Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

[Bfgrn]

I caught McChrystal on Morning Joe this morning. I hope some people who oppose any gun sense in this country will consider the words of a soldier.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN2_DlvamBE]Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action' - YouTube[/ame]

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal backed banning assault weapons on Tuesday, saying guns like the M4 and M16 belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets.

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

He added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Read more: Stanley McChrystal backs gun restrictions - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government"
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[martybegan]

I caught McChrystal on Morning Joe this morning. I hope some people who oppose any gun sense in this country will consider the words of a soldier.

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action' - YouTube

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal backed banning assault weapons on Tuesday, saying guns like the M4 and M16 belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets.

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

He added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Read more: Stanley McChrystal backs gun restrictions - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government"
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

You cannot get an M4 or an M16 as a civillian...........

The guns in question can just look like the military arms. They are semi automatic, non-selective fire rifles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progs can't wait to start working 16 hours days in a field or factory with armed men standing guard.

 

[DiamondDave]

Another idiot progressive who does not understand what they are referencing

 

[GoneBezerk]

Typical liberals.....support someone now that they trashed earlier once he says something they agree on.

 

[RDD_1210]

Typical liberals.....support someone now that they trashed earlier once he says something they agree on.

Welcome to the world of not thinking in lock-step. It's foreign to you, I know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

Nah.

I don't think so.

But best of luck trying

 

[hazlnut]

I caught McChrystal on Morning Joe this morning. I hope some people who oppose any gun sense in this country will consider the words of a soldier.

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action' - YouTube

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal backed banning assault weapons on Tuesday, saying guns like the M4 and M16 belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets.

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

He added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Read more: Stanley McChrystal backs gun restrictions - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government"
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Cue nutters and preppers throwing hero under bus in 4....3.....2.....1....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Heller 1(F) is the open door for banning such weapons. Let's see if it is used.

 

[GoneBezerk]

No shithead.....you can't condemn him for comments made in the military, but then put him in a suit today and parade him out front as some model.

You're just typical hypocrites with no standards. You will use anyone to promote your agenda even after you demonized them for months.

You're too stupid to understand this concept.

Typical liberals.....support someone now that they trashed earlier once he says something they agree on.

Welcome to the world of not thinking in lock-step. It's foreign to you, I know.

 

[Truthmatters]

another disgruntled employee of the right

 

[martybegan]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

The answer is: No. You dont have to own them if you dont want to.

Also, the answer is: Then try to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Until then, go pound sand.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It is amazing and pathetic you believe your opinion matters.

another disgruntled employee of the right

 

[Katzndogz]

Is there some reason why we should take the advice of someone who admittedly voted for obama? His judgment is already in question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

The answer is: No. You dont have to own them if you dont want to.

Also, the answer is: Then try to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Until then, go pound sand.

Not either or, marty, and certainly not getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Heller 1(F) will override Lewis and Miller. Congress has the authority to eliminate certain weapons.

 

[clevergirl]

So a career commander of the military has an opinion that certain guns only belong in the hands of soldiers? That's what a well regulated militia consists of...right? The fact of the matter is that citizen soldiers (aka everyday Americans) have the right to own and bear arms. This right was granted to them to "protect" them from government tyranny.

 

[martybegan]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

The answer is: No. You dont have to own them if you dont want to.

Also, the answer is: Then try to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Until then, go pound sand.

Not either or, marty, and certainly not getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Heller 1(F) will override Lewis and Miller. Congress has the authority to eliminate certain weapons.

Heller was directed at the STATES, not the federal government. and the overriding conclusion is that states cannot outright ban weapons that are seen as common to use by civillians. A semi auto rifle is not a crew serviced weapon, it is an "arm" and thus protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So a career commander of the military has an opinion that certain guns only belong in the hands of soldiers? That's what a well regulated militia consists of...right? The fact of the matter is that citizen soldiers (aka everyday Americans) have the right to own and bear arms. This right was granted to them to "protect" them from government tyranny.

Not according to Heller 1(F)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The answer is: No. You dont have to own them if you dont want to.

Also, the answer is: Then try to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Until then, go pound sand.

Not either or, marty, and certainly not getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Heller 1(F) will override Lewis and Miller. Congress has the authority to eliminate certain weapons.

Heller was directed at the STATES, not the federal government. and the overriding conclusion is that states cannot outright ban weapons that are seen as common to use by civillians. A semi auto rifle is not a crew serviced weapon, it is an "arm" and thus protected by the 2nd amendment.

That opinion can easily be interpreted to be binding on the federal government as well. Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities.