Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

[daveman]

"Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages."

So until it's defined how you can ban it?

For purposes of THIS discussion, assault weapon has already been defined.


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


now certainly we can debate if those definitions are correct, but we can't debate whether the term has been defined or not. It's right there in black and white.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daveman]

No one has been able convincingly to dispute "Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." Not even half convincingly.

That's because you don't want to be convinced, you closed-minded buffoon.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Thread killa!

 

[daveman]

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.

Which of these is a military-grade weapon?

Answer: Neither.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has been able convincingly to dispute "Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." Not even half convincingly.

That's because you don't want to be convinced, you closed-minded buffoon.

Personal attack without any evidence that Heller does not open the door for for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." To deny that means the denier is either malignantly motivated or a fool. daveman is both.

 

[daveman]

Are we suppose to care what McCrystal says?

Bfgrn thinks that since he's unable to disagree with his side's leaders, the right is similarly incapable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Thread killa!

Nope, answered in #85 above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Which of these is a military-grade weapon?

Answer: Neither.

Answered in #85.

 

[daveman]

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

Cons have that now, with most Americans working two jobs in order to keep the rich in Dressage Ponies...

The Following User Says Thank You to JoeB131 For This Useful Post:
JakeStarkey (Today)

As usual, Fakey steps up to support his fellow far-leftist.

 

[daveman]

No one has been able convincingly to dispute "Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." Not even half convincingly.

That's because you don't want to be convinced, you closed-minded buffoon.

Personal attack without any evidence that Heller does not open the door for for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." To deny that means the denier is either malignantly motivated or a fool. daveman is both.

Your opinions are not fact, kid. You continually make that mistake.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can anyone who does not, tell me -why- they do not have Jake on ignore?
Really, there are few people on this board who should be taken less seriously.

 

[daveman]

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.

Which of these is a military-grade weapon?

Answer: Neither.

Answered in #85.

No, it wasn't. Which of those weapons is military grade? Answer the question, and don't repeat your nonsense about Heller.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, #85 answers all foolish ultra right and libertarian comments on this issue.

This is in the hands of Congress and SCOTUS now, not the angry ultra right and libertarian folks.

Better memorize Heller en toto, folks, for it will be the precedent (not Lewis or Miller) on the limits of Congressional authority to limit and regulate certain types of weapons and technology.

Neither Justice Roberts nor Judge Scalia are your friends.

 

[kwc57]

Jake has his own, totally incorect understanding of SCOTUS Decisions

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake has his own, totally incorect understanding of SCOTUS Decisions

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

Thank heavens I am free of libertarian looniness.

The fact is, folks, this: Congress and SCOTUS will deal with this as they please, Roberts and Scalia are not the gun nuts friends on the court, and the great majority of America believes certain types of guns must be regulated.

All your whining is for nothing, podjos.

 

[daveman]

Jake has his own, totally incorect understanding of SCOTUS Decisions

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

Thank heavens I am free of libertarian looniness.

The fact is, folks, this: Congress and SCOTUS will deal with this as they please, Roberts and Scalia are not the gun nuts friends on the court, and the great majority of America believes certain types of guns must be regulated.

All your whining is for nothing, podjos.

All hail Government, from Whom all blessings flow.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Jake has his own, totally incorect understanding of SCOTUS Decisions

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

Thank heavens I am free of libertarian looniness.

The fact is, folks, this: Congress and SCOTUS will deal with this as they please, Roberts and Scalia are not the gun nuts friends on the court, and the great majority of America believes certain types of guns must be regulated.

All your whining is for nothing, podjos.

We shall see since the WH is considering an executive order and skirting the rule of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

Thank heavens I am free of libertarian looniness.

The fact is, folks, this: Congress and SCOTUS will deal with this as they please, Roberts and Scalia are not the gun nuts friends on the court, and the great majority of America believes certain types of guns must be regulated.

All your whining is for nothing, podjos.

All hail Government, from Whom all blessings flow.

We the People have instituted governments to protect the public from nuts like you, daveman.

 

[daveman]

Come on, give the guy some credit. He has his own reality. In his reality, he honestly believes himself to be a conservative while constantly criticizing conservatism and praising liberalism. It isn't easy to reach the level he has attained in his mind.

Thank heavens I am free of libertarian looniness.

The fact is, folks, this: Congress and SCOTUS will deal with this as they please, Roberts and Scalia are not the gun nuts friends on the court, and the great majority of America believes certain types of guns must be regulated.

All your whining is for nothing, podjos.

We shall see since the WH is considering an executive order and skirting the rule of law.

Fakey will praise The One's wisdom for such a holy act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That I doubt, LBT, but we will see.