Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

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".
Magazine is not responsible for fire rate..
/end thread
Absolutely true.
ROF is determined by the design of the action, not the capacity of the magazine.


Of course that's not entirely true. ROF is dependent on many things. And all else being equal a man with a 50 round magazine is going to fire 50 rounds faster than a man with a ten 5 round magazines.
 
All of the amendments are murky.
The clearest and most approrpriate means of evaluating a restrictionon the 2nd is to apply the jusripridence from the 1st, specifically the concept of prior restraint and that rights may be limited only when they (wrongly) cause harm to others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
No, not all amendments are murky. People may try to make all amendments murky but only the 2nd manages that on its own.
I mean , my argument is we don't need to have a reason to own guns. Meanwhile gun haters are demanding that we give valid reasons for wanting to and gun owners are desperately trying to justify said ownership.
Yes. The best response to this is always that there is no requiremt to show them, or anyone else, that you have a need to exercise your rights.

If the whole phrase about the militia wasn't included and the 2nd simply read
"The American people have a right to own single person weapons platforms and said right can NOT be taken away unless" then list those reasons
and what would these gun grabbers have to argue about?
Understand that the anit-gun side has to make stuff up in order to have a position opposite ours. In the end, that fact means we will win.

The ironic part is the fathers themselves understood that they're work wasn't perfect and would need some work as time progressed, that is why they included a process for doing so. Truly the amendment process was the most brilliant thing they did.
Truly.
 
Magazine is not responsible for fire rate..
/end thread
Absolutely true.
ROF is determined by the design of the action, not the capacity of the magazine.
Of course that's not entirely true. ROF is dependent on many things. And all else being equal a man with a 50 round magazine is going to fire 50 rounds faster than a man with a ten 5 round magazines.
Yes... but the gun itself will consistently fire those 5 rounds in 10% of the time of those 50 rounds -- and so the ROF for both is the same.
 
Absolutely true.
ROF is determined by the design of the action, not the capacity of the magazine.
Of course that's not entirely true. ROF is dependent on many things. And all else being equal a man with a 50 round magazine is going to fire 50 rounds faster than a man with a ten 5 round magazines.
Yes... but the gun itself will consistently fire those 5 rounds in 10% of the time of those 50 rounds -- and so the ROF for both is the same.

Not in real time and real life, which is where you are not living at the moment. Grow up.
 
You are an oink yourself, DD.

What will happen is this: nothing until some so terrible happens that the American people rise up and storm the Congress demanding action.

You can demand action all you want.. and you can punish the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.... you cannot take away non-military grade weaponry (hand held firearms) from the law abiding populace And you indeed know NOTHING about what weapons do
You are revealing your foolishness with your last sentence. I believe in the population owning shotguns, rifles, revolvers, and pistols. I do not believe any of us in our civilian capacity have a right to own military grade weapons.
 
Magazine is not responsible for fire rate..
/end thread
Absolutely true.
ROF is determined by the design of the action, not the capacity of the magazine.


Of course that's not entirely true. ROF is dependent on many things. And all else being equal a man with a 50 round magazine is going to fire 50 rounds faster than a man with a ten 5 round magazines.

Which is not the rate of fire of the weapon, but the skill of the shooter.. What next?? Saying a magazine that jams reduces the ROF even if it does not do it for you??

Nice try though
 
You are an oink yourself, DD.

What will happen is this: nothing until some so terrible happens that the American people rise up and storm the Congress demanding action.

You can demand action all you want.. and you can punish the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.... you cannot take away non-military grade weaponry (hand held firearms) from the law abiding populace And you indeed know NOTHING about what weapons do
You are revealing your foolishness with your last sentence. I believe in the population owning shotguns, rifles, revolvers, and pistols. I do not believe any of us in our civilian capacity have a right to own military grade weapons.


An AR is not a military grade weapon.. as stated for about the 10000th time
 
You can demand action all you want.. and you can punish the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.... you cannot take away non-military grade weaponry (hand held firearms) from the law abiding populace And you indeed know NOTHING about what weapons do
You are revealing your foolishness with your last sentence. I believe in the population owning shotguns, rifles, revolvers, and pistols. I do not believe any of us in our civilian capacity have a right to own military grade weapons.

An AR is not a military grade weapon.. as stated for about the 10000th time

But it can be modified to deliver an incredibly high ROF. I could get my M-16, on automatic selection, to pop off a 3-round tap. I remember how fast I could fire two magazines butt-ends taped. SCOTUS can easily rule that such weapons can be used only with 10-round magazines.

SCOTUS can easily defend under Heller 1(F) room for regulating such weapons and magazines.
 
Last edited:
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.

If you don't believe there are people out there converting their civilian version AR15s to full auto you are wrong.

That being said, I disagree with the General - sort of.

I believe Americans should have the right to own any firearm they want. I also believe the right to own should be fully divorced from "carry" and localities should have EVERY right to ban a person from having such weapons on their person; such localities would include churches, schools, court houses, or any other place where guns would be considered a danger, or in the case of private property , where the owner simply doesn't want them around.

I own an M16. Its' an older fully automatic weapon. Honestly , it's fun to shoot but a completely impractical and unreliable weapon, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is I have a right to own it, I don't have a right to carry it through the streets of my local city though.

Obviously in transit laws would apply when traveling to and fro with these types of weapons in ones vehicle.

And they would be breaking the law.

Private property owners are fully within thier rights to ban weapons on the premeses. Controlled areas are OK to, such as courts, since they provide the security when you enter thier area. For places like schools, if you want to declare one a "gun free zone" you should really have to provide armed security and a perimeter.

The NRA vehemently disagrees that property owners have the right to ban weapons being brought on their own property.
 
Q: What is the purpose of a rifle with a bolt action?
A: To shoot game and defend your house if necessary.

Q: How many rounds do you really need?
A: If you need more than 7, you deserve to die.

Q: What is the purpose (as stated by a military General) for 30 round magazines?
A: To lay down covering fire.

Q: What is covering fire?
A: Laying as many rounds down range towards your enemy to keep them from firing back.

Q: Why lay down covering fire?
A: To kill as many of your enemys as possible, hence the need for large round magazines.
 
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.

Actaully as a civilian you can most certainly purchase an M-16 or an M-4. As a matter of fact you can purchase an M-60, an M-2 or any other selective fire or fully automatic weapon if you have the proper federal licenses and can pass the background checks. You can also purchase mortars and recoiless rifles for that matter. I own, legally, two automatic weapons.
 
Q: What is the purpose of a rifle with a bolt action?
A: To shoot game and defend your house if necessary.
A: The Bolt Action was designed because earlier rifles didn't have adequate strength to handle the more powerful cartridges. They are most successfully used for hunting, target shooting and for sniping. They are for the most part more accurate than non-bolt action rifles. Their purpose, like the purpose of ALL firearms is to put steel on target consistently and usually at long ranges.

Q: How many rounds do you really need?
A: If you need more than 7, you deserve to die.
A. As many as you can hump over long distances. Soldiers and cops, and ANYONE who has ever been in a firefight would laugh at your "more than 7 and you deserve to die" bs

Q: What is the purpose (as stated by a military General) for 30 round magazines?
A: To lay down covering fire.
A. To hold 30 rds making time between reloads longer.

Q: What is covering fire?
A: Laying as many rounds down range towards your enemy to keep them from firing back.
A. It's actually called "Suppressive fire" and like it's name states, it's meant to suppress the enemy, as part of your unit moves.

Q: Why lay down covering fire?
A: To kill as many of your enemys as possible, hence the need for large round magazines.
A. it is intended to protect an individual or formation making a movement by forcing the enemy to take cover. Nothing about killing as many enemy as possible, that would be "aimed fire". Suppressive fire is rounds fired in the vicinity of an enemy formation/line/position to keep their aim off and their heads down while a unit or part of a unit withdraws from or assualts towards the area targeted by suppressive fire.
.
 
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).
OH WOW what a shocker PMSNBC has a guest on that says he supports banning guns. What a fucking shocker.:doubt:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top