McChrystal and guns
Yup, if you say things like assault weapons (whatever those are today) shouldn’t be in schools, I’ll agree with you every time. That’s why none of the guns I own have ever been in a school – because the law tells me that I can’t take guns (of any type) into schools. But, then, I’m a law abiding citizen.
This load from McChrystal is exactly that…a load. I’ve stayed quiet since the discussion about his book began, because I really did respect the job he did in the Middle East, but honestly, I think he’s a tool. Obviously, he didn’t like the job that the Obama Administration was doing in Afghanistan, but he kept his mouth shut after he was effectively fired for what others told a reporter. Soldiers in Afghanistan died while he kept his mouth shut. McCrystal had the horsepower and the capital to spend while soldiers were being shot while the administration disarmed in the face of the enemy.
And now, he wants to jump in behind the Obama Administration on gun control? Seriously? He let the Obama Administration disarm our troops on the battlefield, and now he wants to disarm the folks at home?
In this link, sent to us by FrostyCWO, McChrystal says;
“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”
Yeah, I spent a career carrying an M16, too. I like the feeling of it, it feels comfortable. Like I said, I don’t take mine around schools – I take it to the range, like I did during my career. While I agree that there’s no need, per se, there’s also no need for a Porsche or a Ferrari on the street. But there they are.
Yeah, this is more of McChrystal’s blind obedience to Obama, regardless of the consequences.
January 8th, 2013 at 6:45 pm
What a nut-hugging brown nosing moron. Guns are for battlefields, not for schools… thanks Captain Obviuos. Why do these idjits think gun rights advocates want to put an M4 every 3rd Grader’s Lunchbox? Go back to supply and draw a new set of balls, apparently yours are no longer servicable
January 8th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
I think Generals get a bit stupid when it comes to this stuff, from controlling day to day life as division/garrison commands. I think they just get used to telling everyone what, when, and how to do things. Only reason I can think that so many are turning out to be progressive democrats.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
For the majority of my less than stellar military career, I too carried an M-16A1. While in OCS, I saved enough money to purchase a Colt SP1 (AR15 to most folks). When I lived in the country, I killed various varments (skunks, foxes, coyotes, etc).
None of my evil black rifles are assault rifles. None of them have killed any humans. My Russia-capture Kar98 Mauser, on the other hand, may be assumed to have killed quite a number of people. Yet, the anti-rights folks would ban my semiautomatic rifles and over-look (for the time being) bolt-action military rifles that have certainly killed humans.
Its not the tool, its the operator. I don’t see how limiting my ability to own and shoot firearms of my choice may prevent the criminal actions of someone else.
By the way, McCrystal can kiss my straight-leg ass.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
It’s just Chatty Stan spouting the “elitist” line. FOAD. He’s become a disgrace.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Yeah… whatever. He’s entitled to his opinion. As such, his comments were brought up and discussed lightly elsewhere within this blog and some good sentiments were shared there on the subject.
Stanley McChrystal doesn’t influence me just because of who he is. He’s a private citizen of this country, and so am I. We don’t have the same views on the subject. He doesn’t carry any credence with me partly, IMO, because I question his ability to make sound and informed decisions. The Rolling Stone interview he gave was about as timely as the recent CNN interview, and the rationale he gives about gun control is questionable, too.
Like most of those who join this blog, I also carried a weapon of some sort while serving. Most of us grew up using them before serving in the military. Some of us are enthusiasts for firearms for historical purposes, others for design, and others just for sport. Still, I support having firearms for protection for defense – whether at home OR on the battlefield. I guess I’m radical that way, but so were the Founding Fathers, I suppose.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Could be someone is simply trying to drum up some publicity for his upcoming book? Nothing gets your face splashed across the MSM like spouting the party line.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
“Assault weapons are for battlefields”
“Assault weapons are weapons of war”
“The only thing assault weapons are good for is killing a lot of people quickly or indiscriminately.”
I hear variations of these lines quite frequently. Next time you hear it, ask: “If that’s true, then why the hell do police departments nationwide use them??”
PDs are not at war. PDs are not going to need to kill a lot of people quickly (right??). If this logic is to be credited, PDs have zero reason for having “assault weapons.” Yet, you can be goddamned sure any bill that seeks to ban them will have an exception for law enforcement. If Sen. Feinstein, President Obama, Gen. McChrystal, or anyone else who uses this argument believes it, they’d better ante the fuck up and ban police departments and federal government LE agencies from having these “weapons of war.” Lead by example and whatnot.
Any assault weapons ban that exempts law enforcement is a tacit admission that “assault weapons” have a valid self-defense purpose. If it’s good enough for PDs to carry among us for their own defense, it’s good enough for the rest of us. My life is not less valuable than a cop’s.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Frankly, McChrystal is more than a tool. He’s a landmine.
If people say they like and respect him, the libs say “Well, you must be for gun control”. Then if they say “No, I’m not anti-gun”, they’ll say “Oh, so you’ll just throw McChrystal, and anyone, away as soon as they don’t toe the party line”.
It’s an ugly little trap.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:47 pm
I planned to watch Hannity last night until McChrystal said on Hannity’s radio program yesterday afternoon that he voted for Obama. Jeeze! I turned the radio off at that point and did not watch the liberal retired four star on TV double-speak like most other politicians.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
@7 — I like your reasoning. If its good enough for the LEO’s then its good enough for a law abiding old phart like myself.
I don’t hunt, but I do fear an oppressive government
January 8th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
No surprise there. IMHO, very few senior officers understand the constitution as their chosen profession is exempt from it.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Dear Mr. McChrystal,
You have your opinion. My answer to you is “go forth and procreate with yourself.” I’ll let your filters decipher what I really said.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
I’m with USMCRet8. It’s McCrystal’s PERSONAL opinion. He’s not speaking for Veterans, active, NG, or Reserve military. Of course the libs will broadcast his viewpoint. And the fact that he did not keep his personal opinion to himself does signal that he is a willing useful idiot–in the eyes of the left. He’s entitled to associate with whomever he pleases. It would be nice, however, if he would think things through and articulate his rationale more thoroughly if he is going to opine in public.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
@13. Hell, I am not anonymous. I am 2/17 Air Cav–which is anonymous, sorta.
January 8th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Dammit, I did it again. Here, I’ll say it for you: “What a ma-roon!”
January 8th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Mister McCrystal is welcome to come over and personally try to take my guns. He must come alone and be unarmed. We will see how he reacts to an armed man upholding the constitution.
January 8th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Where have we heard this and similar line of crap before . . . .OH Yeah!! Colin Powell.
‘Nuff said.
January 8th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Okay, to prove you are indeed 2/17 Air Cav what was the serial number of your Huey.
January 8th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
…and no, I didn’t watch the interview to hear him speak. I already knew what he was going to say, and I refuse to watch anything associated with CNN because I also know it will be lopsided.
The fact he’s pushing a book and touting it on CNN comes as no surprise either. ‘Nuff said.
January 8th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Nik: the proper response to that feeble attempt at a trap by libidiots is this: “McCrystal? You mean that fool of an ex-General who got himself fired when tolerated his staff being openly disrespectful of the POTUS, then was stupid enough to let Rolling Stone tell the world about it? Why on earth would anyone listen to him? He’s got less common sense than a really dumb squirrel.”
January 8th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
@7 – I think as a matter of moral and intellectual consistency, before any gun bans are voted on, Congress should insist that everyone carrying any guns affected by the ban be removed from the capital building. I’m thinking they wouldn’t be as enthused about people being forced to disarm, if the people protecting them were included.
Likewise McChrystal – is there even a ghost of a chance that he lives his entire life without someone carrying an evil black gun nearby to discourage those who wish him ill?
January 8th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Wow…he obviously trust the Govenrment and his fellow man a lot more than I do
Me? 24 years in the US Army so far
January 8th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Stan went full retard on his way to becoming the next Wesly Clark
January 8th, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Stacy0311: not quite. He hasn’t posed in a leather jacket on the cover of “Advocate” mag yet.
January 8th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
“Yet” Hondo says.
Yes, I remember Wesley Clark, too – Kosovo/Bosnia and all that, and the whole Pristina Airport debacle where he tried to start WWIII with the Russians. Somehow, Clark and his conduct reminded me of General Jack D. Ripper from “Dr. Strangelove”, the guy who commanded the SAC base, and Peter Sellers was his XO. (You know the rest.) But I digress.
January 8th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
The whole gun-grabbing, anti-2nd Amendment campaign by the WH is a feint.
Sure the WH will push hard and its proxies (who have no legal power) will never give up. But Obama’s crew is dancing in the blood of children to accomplish three things:
1. Distract folks. We haven’t gone a month since 2008 without some national economic crisis. We’re already back to the fiscal cliff and sequestration talk. 3.3 million Americans are permanently out of work, and who knows how many illegals are not working, but drawing full welfare and benefits.
2. Make crazy, obscene amounts of cash through POTUS discretionary funds (and the all the pork in the latest budget deal). One thing consistent about Obama is his policy of government (himself) selecting winners and losers. From basketball picks to allegedly green corporations, Obama sucks at picking winners. It’s more like a con game – a company starts up, calls itself green and gets a big government loan/grant, close-to-immediately files bankruptcy and pays off its owners and investors, and DOJ refuses to investigate or prosecute. And like with Solyndra, Obama just ‘happens’ to be an investor.
3. Find leverage by trading the gun rights for additional funding, and to secure freedom from oversight by IGs, Congress, FOIA, and so on – cash that will find itself in the bank accounts of Obama, his friends, and those who will ensure his maintaining power in 2017.
January 8th, 2013 at 11:46 pm
DaveO: I think you’re exactly right–gun control is a throw-away issue for the Obama administration; they’re quite willing to trade it away for other political goals. However, the anti-gun nutters in Congress don’t feel that way. And since the administration isn’t just going to give up on gun control because it isn’t their highest priority, they will run as far as they can with it. If, in the end, all they succeed in doing this election cycle is raising taxes on some kinds of scary-sounding ammunition, then it’s both a victory for them and a defeat for us. If they don’t happen to meet serious political opposition, they’ll ban everything that isn’t a muzzle-loader. Hell, probably those too.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:48 am
Ask him the same question about the 30.06, the M1 Garland or the 1903-A3. I’d bet my lunch money his first response would be the same as a deer in the headlights.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:43 am
Well, I guess this puts to rest any question of his politics. No wonder he gave an interview to a Leftist rag in A-stan. He’s an Obama acolyte.
Shove it up your fourth point of contact, Stan.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:04 am
Wasn’t he the JSOC Commander during the Pat Tillman fiasco?
January 9th, 2013 at 4:32 am
I will say this. The only way they can feasibly ask that citizens give up these so called “assault weapons” in to make it illegal for any Law enforcement agency or Military Organizations in CONUS to carry them. Whats good for the people is good for the government, if citizens aren’t allowed to have a rifle or handgun that is semiautomatic and carries more than 10 rounds there shouldn’t be a reason for Police or National Guard Units to carry them.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:07 am
Hey, I carried an M-16 & an M-4 myself. The only way I can legally have one of those exactly like I carried (full auto) is to go through an extensive background check, pay a prohibitive tax and allow the ATF to visit my abode anytime they feel like it. While we are at it, doesn’t a general officer get to keep the pistol that is issued to him? I believe it is a Colt .380. Wonder if Stan is willing to give that up?
January 9th, 2013 at 8:10 am
He’s a life long democrat. Just because he puts on the uniform doesn’t change that. That he was bent over and taken dry by Obama doesn’t mean that he had an epiphany. He will continue to be a democrat and support democrat policies.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:20 am
That could actually be a fun thread topic to run with, stating something painfully obvious like that, I’ll go first.
ICBMs belong in underground silos, not playgrounds.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:23 am
DaveO: exactly. What was that quote from a couple of years ago, never let a crisis go to waste? I agree that the dems will use the whole gun control issue to distract America from the real crises, the complete loss of fiscal control and responsibilty by the federal government and the economy.
By the way, in Michigan a Concealed Pistol License holder can legally open carry in a school…
January 9th, 2013 at 8:43 am
And as someone else pointed out, a CCW permit holder in Utah can also carry in schools there.
Frankly, Gen. McChrystal has jumped the shark, but not before the MSM milks him dry for a few more talking points–kinda like what they’re doing with former Rep. Giffords and her husband.
Psst…Gabby…it’s your party’s policies who keep the lunatics out of the asylum and off their meds.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:58 am
@35, Utah is also teaching it’s teachers how to effectivly use guns.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:58 am
#37 was directed at Sparky not #35. I need coffee.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:02 am
Keep him away from the sauce. GEN Stan and his entourage took over an Irish pub in Paris…got shitfaced, sang songs, and talked crap about the civilian leadership. He only had his 4 stars for a year…he’s lucky BO decided to let him retire in grade. Oh yeah, Stan did alot of sucking up all right…”Mr. President, I voted for you” (This guy is a Ranger?).
January 9th, 2013 at 9:57 am
“An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating.”
As opposed to..? What? A .357 is designed to tickle? When a .30-06 hits a human body, the effects are…whimsical?
This is some of the silliest “analysis” I’ve ever seen. Guns are designed to make bullets go really fast and damage things, they all are. Pretending that the “scarier looking” guns are somehow more dangerous is absurd.
It was nice of the General to have one of his staff look up specs on the weapon for him though.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:14 am
Isn’t the muzzle speed velocity of a .30-06 around 3000 FPS? I guess that’s ok since it isn’t scary looking.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:16 am
Concur–as I said elsewhere, I’d rather not be shot at all, but if you’re going to set me 100 meters out from a M-4 as opposed to my father’s .308 and I take one shot from each, I know which one I’d rather be hit by.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:20 am
@40 my thoughts exactly. The easy way to keep finding speaking engagements is to mouth the words folks who pay for those engagements want to hear. Appear as an “expert” on a news interview, get a job speaking to a liberal event about gun control and become their “expert”…well played indeed.
Jonn, I never thought he was the right man for the job. I certainly respect his service and commitment to the nation. I just never thought he was a guy who was going to push for a large scale operation to dominate our enemy. Despite his good work at JSOC, he seemed far too willing to be politically correct for whomever was president for my taste. Many of you have mentioned that at some point officers become more politically oriented than militarily oriented. I think that happened with him some time ago as well. Fabrication of facts to avoid embarrassing truths never works out as planned. His recall and dismissal in my mind were the karmic justice for previous falsehoods.
He certainly has a right to continue to make a living how he sees fit, but sucking political tit to get by doesn’t always work out so well either.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:47 am
Remember kids, Ol’ Stan has a book debuting soon. This is all to generate buzz and encourage book sales.
As usual, I state the obvious.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:56 am
Fickle bunch.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:03 am
@#41. Twist, I’ve got some hand-loaded 30-06 in an ammo can that have a muzzle velocity of about 3295 fps. And, you’re right, my 06 isn’t “scary looking”.
Joey, what’s the definition of an “assault weapon”? Still waiting.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:07 am
Um, a gun that goes “Bang!” and shoots bullets?
January 9th, 2013 at 11:09 am
@45
Really? It’s so simple, Joe, even a caveman could do it.
New data, revise hypothesis or point of view. YMMV …
January 9th, 2013 at 11:22 am
So a single shot .22 squirrle rifle is an “assault weapon” in your eyes, Joe? Please seek help for your irrational fear issues.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:45 am
It’s always been my belief that a gun that is pointed at YOU is an ‘assault weapon.’
A .22 round kills a whole lot more people every year than the big scary .223. Only difference being is that it’s one person at a time, and not a whole bunch all at once.
January 9th, 2013 at 11:49 am
@45 there is nothing wrong with civilians disagreeing with each other Joe.
McChrystal can certainly voice his opinions, as you are also most welcome to do.
The fact that some here disagree with his current stance doesn’t lessen the respect for the man, it just means on this issue we believe he is taking the wrong position.
If we are being honest however, there have been blemishes on this man’s career long before he decided to become a political animal. Looking at those blemishes might be a predictor of what kind of political animal he might become, in that regard there is nothing fickle about not respecting the opinion of a man whose character when reporting the truth is suspect.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Ah, Joe, you finally got around to defining a turn-of-the-16th Century musket as an “assault rifle”….. your credibility (sadly) remains unchanged.
McChrystal, like any general officer in modern times, is a politician first, last, and always. I support 100% his right to his opinion. I also think he’s a flaming idiot, and do not find those two sentences incompatible.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
@52, He also seems to think that the first gun invented in 8th century China is an “assault rifle”.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Awwww, Joey–U mad, bro?
January 9th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
It’s been hit or miss for me on the blog lately, so someone may have asked this question already; Joe, do you own any guns or have any experience with them?
January 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
PintoNag, #55, if I was so inclined, I could find a comment Joe wrote once in which he explained that he supported the Second Amendment – of course, that was before this grand opportunity the Left has in deaths of 20 children to stand on their bodies in that way they do when they think they have a moral issue to flog.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Joe, is THIS an “assault weapon”?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=156398737841263&set=pb.149663161848154.-2207520000.1357752842&type=3&theater
January 9th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
If you can’t “stand on their (Sandy Hook children) bodies” to force meaningful change, what can we stand on? Talk about nihilism….
January 9th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
So you would happily stand on dead childrens memories just to push your agenda? You need to seek mental help ASAP.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
JP, Joe has already stated that anything that goes “bang” and fires a bullet is an assault weapon. So by his standard the top picture is an assault rifle.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
What meaningful change is being proposed?
There is nothing pending as law, and no one is suggesting collecting any weapons at this time. A ban would address weapons not yet manufactured and that are involved in 2% of deaths each year, once the definitions are legal those weapons will be cosmetically altered to comply with the new legislation as was done after the 1994 ban. Joe Biden even said in 2008 that if anyone tries to take his Beretta “there’s going to be a problem”….
Is there legislation pending to address the 40 people each day who are murdered? Through dealing with mental illness in an effect manner, or addressing the constant daily murders of young black males fighting over drug turf? Now that would be useful legislation that might have a meaningful change, but one has suggested addressing or reviewing legislation to fix those problems. Probably because the deaths of 35-40 mostly minority gang members each days is of little concern to society at large. Throw in a missing white girl, white woman, or a bunch of dead white upper middle class kids and suddenly there is an overwhelming need for meaningful change. Where has the outrage been for the other 40 victims killed every day? Where has the call for action been for them? What great liberal mind has created meaningful legislation to deal with gang related crime, or drug crime? The Dems had 4 years to pass any legislation they wanted, they didn’t give 2 sh1ts about the murder rate for the entire time, instead they focused on building a voter base through entitlements and trying to convince their own party they needed to add a health care plan that will finally bankrupt the nation.
Another law that will be circumvented within a few months, and only adds to the mass of laws currently on the book having zero effect does nothing useful other than to make some folks feel like they’ve done something….politically it’s suicide. The Clintonites were warned in 1994 that the AWB was a mistake, Clinton ignored them and the Dems were handed their 4sses in the mid-terms.
Sorry Joe, no traction with rhetoric….a new law designed to protect white folks in suburbia doesn’t seem much like meaningful change to me…seems like more of the same tired old bullsh1t.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
@56 I actually remember that comment from Joe. It’s hard to support something if you don’t know what it is. It’s my experience that people today are very reluctant to admit they don’t know about something. In the gun debate, everyone is an expert…but the number of experienced shooters in the conversation can fluctuate greatly, depending on who you’re talking to. It’s also been my experience that someone who has never handled a gun or been around them is afraid of them. Understandable…but fear of something doesn’t make you an expert on the subject. And not to be facitious or anything, but fear of DYING of something doesn’t make one an expert, either.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
It’s that time of the day again, just like the other day.
I have to post an obvious trend, which someone noticed a few posts ago.
Joey seems to launch into his illogical, uneducated and unsupported diatribes at certain times of the day – which leads me to suspect that the babysitter is asleep on the couch (when he’s supposed to be napping), and he’s found his way to the computer (which he isn’t supposed to be on), and somehow manages to troll on this site.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
It looks like King Obama is going to act without Congress – again:
“The president is going to act,” Biden said. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
January 9th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Well, the next couple of generations are doomed to suffer the scourge of gun violence no matter what we do. But maybe the kids in 75 years can read in their history books about the time before the 2nd was repealed, during the dark days after Sandy Hook, before everything but hunting riles were declared illegal. But to equate little kids’ lives with the cost of doing business is repulsive.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“The president is going to act,” Biden said. Yeehaw!
January 9th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Yeehaw…who cares about the Constitution or Separation of Powers, right Joe?
You’re a disgrace.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
The scourge we are suffering from is mental illness.
If the president circumvents the constitution by executive order in order to force his will on the people, he is breaking the law. He is supposed to work for US, not the other wasy around.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
“…way around.” Sorry.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Joe … thank God!
After hearing you blather on and on … I realize there is HOPE for this country … it will just take a little more doing (right) … rather than undoing (left = wrong)!
January 9th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
@65, Your blather makes a strong arguement for repeal of the 1st.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Twist: close. Published specs for standard loads for the .30-06 give muzzle velocities between about 2,500 and 2,900 FPS, depending on bullet type and weight. But virtually all .30-06 bullets are about 3x heavier (or more) than those of a .223, so it typically does WAY more damage.
So, our own “Comrade Joey, Glorious Socialist Hero of Rockclimbing” was for the 2nd Amendment before he was against it, eh? Figures. Now I just might be inclined to do a bit of looking . . . .
January 9th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Joe: you DO realize that you just admitted you’re using the deaths of innocents as a tool to further a political agenda, facts be damned, in comment 58 above, don’t you?
We all suspected the outrage was fake and being exhibited solely to promote an agenda. Thanks for confirming our suspicions.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
before everything but hunting riles were declared illegal.
Again, shit-for-brains, are you aware of the lethality of say, a .300 WinMag in the hands of a trained individual? It’d make an AR-15 look like a kid with a BB gun.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
I’m using the senseless deaths as a tool to prevent other senseless deaths. If you wanna call that “an agenda”, be my guest.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:12 pm
does general mcchrystal own a gun?
January 9th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
“I’m using the senseless deaths as a tool”
That says all I ever need to know about you.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Yeah, you guys and your buddies in the NRA always support the status quo, knowing how short the public’s memory is. If there’s a tragedy the party line is, “Don’t make decisions when emotions run high”. A few weeks or months later it’s, “Problem? what problem?”. Nice scheme you got there.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Oh bullshit Joe. We’ve shown you time and again how so-called “progressive” nations with strict gun control laws in fact have much HIGHER violent crime rates.
Guns don’t commit the crime. People do. And when you take away the people’s ability to defend themselves, you create MORE, not LESS crime.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Joe: that’s called “not rushing to judgement”. Lets emotions settle and leads to a more rational, better outcome.
By your logic, an immediate lynching would be preferred to a jury trial. Uh, no thanks.
Never thought I’d see a lib actually arguing in favor of lynchings. I guess if you live long enough you really can see anything. (smile)
January 9th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
When the same entity is guilty of killing 8,000 people a year, year after year, maybe that’s one rare case where a lynching, if that’s what you want to call it, is in order.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Some Americans will be Disarmed…
Despite the facts, some are arguing that long metal tubes embedded in plastic, ie. rifles, are evil. Senator Feinstein is arguing that we should ban and confiscate the tools of self-defense, though she owns and carries firearms herself, and works behin…
January 9th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Joe, if someone commits a murder with a gun and the sentence is to kill them with a gun, that is justice. If someone owns a gun and has never broken the law and they are declared criminal and persecuted and prosecuted and hounded for practicing a right enshrined in our constitution, that is tyranny.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Joe, I noticed that with al of your high-minded rhetoric in this thread, you’re avoiding the David Gregory thread like the plague. Surely, if you believe that high capacity magazines are the bane of civilization, you should be condemning Gregory for breaking an important law and the MPD for not arresting him.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Pinto,
Thank goodness the constitution can be amended.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Y’know Jonn, if a NYC prosecutor decided David Gregory was really worth prosecuting, then maybe David should accept his sentence like a man, knowing he broke the law for a damn good reason.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Yes, Joe…but the bill of RIGHTS? Do you think we know more about tyranny than the men who wrote that document? A time of nations when the Right of Kings was an accepted and practiced belief? When nobles could run peasants through with a blade to test its sharpness and there was no recourse? And a thousand other outrages! That document was written by men fresh from countries were the common man had only the rights that the nobles gave them, and that included the “right” to LIVE.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Yes, the Constitution can be amended, Joey. You only need 2/3 of each House of Congress to agree on the text a proposed amendment, then 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
Good luck with that. I don’t recommend holding your breath waiting.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Uh, Joey-boy: David Gregory committed his crime in DC – not NYC.
I know they’re both big Eastern cities, but they’re definitely not the same place. But perhaps that was beneath your notice as “Great Example of Heroic Socialist Rock-Climbing”.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Pinto,
Listen to yourself – kings, peasants, nobles. Do you sense a certain archaic natue to your arguments? Actually, it sounds a lot like today’s Taliban. But in the 21st century in the USA I don’t think those threats hold a candle to the chance of a family member being killed by a lunatic with a gun. But like I said, whatever happens, our generation and the next couple are doomed to live in this violent world created by an amendment that is 250 years old (I’ve heard it called the dead ruling the living), but maybe we can do something for future generations.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Hondo,
Guess I’m not enough of a TV addict to give a damn where that broadcast was coming from.
January 9th, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Porsches and ferraris don’t murder dozens of people in a matter of minutes. Sorry that giving small children the right to grow up infringes on your right to have a “cooler” gun.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“Yeah, you guys and your buddies in the NRA always support the status quo”
The NRA fought tooth and nail to ensure that African-Americans had the same 2nd Ammendment rights as white people. They fought against the status quo, but apparantly you didn’t know that judgeing by your rhetoric.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
@92, Apparantly Ryder moving trucks kill 168 people, including 19 children in a matter of seconds. Better make a move to ban those. Sorry that giving small children the right to grow up infringes on your right to have a moving truck.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:09 pm
My “cooler guns” don’t kill children either.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Joe: actually, what that proves is you’re (1) an ignorant fool who (2) doesn’t realize that fact, (3) is relatively clueless regarding events about which he professes an interest, and (4) doesn’t have the initiative or research skills to educate himself about said issues – even when one can do so in minutes today using publicly-available online tools.
In short, it proves you are indeed exactly what we thought: someone the Soviets would have called a “useful idiot”. We’ll omit the “useful” part in the interest of accuracy.
January 9th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Hey Joe; you’re right. Let’s get rid of that old piece of animal skin. It’s old, outdated, and doesn’t matter anymore. I think we should start with the 4th Amendment. It’s not needed, because if you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s no reason for you to object to law enforcement agents coming by and walking in your house and searching it whenever the mood hits them; right? I mean, that way, we can get rid of abortion, too, because the baby killers use the 4th for the “woman’s right”; correct? How about the Miranda statement? If we get rid of the 5th, then we don’t have to worry about being read our “rights”, because we won’t have that option anymore and it will cut down on paperwork and court cases, which will save money so that it can be given to welfare recipients, instead. It’s a win/win!!! I can play this game all day, Joe.
The truth is; you’re trying to be intellectual, but you don’t have the juice to back up your fantasy.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
The few questions I have for Joe are these:
Why weren’t you raising your voice about gun control prior to the shootings at Sandy Hook or Aurora, CO?
Do you have any guns and do you have any experience with them?
We already have an idea what answer you’re going to give to my first question, since you’ve shown your colors here already. I ask the second question because you never answered it when PintoNag asked it in #55.
January 9th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
@#58. Joey, I don’t think “nihilism” means what you think it does.
And, seriously, an “assault weapon” is any weapon that fires a bullet? You’re too funny. Well, actually, you’re just an ignorant, uninformed lefty who wants to be on the right end of the few guns left when government confiscates the rest of the guns. In 1944, you would have been called a Kapo, as you herded your fellow citizens into the box cars.
January 9th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Joe doesn’t care. He, by his own statement, has no problem ” using the senseless deaths as a tool”. Joseph Mengele would be so proud of him knowing that someone else thought that the death of innocents would support the greater good.
January 9th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Joe is a terrorist. He worships Osama and Obama, his twin gods of blood.