HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Retired Gen. Stanley McCh...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:05 PM

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls for 'serious' gun control measures, says military-style guns..

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Daily News

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal called for “serious” gun control measures on Tuesday, saying the weapons used by his troops in Afghanistan don’t belong on the streets of America.

McChrystal said the M4 Carbine he often carried in the military held a .223 caliber round capable of doing “devastating” damage to a human body.

“It’s designed to do that, and that’s what our soldiers ought to carry,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday morning. “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

McChrystal suggested that dramatic changes to gun control laws are needed to protect Americans.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/retired-general-calls-serious-gun-control-measures-article-1.1235595

64 replies, 5178 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls for 'serious' gun control measures, says military-style guns.. (Original post)
Playinghardball Jan 2013 OP
Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #1
derby378 Jan 2013 #5
SoapBox Jan 2013 #2
LonePirate Jan 2013 #15
derby378 Jan 2013 #3
riverbendviewgal Jan 2013 #4
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #9
alfredo Jan 2013 #25
Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #31
alfredo Jan 2013 #35
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #27
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #38
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #39
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #54
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #56
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #60
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #61
lexx21 Jan 2013 #44
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #48
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #55
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #57
lexx21 Jan 2013 #64
CBHagman Jan 2013 #14
derby378 Jan 2013 #16
Historic NY Jan 2013 #23
derby378 Jan 2013 #37
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #29
frylock Jan 2013 #18
derby378 Jan 2013 #20
grantcart Jan 2013 #51
derby378 Jan 2013 #53
grantcart Jan 2013 #58
derby378 Jan 2013 #59
Jumping John Jan 2013 #6
maxsolomon Jan 2013 #34
TheOther95Percent Jan 2013 #7
ellie Jan 2013 #8
valerief Jan 2013 #10
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #13
JI7 Jan 2013 #21
valerief Jan 2013 #46
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #11
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #12
frylock Jan 2013 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #33
frylock Jan 2013 #41
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #43
Nihil Jan 2013 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #49
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #30
frylock Jan 2013 #50
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #17
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2013 #22
JI7 Jan 2013 #24
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #26
Paladin Jan 2013 #32
JI7 Jan 2013 #36
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #63
NCarolinawoman Jan 2013 #62
tclambert Jan 2013 #28
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #45
ileus Jan 2013 #40
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #42
madokie Jan 2013 #52

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:09 PM

1. Look out, here they come...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:11 PM

5. Walkin' down the street...

Get the funniest looks from everyone you meet...

Hey, in my line of work, if you don't have a sense of humor, you'll go nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:10 PM

2. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...Action!

Cue the PukeBagger/NRA Attack Machine!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:10 PM

15. But they need these weapons to hunt heavily armed deer, ducks, pheasants and varmints.

</sarcasm>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:10 PM

3. "On the streets" and "around the schools," I'd agree...

...but in the private hands of peaceable, law-abiding citizens? That's something different entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:11 PM

4. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:18 PM

9. Bullshit!

Peaceable, law-abiding citizens don't own or touch such things. They are the antithesis of "peaceable, law-abiding citizens". They are selfish, stupid and irresponsible fools who care more about their "cool" killing toys than they do about anyone else, including their own children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:33 PM

25. A Bushmaster, a Pit Bull, and a Ram Pickup will not make up for a small dick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:51 PM

31. See, this is where I start seeing where the libertarian pukes are coming from. You go from sensible

gun regs to breed specific legislation to pickup trucks? Call me a country boy but taking away my dog and my pickup truck seems to go a bit too far. If you can't keep the regulation limited, then I feel I need to fight against your ability to regulate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:31 PM

35. Dogs and Pickup trucks are fine with me, just don't use them to fill a void in your life.

BTW, I was raised on a farm. I ate food I grew, caught, killed, cleaned, and cooked. Bluegill cooked on a hot rock is as good as it gets.
My favorite ride is a Ford 8N.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:47 PM

27. Sticks and stones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:22 PM

38. Sticks and stones what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:30 PM

39. Name calling.

"Peaceable, law-abiding citizens don't own or touch such things."

Obvious insinuation: people who do are not 'peaceable, law abiding'.

(Also assumes facts not in evidence.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:44 PM

54. Maybe you'd care to explain how a peaceable person would own an AR-15

It's like calling a Hummer owner an environmentalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:07 PM

56. Hardly.

Entirely broken analogy. The resources used to construct a hummer, versus a more economical vehicle are massive. More steel, more copper, etc. So from the outset, that hummer has led to more mining, more drilling, more smelting, more aerosols, more industrial waste, etc, than my 52mpg vehicle. Just in production effort. I don't even have to cross the letter of your statement and DRIVE it, rather than simply own it, to have caused significant environmental destruction over the production effort for my actual vehicle.

Both production and operational costs in both money, and in CO2 output, and more, are incomparable.


Compare to my AR-15, in the context of peace/violence.

When it was produced, 3 rounds were fired through it, at a paper target to verify function. Called Proof Rounds. It was cleaned, and went into a cardboard box. My father purchased it. It remained in the cardboard box. He died. I inherited it. I removed it from the cardboard box, and placed it in a safe. There it has remained.

At no point has that device, from the day it was produced, caused or participated in any violence whatsoever.

I am not a violent person. I live by the non-aggression principle. I spend considerable effort (about 4 hours yesterday on planning deployment of emergency supplies to about 20,000 people) on CPR training, first aid, disaster planning, all manner of measures to protect human life. I even spent some time yesterday arguing in favor of registration and some other gun control measures that I believe would directly address some of the violence that is force multiplied by the possession of firearms with and without artificial class designation like 'assault weapons' in the hands of violent people.

But possessing that rifle does not make me a violent person. Has not caused any violence. Has not been utilized in the commission of any violence.

I could not consistently claim the same about environmentalism, if I owned the arbitrary vehicle you selected. Owning my actual, high-efficiency vehicle might not be proof of environmentalist concerns either, if I planned to drive it from here to New York for a pizza and back, for no particular reason. I COULD use that high efficiency more-environmentally-friendly-than-a-hummer vehicle to do not very environmentally friendly things. I COULD use that AR-15 to do very violent acts. I do not. I choose not to. I desire a clean, sustainable habitat in which to live, and I desire peaceful, amicable relations with the rest of society.

That makes it internally consistent that I claim to be both an environmentalist, to use your example, AND a peaceable person, even though I commit the offense (in your eyes) of possessing an AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:55 PM

60. Thanks for the explanation. I think you are an exception.

And there are always exceptions. If you inherited it, though, as a peaceable guy, why did you decide to keep it? From your description of yourself and your life, it seems an odd thing to keep. This type of weapon is the antithesis of peaceable.
As you say yourself, you COULD use that AR-15 to do very violent acts. The fact that you choose not to is laudable, and I sincerely hope that you never suffer an emotional or psychological breakdown that could prompt you to commit such acts. I find that many gun owners demonstrate a certain smugness, in that they are so law abiding and stable that they are immune to mental illness or emotional breakdowns, along with the erroneous belief that keeping guns in safes renders them theft proof.
My intent is not to accuse you, or any individual of "an offense", but to urge folk like yourself to rethink their motives for owning these weapons. OTOH, I would prefer you keep it than sell it to someone who may be more prone to use it. In your situation, I confess I would be tempted to keep it. After all one never knows what the future will bring. I'm glad I don't have to make that choice.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:37 PM

61. I have never sold a firearm for that precise reason.

In my hands, I know it is safe. In the hands of another, I cannot be so sure. Quite apart from NICS's go-no-go evaluations, I don't think I'd be comfortable selling a firearm to most people, because I do not wish to be an accomplice, even unwitting, to some criminal act. Certainly not to some random person I don't really know. I would feel some measure of responsibility if it was misused. Same reason I keep the AR.

Why do I keep the AR, even though I haven't fired it? I don't know that I have a singular good answer to that. It has some sentimental value. It has quite a lot of intrinsic value, being a pre-ban AR, actually. So, into a smelter, so to speak, isn't an option I would readily choose. I do own some very similar firearms that I do use, such as a mini-14. It looks totally mild and un-scary to most people, with it's wood furniture, and standard capacity mags. It is functionally identical to the AR, but it weighs more and is longer. So to a degree, I don't consider the AR that threatening either, because its appearance isn't what is dangerous about it. Almost all firearms are dangerous in capable, but mischievous hands. People who aren't very familiar with these firearms tend to under-estimate that, I think. On the subject of gun control, measures crafted to ban that AR based on some criteria like rate of fire or capacity, would cast a net a lot wider than most people seem to think.

What will I do when my faculties fade? Excellent question. Alzheimer's runs in my family. I will probably do what my father did, and pass them on to my son (Not biological! Dodged a bullet there, kiddo! ), and other family members. If there are no suitable recipients (say, my son has some issue when he grows up, that isn't evident now, like Adam Lanza), then perhaps I will visit a smelter. On that score, I think you are right, I am unusual/an exception. Under the right circumstances I would use a cutting torch on them myself, if I could not guarantee safe storage. Just like I invest in safe storage, and even liability insurance. Not everyone does. I wish more did. That's the sort of responsible gun ownership I try to encourage in people. It doesn't much matter to me if they have an AR or a M4, or an old 1889 Savage .303, what matters to me is their attitude and capacity for good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:53 PM

44. I'm sorry to say this Starboard, but you are QUITE WRONG....

I used to own an SKS which uses the same ammo as an ak-47. I also owned a Ruger single action 44mag. Both weapons were used ONLY for target shooting, especially the SKS because the only thing cheaper to shoot was a .22cal. When I wasn't doing target practice they were unloaded, had trigger locks, and the ammo was locked in an ammo case with a pad lock.

To say that anyone who owns a gun is not "peaceable" and "law-abiding" is showing absolute ignorance. I happen to be a very good shot, enjoy shooting, and am absolutely law-abiding.

I sold my weapons when my youngest daughter was about 4 years old because she had ADHD and as a consequence exhibited very bad impulse control. Because you own a gun you don't care about your children? That is laughable.

You may not like guns, but don't get your gander up and start bashing those who ARE peaceable and law-abiding by making broad stroke comments. As far as I am concerned, making statements like that in such broad terms is just as bad as making racial or sexist comments because you are taking a group of people and lumping them together with absolutes.

Instead of calling for a complete ban, think about enacting psychiatric programs that will get psychopaths on medication. Believe it or not, a nut job will still be a nut job even if disarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexx21 (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:41 AM

48. Well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexx21 (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:53 PM

55. I have no problem with gun ownership.

This thread is about M4 carbines. I include AR-15s in the same category. I am also a good shot and love target shooting. The problem is not psychopaths. That's a cop-out. The problem is proliferation of these kinds of weapons and the consequent easy access to them by anybody. I'm sure they are cool and fun to shoot, but every person who buys one puts another ridiculously lethal weapon in circulation.
The notion that only law abiding citizens have access is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:11 PM

57. Who said "only law abiding citizens have access"

I disagree with that 'notion' as well. That's the way it SHOULD be. Sure. I'm with you there. Let's work for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:17 AM

64. When I purchased my SKS

it was $200 and sold at Roses. An AR-15 started at about $2000 at the time. Which would have been easier for a criminal to get?

The SKS was a precursor to the AK. Does that make me a non-law abiding citizen for having owned it? Does it make me care less for my children? As I said, you made very broad blanket statements about a group of people.

Blaming psychopaths is NOT a cop out. Not realizing that we need to start having people evaluated IS a cop out. It would cost money to do that, which would come out of the tax payers pocket. Then again, I would be willing to pay a bit extra in taxes to ensure that more school kids are not slaughtered, or husbands don't beat their wives, etc..

My only beef with you is that you lumped everyone who may own a military style weapon into the psychopathic criminal group.

Do I think that anyone should be able to own them? No, not without some serious checking into their mental state. Do I think that they should be completely banned? No. As stated earlier, we need far better mental health evaluations (sometimes mandatory) in this country before the legal purchase of certain items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:07 PM

14. The Newtown massacre, in which...

....26 people were shot in 10 minutes, some of them struck as many as 11 times, was carried out with a gun purchased legally by a private citizen.

But the gun owner, shot in her own home by her own son, was actually the first person to die, before the massacre on school grounds. What purpose did those weapons serve but as an instrument to accomplish her own murder, and that of more than two dozen other people, as well as her son's suicide?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/national/35929348_1_christmas-trees-first-victim-funeral-services

Much remains unknown about Adam Lanza and his mother. But everyone here knows that Nancy, 52, was the legally registered owner of the powerful .223-caliber, military-style Bushmaster rifle that was used in the nation’s second-deadliest mass shooting. And they have heard that federal investigators have determined that mother and son visited numerous shooting ranges together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:18 PM

16. That's one big reason I support the concept of a civilian armory

You want to own guns, but you have an issue with storing them at home? You store them at the armory, which is staffed by law enforcement. You pay a modest fee for storage, and if you need to withdraw the weapon, an NICS check is performed, and if you clear it, you're good to go.

This would have kept Nancy Lanza and everyone at Sandy Hook alive. I wish more people would consider this idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:19 PM

23. How Swiss of you...

but they recently had one guy go downrange in Daillon too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:10 PM

37. And a policeman in South Korea went on a killing spree a couple of decades ago

In a police-supervised armory, Adam Lanza never would have had access to those guns. The conversation at the front desk might go like this:

"Can I help you, son?"
"Uh, yeah, I need to pick up my mom's guns. There should, like, be a rifle and a pistol, so..."
"We'll need your mother to come down and sign them out personally."
"Uh, well, she's in the hospital. She's real sick."
"Do you have a notarized power of attorney form we can examine?"
"Geez...uh. well...no, uh, but I'm her heir."
"Let me bring my supervisor to the desk; she should be able to help you."
"Uh, that's alright, uh, I can come back, I need to pick up some bandages for her. Yeah, that's it..."
"Sir, it will only take a few minutes - Sir?"

And that's when it's time to review the video feed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:47 PM

29. I read an article early on that quoted a couple of people who knew her state that she was in fear

for her safety. They claimed the fear was of the doomsday prepper, social chaos variety. IMHO this should be part of the debate, as should the untreated mental illness. If I remember correctly, she purchased a weapon after she divorced, but had escalated her purchases to bigger, higher round guns recently. I have to question the propogated paranoia and its effect on gun debate. I am quite suprised at the number of intelligent white-collar types buying into it. Granted, it is marketing 101. Create a need, fufill the need. service the need. NRA & manufacturers handle the first 2, servicing being done by the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:36 PM

18. they're always law-abiding citizens until they aren't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:01 PM

20. In which case, they shouldn't be allowed to vote, either

Fortunately, we don't have a Department of Pre-Crime - yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:08 PM

51. lol right.


Everyone is law-abiding at the time that they get the gun.

Its when they start spraying it 100 rounds a minute that laws get broken.

Exactly why does any law abiding citizen need to be able to spray 100 bullets out in a 60 second time frame anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:49 PM

53. "Everyone?"

Adam Lanza had already broken the law when he obtained his weapons. Wanna try that one again?

Dogma's gonna sink you everytime...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:16 PM

58. Citing anecdotal evidence to combat a larger principal is a classic example of


a fundamental fallacy in reasoning and a weak argument.

The point is that you make it seem simple to distinguish on what a law abiding citizen is because everyone who doesn't use it illegally shouldn't be able to have one. Its an absurdity because up until the point that you pull the trigger you are a law abiding citizen (atleast in regards to firing high capacity weapons). There is no legiitmate safety or hunting reason to having a high capacity weapon, only to get a thrill from playing with a tool of great lethality or using it for illegal purposes.

You are clearly the dogmatic one and it is clear by the obvious perversion of the Second Ammendment, (clearly written with a militia in mind) into a religiously dogmatic support of personal use of fire arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:53 PM

59. Just as BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION torn down PLESSY V. FERGUSON...

...so did DC v. Miller tear down the long-running political fancy that the Second Amendment only pertained to something like the National Guard. I'm just waiting from some of my fellow Democrats to catch up to the next evolution so we can move on towards real reforms that can unify Americans instead of divide them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:12 PM

6. Self serving liar and coward McCrystal? Cheney's assassinator death squad leader McCrystal?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jumping John (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:24 PM

34. Ad Hominem?

Yep, that one. Broken clock, twice/day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:18 PM

8. Uh oh.

He's in for a world of shit now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:29 PM

10. What does a military general know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:37 PM

13. He knows that the described killing of Pat Tillman does not match the facts.

 

He knows that he and others participated in the cover-up of the Pat Tillman killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:08 PM

21. he also supported Gays in the military even when making homophobic comments

he was wrong to make anti gay comments but doesn't mean his support for gays in the military was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:20 AM

46. His job is killing (or seeing that other kill). That's what WAR is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:29 PM

11. But it's ok for them to be in the streets of Afghanistan? Gotcha, Stanley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:35 PM

12. The General who had a role in the cover-up of the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident wants to

 

further restrict the private ownership of firearms in the United States?

If Diane Feinstein chooses to own a firearm for self-defense, why shouldn't others?

Does Stanley McChrystal no longer own a firearm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:39 PM

19. what kind of firearm does diane feinstein own?

does she own a military-style modern sporting rifle with 30 rd mag?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:19 PM

33. She's not required to disclose that.

 

Are the two terms that you used mutually exclusive?

How can someone own a "sporting rifle" and also have a rifle that is a "military style" rifle?

Doesn't the military own military style rifles?

Don't sporters own sporting-style rifles?

Don't politicians say one thing and do another? Don't politicians give themselves certain privileges which they would deny to others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:36 PM

41. how much wood could a woodchuck chuck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:53 PM

43. You apparently posted this in the wrong section. It obviously belongs in the juvenile section.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:39 AM

47. Maybe he's already trashed the RKBA group and so had to post it here instead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:15 AM

49. Could be. That would make sense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:48 PM

30. Because law abiding "gun enthusiasts" threatended her life like they did Rosie O Donnell

 

That's their sick logic for everyone from celebrities to children, make everyone have to buy a gun or buy gun protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:30 AM

50. the gun humpers will never understand that or care..

why does an elected official that has received death threats get an armed detail derp! I wants mer gerns!!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:19 PM

17. Must be easy for generals.

 

They sit in airconditioned foxholes and call in drone strikes.

Generals are the 1% of the military-industrial complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:16 PM

22. Oh come on McChrystal

How's every washed up fatass who's not in shape to join the military going to have fun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:21 PM

24. the Case of Pat Tillman actually shows why everyone having guns wont protect you

even in the military where you have trained people you have soldiers who get killed because of "friendly fire".

in civilian life random people like that guy who shot off his gun by accident and hit his life in the leg will protect us ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:44 PM

26. Wes Clarke "People who like assault weapons should join the Army"

 

People who like assault weapons should join the Army
I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.
Source: Interview on CNN Crossfire Jun 25, 2003

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Gun_Control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:53 PM

32. A DU Gun Enthusiast Compared Wes Clarke To Heinrich Himmler For That Statement.


It was years ago, but some things you don't forget....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:33 PM

36. this is why i don't believe some of these people are Democrats

or vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:00 PM

63. The Republican House and Republican Xtreme court are their last hopes

 

Watch them as they defend them and sing their praises. Watch as they challenge fellow DU'ers if they have the balls to enforce the laws. Watch as they cheer on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:53 PM

62. I remember that as well. Along with his wanting to tax the very wealthiest by

44%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:47 PM

28. I thought the Second Amendment guaranteed us the right to own nuclear weapons.

But my local gunshop owner refused to sell me any. Can I sue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:54 PM

45. For a solution to your problem, see #26.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:34 PM

40. I wish they'd make up their minds....one mans poodle shooter is another "devastating" rifle round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:39 PM

42. That's gutsy of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:18 PM

52. I agree with him

You want to play with war machines then join the military, they always could use a few good men/women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread