Search

Former FBI agent Manny Gomez Ruins Credibility on MSNBC

Former FBI agent Manny Gomez Ruins Credibility on MSNBC

Former FBI agent Manny Gomez was a guest on MSNBC on Monday night. On that show, he claimed that hunters use suppressors (silencers) so that deer cannot hear the gunshots. Yes… he really said that. Here’s the quote.

Sportsmen, hunters would make an argument that they need that so that their target, whether it’s a deer, etc. don’t hear the shot.

Let me just say that his credibility as an FBI agent is now in question because that is seriously one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. As a hunter, I can promise you that the last thing a hunter is worried about is whether or not the pray hears the shot. I have to wonder if Gomez was being paid to say such idiotic things. I honestly feel sorry for him. Unfortunately, the idiocy didn’t stop there. Gomez continued the conversation by saying…

but numerous other sportsmen have shot from muskets–when the founding fathers started the Second Amendment–up until now successfully killed game animals without the use of a silencer.

Let me just clarify a few things for everyone. To begin with, the Second Amendment has NOTHING TO DO with sportsmen. It’s not about hunting and it’s not about sport shooting either. So anytime some talking head like Gomez decides to discuss the Second Amendment as though they just want to restrict the bad-guys and protect the sportsman, understand that you are dealing with a Class-A moron with a very dangerous agenda.

If you are going to pull anything from this article, let it be this. Silencers are not “silent”. They simply do not mask the sonic crack created by the bullet exceeding the sound barrier. Granted, some bullets don’t exceed that point, but those are not the type of rounds we are talking about here. That being said, I will admit that silencers do change the sound enough that most people probably wouldn’t recognize it as a gunshot but there is still a loud noise.

Clearly there is some confusion here. The reasons that silencers are a benefit are because they reduce the risk of hearing damage and disorientation in close quarters and they reduce recoil which reduces fatigue on the shooter. Sure, there are some military applications that are advantageous as well (such as flash suppression) but to generalize a silencer as “silent” and “military only” is crazy.

I’m not going to address the downside of silencers in this article, it’s not the point. Regardless, I know various media organizations are talking about how a silencer would make it easier for a mass shooter with a fully automatic weapon to remain hidden. That’s just not true. Plus, firing a weapon equipped with a silencer on full auto for too long would more than likely cause the silencer to melt or bend. That’s just dangerous. In fact, let me show you a video to help demonstrate the point. Also, as you watch it… notice how NOT SILENT it is.

True, that is an extreme example but I think effectively demonstrates what I wanted it to. I wish the idiocy stopped there, but it didn’t. The next couple sentences out of the mouth of Mr. Gomez simply made him look even more ridiculous and it destroyed not only his credibility, but the credibility of the news program he was on. Here’s the quote.

So where does this logical progression? Uh… Are we going to legalize grenades next, because sportsmen need uh… chain or the averages to be on their side… more? Uh… it it… it seems to me we are heading in the wrong direction. The conversation should be what to do about the assault weapons that are killing our population at an alarming rate.

You would think it would be obvious by now but I guess “logic” is selective. Unfortunately, in this case, it has completely bypassed Mr. Gomez. Let me go ahead and square this one away as well.

Assault weapons are not killing our population at an alarming rate. Comparatively, doctors are killing our population at an alarming rate and of course, nobody seems to be talking about that. Fast food too for that matter yet there is a fast food joint on just about every corner. Even if you wanted to focus on guns alone, assault weapons are still not even close. What bothers me about his statement is that this “former FBI agent” somehow forgot that an assault weapon is nothing more than a tool and that the REAL danger is the person behind the trigger. FBI guys wield assault rifles too ya know? And the last I checked, it takes a PERSON to shoot a firearm. Perhaps if we didn’t waste our time trying to demonize rifles, we could catch some of the criminals actually using for them for messed up purposes – like in Chicago, where hundreds are being slayed with firearms each year in their anti-gun city. Let me guess… that’s different.

Speaking of which, and as I have made abundantly clear several times before (statistically or otherwise), these mass shootings would simply not happen near as often if we were not creating so many “gun-free zones”. If you create a perfect place for a mass shooting to happen, you shouldn’t be surprised when a mass shooting occurs. If you restrict the ability for good people to intervene, you shouldn’t be surprised when nobody is there is to stop it. When you replace a safe and free culture with a dangerous and restrictive one, the results simply shouldn’t shock you. How is that for logic?

So let me answer his question about legalizing grenades. Why not? They wouldn’t be allowed for hunting purposes anyway. Come to think of it, a sportsman probably wouldn’t want to use it for hunting either because it wouldn’t leave much of a trophy. So why not legalize it? It might actually help further the entire point of the Second Amendment since that’s what all these talking heads continue to pretend to care about. Of course, in order to understand that perspective, you would actually have to understand the purpose of the Amendment.

I wrote about this extensively in my book RELOADED, but the Second Amendment states clearly that 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. That’s it. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say anything about hunting or sport shooting. It doesn’t say anything about type, caliber or abilities either.

Bear” means “(of a person) carry”; meaning you have the ability to carry it on you. That is the ONLY restriction. Furthermore, not only does the Second Amendment state that someone can carry their weapons on their person, but it also states that this shall not be violated. Yet… somehow, this is violated all of the time by people who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Let me make something clear. By definition, a militia is a citizen army; a military organization formed by local citizens to serve in times of emergencies, who are not a part of any regular armed forces to include the Army, the Air force, the Marines, the Navy, the Coast Guard or National Guard. This means that weapons, uniforms, training, equipment, etc., are not provided by either the state or the federal government. Instead, they are provided solely by the citizen seeking participation in the militia. This means Citizens must have access to military style arms, equipment, etc., to participate in the militia since these things are not provided by the state or the federal government and because these citizens are still tasked with protecting the state. Understand that the “militia” was not given the right to bear arms. Instead, it is “the right of the people to keep and carry arms” as clearly stated in the Amendment.

Make no mistake that the Second Amendment was meant to protect people from their government. To even bring up sporting purposes is clear misdirection and contortion. Understand that the idea that the military gets the monopoly on “carryable” military style weapons is asinine. The idea that government has the ability to restrict the people from obtaining such weapons is equally asinine. That’s like saying rape is illegal but that the rapist can somehow dictate the level or degree to which their victims can fight back during their rape.

It’s beyond ridiculous. As for Mr. Gomez… I’ll just say that I will sleep better at night knowing that he’s a FORMER FBI agent. Here is the video of the segment in question.

David Robertson

Written by 

David holds a Master’s of Science in Leadership. He also graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in both Strategic Leadership and Security Management. Additionally, he boasts certificates in Operational Leadership, Homeland Security and Active Shooter Scenarios as well additional training in similar disciplines.

Related posts

One thought on “Former FBI agent Manny Gomez Ruins Credibility on MSNBC

  1. Can I punch that asshat in the throat?! You’d think an Flabby Bomb Investigator would be a little more brighter than this!

Comments are closed.

More in Rantz & Opinion
Some Things Are Not Adding Up About the Stephen Paddock Narrative

UPDATES ARE AT THE BOTTOM Let me say that my heart goes out to the victims of this tragic event....

Close