offensive candidate?

I'm pretty much done with party politics. I don't care who the parties run. It is a RARE person indeed who remains true to his or her legacy once they get to the DC swamp. State capitols are only a tiny bit better. In the meantime, I continue to prepare for what is inevitably coming.

Political opportunist.

I too am fed up with politicians of all stripes licking their finger and then putting it up to see which way the wind blows. That is why many think of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as a breath of fresh air. They tend to buck the trend of the Washington crowd, and I am all for that.

/sarcasm on
I am all for whatever Mr. Gomez wants to say in public, as long as he has extensive training and a masters degree in communications. If not, he can keep his opinions to himself....
/sarcasm off

Just an attempt to slice the baby without making either mom unhappy.

75% of the voters won't hear of this statement, half the rest won't understand it, of the half that does understand it most of those will think its good that he puts such impediments to gun ownership even if they don't know a SEAL from a WALRUS, and the rest think he's an importuning idiot.

JALLEN wrote: even if they don't know a SEAL from a WALRUS

The Annoyed Man wrote:What a jackass...
Jackass, jackass, jackass, jackass.

I couldn't conjure up the right words when I posted, but TAM, you hit the nail on the head!

O6nop wrote:Gabriel Gomez, ex Navy Seal made this comment as quoted by The Republican from Massachussetts...

Gabriel Gomez wrote:It's not like I take the Constitution lightly. I don't think I'm going against the Second Amendment. I'm not taking our right away to get an assault weapon. I'm just saying if you want an assault weapon, join the Navy, go through SEAL training...

Perhaps we should rephrase the 2nd Amendment so that it conforms with the 'interpretation' of the former SEAL:

Instead of:

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.

The former SEAL proposes:

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

So the 2nd Amendment becomes meaningless except with respect to the MILITIA, i.e. the MILITARY.

The Framers used the word PEOPLE, for a reason.

The U.S. Constitution was created to prevent TYRANNY, by a single person or GROUP of persons, including obviously, the BRITISH ARMY who were enforcing British law and attempting to put down a rebellion.

The MILITIA were comprised of INDIVIDUALS who fought alongside Gen. Washington's regulars in the Continental Army. The Militia were sometimes at odds with the regulars because they were CIVILIANS and ruggedly independent farmers and ranchers who worked for and thought for themselves, as opposed to the regulars who were trained to follow and obey orders.

So much for those who ignorantly believe the framers intended ONLY regular soldiers should have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't (or shouldn't) take a scholar to figure this out.

But it does take some 'creative' reasoning by a pack of liars in the Judiciary and Congress (and elsewhere) to twist and 'interpret' (i.e. DISTORT) what the Founding Fathers actually intended when they instituted the 2nd Amendment which gave THE PEOPLE the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS which should NOT be INFRINGED.

Frankly, I should have the right to buy a tank, an F-16 (armed, of course) and any other weapon my heart desires, and my income would support.

But hey, that's just me.

mewalke wrote:

JALLEN wrote: even if they don't know a SEAL from a WALRUS

Hey, don't be dissing them WALRUSes. For your information, it's an even more highly secret ops team, so secret w...., ahh, they don't even have their own hats and t-shirts, for the more, ahhhh, "full grown" operators when they need to send in the heavies. I've probably said too much already.

JALLEN wrote:

mewalke wrote:

JALLEN wrote: even if they don't know a SEAL from a WALRUS

Hey, don't be dissing them WALRUSes. For your information, it's an even more highly secret ops team, so secret w...., ahh, they don't even have their own hats and t-shirts, for the more, ahhhh, "full grown" operators when they need to send in the heavies. I've probably said too much already.

And your avatar is, uh, "walrussey".

Dragonfighter wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

mewalke wrote:

JALLEN wrote: even if they don't know a SEAL from a WALRUS

Hey, don't be dissing them WALRUSes. For your information, it's an even more highly secret ops team, so secret w...., ahh, they don't even have their own hats and t-shirts, for the more, ahhhh, "full grown" operators when they need to send in the heavies. I've probably said too much already.

And your avatar is, uh, "walrussey".

Made my day with this one.

You rang?

jackass.

So he was allegedly a SEAL. Wow. We have the 2nd for a reason - people like you. These politicians just keep coming out of the woodwork.

I looked him up. His military service aside, the dude has RINO written all over him in huge, neon letters. He's supposedly going to run again for the same seat in Massachusetts that he lost to Ed Markey, Democrat. I'd imagine his attitude toward firearms is not shared by a majority of veterans.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I looked him up. His military service aside, the dude has RINO written all over him in huge, neon letters. He's supposedly going to run again for the same seat in Massachusetts that he lost to Ed Markey, Democrat. I'd imagine his attitude toward firearms is not shared by a majority of veterans.

That's what passes in Massachusetts for a Republican/conservative. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn would never be elected there, or in California, just like we hope and pray nobody like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer would ever be elected from Texas.

Remember Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a SEAL officer with a MOH in VN, served as Governor and Senator from Nebraska, but quite liberal.