Lies, Damned Lies, And Rocket Launchers

image

Breitbart gets great kudos for their reporting efforts. 

First, during L.A.’s gun buyback program, L.A.’s police Chief Charlie Beck claims that A pair of “rocket launchers” had been turned in.  He’s parading one in the picture above.  Breitbart reports ….. (my bold)

Chief Beck proudly paraded the pair of launcher tubes at a press conference and gravely told those assembled, “Those are weapons of war, weapons of death. These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns…they have no place in our great city.” 

Of course, the idiot parroting LSM went batshit crazy over this with much wailing and gnashing of the teeth. 

Of course, as with all stories relating to totalitarian nuts, there’s much more than what meets the eye. 

The things that Chief Beck paraded are not weapons of death, and at least one of them never was.  What the public doesn’t understand is that these things are one-shot fiberglass tubes.  At least one of them was simply a training model.  As Breitbart reported….

But even more absurdly, at least one of the tubes was a training piece and never fired a grenade and never could have. It was a device used only for showing young soldiers what such a weapon looks like. It is a hands-on training tool that is 100% inert, un-fireable, safe as a plastic kid’s toy gun.

As Paul Szoldra explains, “It is, quite literally, a long, green fiberglass tube that does nothing.

These are M136 AT4s.  I used to train with the predecessor, the M72 LAW.  I can attest to stupid tubes that do nothing but pretend.  Why do people have them?  The same reason anyone collects memorabilia.  Again, even if one of them were real, once spent, there’s nothing you can do to make it lethal again any more than one could make any other plastic tube lethal. 

But, that’s not where the story ends.  Breitbart has found where Chief Beck made the exact same claims with the very same type of device back in May! 

Back in May, Beck again paraded before the media with a “rocket launcher” he claimed his department had received during a gun buyback program. That piece, too, was clearly marked “trainer” and was incapable of ever firing any rockets.

Now, as stupid as leftist totalitarians are, they can’t be that stupid as to not understand what “trainer” means, can they?

If those toy weapons have no place in the city, then why is the Chief constantly parading these things?  Was there ever any of these things really turned in?  Or is the chief simply making use of a prop he keeps?  These, of course, are pertinent questions, but, the one question I have is this.  Does the city of L.A. actually pay cash money for plastic tubes?  If so, how much for one?   

Read the Breitbart stories here and here

Note:  It has been expressed to me that this could be a sophisticated ploy by 2nd amendment supporters to make gun control nuts look entirely vapid. 

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Lies, Damned Lies, And Rocket Launchers

  1. kelly liddle says:

    Not sure if the note is about me but anyway.

    The second amendment is quite simple and includes all arms that can be carried. The interpretation (modification) is only that and does not hold any weight in my opinion. Both sides of this argument do not have a leg to stand on in my opnion because full enforcement of the second amendment is not acceptable to anyone except the very extreme and I am a person who agrees with the rule of law which despite the fact I do not like the idea the second amendment should stand until changed or cancelled. So this being the case then the argument has to be made why should the line be drawn at semi-automatic solid projectile weapons? My personal opinion is it shouldn’t be but not my business I am an Aussie.

    • suyts says:

      Kelly, no, this wasn’t aimed towards you. That wasn’t the point of the post. The point is, no one in LA is owning, possessing, or using rocket launchers.

      I don’t have a problem with people discussing the virtues or pratfalls of our 2nd amendment and it’s real world application. The point of the post is, the totalitarians are not being honest. In this specific case it is the highest ranking law enforcement agent in L.A. who is retelling the same lie over and again.

      • kelly liddle says:

        100% agree with the point of the post. Should never be dishonest or eventually you will lose that particular argument even though they might be arguing simular to me I don’t agree with the tactics if lies are told.

      • suyts says:

        I believe if the over-sensationalizing, hyperbole, and dishonesty was removed from the discussion, there wouldn’t be a discussion about the 2nd amendment. In the States, the opposition (to the 2nd Amendment) uses these tactics to stir up emotive responses rather than have people rationally looking at the facts.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Suyts
        Both sides are very guilty of the emotive responses bit. The pro gun lobby says you need a gun to protect yourself and that video games and movies are the cause of much of the US ills you must admit this is just as stupid. Are they saying the people in other english speaking countries do not have access to computers or English speaking movies? Same argument can apply within the US with Kansas for example, can people there watch movies or play stupid computer games, your homicide rate suggests not.

        • suyts says:

          Well, I don’t think that’s the primary argument of the pro-gun lobby. Or, at least an oversimplification.

          Video games are simply one example of the cheapening of life. There is a very noticeable societal pressure to cheapen life. Yes, Kansas has a lower murder rate than other places. But, then, Kansas is in the Bible belt. Most are still raised with an objective view of right/wrong. That’s part of the huge cultural disparity we have in the US, which other nations aren’t burdened with. Then, there’s population density……

          But, for those of us pro-gun advocates, these above observations aren’t necessary. I advocate gun ownership because of the right to defend one’s self, property, and liberties. These are inalienable rights. All of the wailing, moaning, rationalizations, lies, hyperbole, and any other form of argument is lost against the inalienable rights.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Suyts
          To be genuine you must draw the line somewhere. Where do you draw it?

        • suyts says:

          Genuine? Which line do you speak of?

        • kelly liddle says:

          About the 2nd amendment. personal arms, automatic, semi-automatic, fire arms only , etc. or absolute.

        • suyts says:

          I thought that’s what you were getting at, but, I wanted to be sure.

          Kelly, it’s an irrelevant argument. Gun ownership is constrained by means other than law. The 2nd amendment is absolute, but, in practical application, there are limits which are beyond the law.

          Take the hyperbole of the above firearms. Even if these things were armed and able to shoot, who cares? They are made to disable moderately armored vehicles. They’re not very effective at killing people. If anything, their use, outside of trained hands and purpose would probably have a poor result for the people trying to employ the weapons. The same goes for most other extreme examples people can come up with. Further, is there really a concern people will start using M136 AT4s all over the place? Is anyone seriously concerned we’ll start driving tanks to work? Where would we get the shells to fire the guns? Do you know how much that stuff would cost? Is there really a concern about the citizenry owning battleships and F-15s? Further, there are some private corporations already owning some big and bad weaponry, and have for very many years. So far, so good.

          No, we don’t need all of those things, we just need the right to have them.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, that is simply your strawman. The “pro gun” side (again a misnomer, but the left is infamous for that) says you have the OPTION. Period. If you want one, fine. If you do not want one, fine.

          The Control nuts do not want you to have the OPTION. Basically, they like their sheep sheered.

  2. HankH says:

    It is interesting to see all of the stories and comments of gun ban people. Their ill command of logic and gift for lying or obfuscating the facts is, well, typical for leftists. I expect nothing more from them.

    Here’s one obfuscation of fact that you won’t see the LSM grow a pair and report. There’s a common link to all the latest massacres. No, it’s not that they all occurred in “gun free” zones, although most did. All of the massacres were committed by an individual on prescription psychoactive drugs known to cause mania, uncontrolled urges, psychosis, rage, and suicide in some patients. Lanza was deeply disturbed, so much so that he couldn’t attend public school. He was prescribed psychoactive drugs. Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, was on psychiatric medications to control bouts with psychosis and aggression.

    I’m just saying these weren’t normal people who got their hands on a gun that somehow possessed their minds and turned them into killers as gun ban people would tell the story.

    • suyts says:

      Exactly, many people commenting here have owned guns most of their lives, yet, somehow managed not to kill anyone.

      • HankH says:

        That’s right. I was taught to shoot at the age of 12. I carried a gun into the woods as a teen for self protection. I carry a Glock 17 (17 rounds in the magazine) and a shotgun with me when I go out into mountain lion country to work on my research (actually I go to get away from the city so I can work on papers). Somehow I managed to avoid turning into a murderer. Sadly, every gun I own is on Senator Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon list despite the fact none of them were manufactured, sold, or purchased as assault weapons. At the time they were average run of the mill firearms. I guess when I go into ML country, I’ll have to throw rocks if I’m attacked.

      • suyts says:

        LOL, be sure to dial 911 too!!! Hobby Lobby can do their civil disobedience. I’ll do mine, or maybe not so civil.

        • HankH says:

          Yes, of course, except there’s no cell phone coverage in most of the areas I venture into. So I guess I’ll just piss off the ML by throwing rocks at it and curse Feinstein when I or my wife are mauled to death. The reason I purchased the guns I chose is because they afforded me a survival advantage in the wild. But the gun grabbers don’t consider that a valid reason to own a gun. They are too isolated in their protected urban existence to consider that 90% of the country is nothing like their plush world.

          I agree… “or maybe not so civil.”

  3. Bruce says:

    I used to train with the predecessor, the M72 LAW. I can attest to stupid tubes that do nothing but pretend.

    I had to lug a wretched M2CG on exercises and (yes literally) shout bang! when we were supposed to fire the thing. And I had to carry my SLR too, which at least I had blanks for. Never be the biggest guy in your section if you can help it.

  4. DaveG says:

    A handy Rocket launcher bag/lunch container, perfect fruit storage with a nice handy in Vogue shoulder strap. In addition a perfect conversation piece!
    All the best Celebs will want them soon!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s