Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

[Skull Pilot]

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".

So tell me do you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

There's no EO He can issue on this issue that will stand up in court.

 

[kwc57]

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.

We the people have a constitution that protects us from government nutters like you.

 

[kwc57]

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".

So tell me do you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

 

[Bfgrn]

The NRA vehemently disagrees that property owners have the right to ban weapons being brought on their own property.

False.
The NRA does not in any way oppose me telling you that you many not be on my property while you have a gun.

Really? Tell that to former Tennessee Republican State Representative Debra Maggart, who had an NRA A rating. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

Defend Maggart - Debra Responds

Debra Maggart: Over the past few months, a national second amendment rights group, an organization of which I am a lifetime member, has begun a negative campaign against me in the name of the Second Amendment and my opponent.

This attack against me is based on false information in an effort to bully your elected officials and trample your other Constitutional rights.

During this past General Assembly, a bill came before us related to individuals being able to store their gun in their car. I have a 100% voting record on the Second Amendment and support this idea. There were several problems with this bill and we reached out to this group to try to work the kinks out.

My main concern was that this bill as introduced would have mandated what individuals, not just businesses, must do or allow with their property. I hear complaints every day about Federal Government mandates, yet one was almost forced on you by the state if this group would have gotten their way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Op-ed was not written by a leftist 'gun grabber'. Richard Painter served George W. Bush as Associate Counsel to the President in the White House Counsel's office, serving as the chief ethics lawyer for the President.

The N.R.A. Protection Racket

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The (NRA's) message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”


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)

 

[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".

So tell me do you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

3% of the population, kwc57, is not going to tell the rest of us common sense folks what to do. You do not have the right to endanger the rest of us.

To defend yourself you don't need more than a shot gun, or a rifle with a 10-shot clip, or a pistol or a revolver.

You are wacks on the ultra right and libertarian sides: no reasoning with you.

 

[Misty]

All this talk about banning assault weapons is pointless since there is NO CLEAR DEFINITION of what an assault rifle actually is, so Chrystal must be one dumb general or he is just spouting talking points.

 

[Misty]

So tell me do you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

3% of the population, kwc57, is not going to tell the rest of us common sense folks what to do. You do not have the right to endanger the rest of us.

To defend yourself you don't need more than a shot gun, or a rifle with a 10-shot clip, or a pistol or a revolver.

You are wacks on the ultra right and libertarian sides: no reasoning with you.

It's you who are the mindless drones. What is an assault gun?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone is shouting, while the real point still remains undecided: how Congress and SCOTUS interpret Heller on this issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

3% of the population, kwc57, is not going to tell the rest of us common sense folks what to do. You do not have the right to endanger the rest of us.

To defend yourself you don't need more than a shot gun, or a rifle with a 10-shot clip, or a pistol or a revolver.

You are wacks on the ultra right and libertarian sides: no reasoning with you.

It's you who are the mindless drones. What is an assault gun?

Misty, that is you you are seeing in the mirror. The common sense folks of America will not tolerate your deluded sense of self or your misreading of the Constitution.

 

[Synthaholic]

Jake has his own, totally incorect understanding of SCOTUS Decisions

Frank, you are entitled to your opinion. However, if the American people say "eliminate this type of weapon and that type of magazine" in great numbers, Congress will walk right over the NRA.

You misspelled "Constitution".

You wingnuts always want to ignore the "well regulated" part.


Dumbass.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

No, this is in the hands of 30,000,000 armed citizens, a great percentage of whom will tell both congress and the court to kiss their asses if either tries to take their firearms from them. Which is the EXACT reason the founders added the 2nd amendment, to tell a govt that is overstepping it's bounds to piss the hell off. As for Scalia and Roberts, screw them too if they decide to trample on our rights, because Armalite, Colt and Kalashnikov ARE our friends.

 

[kwc57]

So tell me do you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

3% of the population, kwc57, is not going to tell the rest of us common sense folks what to do. You do not have the right to endanger the rest of us.

To defend yourself you don't need more than a shot gun, or a rifle with a 10-shot clip, or a pistol or a revolver.

You are wacks on the ultra right and libertarian sides: no reasoning with you.

3% of the population isn't telling anyone what to do dumbass. The constitution guarantees the right to arm yourself. It didn't dally in which weapon. You're going to have a lot of difficulty trying to skirt around the constitution as even the more level headed liberals are against the attempt to usurp the constitution. If you want ot amend it, knock yourself out trying. You'll need 2/3rds of the house and senate and 2/3rds of the states to agree. Easy peasy. Until you do that, all you are accomplishing is flapping your gums and making a fool of yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He doesn't really care. He's happy with whatever his nanny state says is good for him. He's a good little sheeple.

3% of the population, kwc57, is not going to tell the rest of us common sense folks what to do. You do not have the right to endanger the rest of us.

To defend yourself you don't need more than a shot gun, or a rifle with a 10-shot clip, or a pistol or a revolver.

You are wacks on the ultra right and libertarian sides: no reasoning with you.

3% of the population isn't telling anyone what to do dumbass. The constitution guarantees the right to arm yourself. It didn't dally in which weapon. You're going to have a lot of difficulty trying to skirt around the constitution as even the more level headed liberals are against the attempt to usurp the constitution. If you want ot amend it, knock yourself out trying. You'll need 2/3rds of the house and senate and 2/3rds of the states to agree. Easy peasy. Until you do that, all you are accomplishing is flapping your gums and making a fool of yourself.

SCOTUS will tell you what Heller 1(F) means, not you wackadoodles telling Congress and SCOTUS.

Your hot air means nothing.

 

[kwc57]

Frank, you are entitled to your opinion. However, if the American people say "eliminate this type of weapon and that type of magazine" in great numbers, Congress will walk right over the NRA.

You misspelled "Constitution".

You wingnuts always want to ignore the "well regulated" part.


Dumbass.

You wingnuts never understand what you're talking about.

Dumbass.

Regulating the Militia - National Review Online

 

[bayoubill]

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).

show me any high-ranking military officer, past or present...

and, 90% of the time, I will show you a person who has his head so far up his ass his neck is permanently stained brown...


eta: this asshole needs to be visited by the ghosts of the Framers in his fevered dreams...

 

[Synthaholic]

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).

show me any high-ranking military officer, past or present...

and, 90% of the time, I will show you a person who has his head so far up his ass his neck is permanently stained brown...


eta: this asshole needs to be visited by the ghosts of the Framers in his fevered dreams...

Why does a post like this get a pass, where if you had made a post about REMFs people would be on your ass?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

No, this is in the hands of 30,000,000 armed citizens, a great percentage of whom will tell both congress and the court to kiss their asses if either tries to take their firearms from them. Which is the EXACT reason the founders added the 2nd amendment, to tell a govt that is overstepping it's bounds to piss the hell off. As for Scalia and Roberts, screw them too if they decide to trample on our rights, because Armalite, Colt and Kalashnikov ARE our friends.

A "friend" of yours is Kalashnikov? Really? Well, since the GOP views Russians or people who are friends with Russians to be communist sympathizers, when did you change your views and become a commie pinko?

 

[JakeStarkey]

30mm Americans are not going to rise up, not 3 thousand even. If such happens, such will be a police matter, and those who resist will undoubtedly be shot to death. Heavens help any other persons in those numbskulls' vicinity.

What will really happen is. HSA and the state BoIs are building lists of the several thousands in the several states who are risks to the community. The appropriate tactics will be taken to arrest them separately away from their homes.

There will no mass unrest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You misspelled "Constitution".

You wingnuts always want to ignore the "well regulated" part.


Dumbass.

You wingnuts never understand what you're talking about.

Dumbass.

Regulating the Militia - National Review Online

the term means having the ability to put down "insurrections". Read the Constitution, please.