Gen. Stanley McChrystal voices support for "assault weapons" ban

[TMF]

[quote name="monkeylizard" post="879467" timestamp="1357706862"]Vontar, that chart is misleading if you're using it to discuss murder by guns, as it does not include handguns. .[/quote] Right, but the point of that chart is to illustrate how silly a ban would be on any type of rifle, since rifles are hardly ever used in murders, that's what they are using as the rallying cry here; evil black rifles, not some low capacity Phoenix .25 cal Saturday night special, although it is the low capacity Saturday night special that is most commonly used in all these gun deaths.

[Guest Gwith40]

Never trust a General. That rank is almost always a political position, much like a police chief. We have the same problem with many police chiefs running around pushing gun control, because they get federal funding for it. Unfortunately, there will always be guys like this...I would imagine he is probably angling for some political appointment. I don't see this guy as being too bright, but he may be quite cunning. And I find guys like this dangerous, because he would sell his soul and yours down the river.

[Will H]

I too find the General's remarks horrible, but the man is most assuredly not a traitor.

 

This country was founded, secured, and kept safe on the idea that freedom is more important than life.  This is why we have always sacrificed life in the name of freedom.  This is now changing in the liberal politician, media, and popular opinion.  People are beginning to believe that life is more important than freedom, and thus are now becoming more and more willing to sacrifice freedom in the name of life and security.  

 

It is unreasonable to think that just because someone is or was in the military they are immune to this effect.  It does not mean they are treasonous, just reacting emotionally.  I also believe that there is a big political motivation in this for the General, but he is not the only military member in favor of gun control.

[monkeylizard]

Right, but the point of that chart is to illustrate how silly a ban would be on any type of rifle, since rifles are hardly ever used in murders, that's what they are using as the rallying cry here; evil black rifles, not some low capacity Phoenix .25 cal Saturday night special, although it is the low capacity Saturday night special that is most commonly used in all these gun deaths.

 

I know, but Vontar was questioning how we get 32 gun deaths/day and used that chart as evidence that it's not true.

After doing some more research, my numbers above are flawed, and this is how you'd get to 32/day.

 

Numbers from 2007:

31,224 firearm-related deaths (Total)

17,352 suicides (55.6%)

12,632 homicides(40.5%)

 

12,632 / 365 = 34.6 per day. Given variations in the total deaths each year, whoever claimed 32 was just looking at a different year, but it's certainly not a crazy number.

 

Notice that's only homicides. Total gun deaths per day in 2007 were 31,224 / 365 = 85.5 per day.

 

That doesn't include non-fatal shootings, which were happening at a rate of about 207.35 per day in 2000 (52,447 intentional + 23,237 accidental = 75,684 / 365 = 207.35). I don't know how that has changed in the past 12 years, but I don't think it's drastic one way or another. We've tended to have a generally declining rate of gun violence, but not a steep decline.

[1pointofview]

Right, because being shot by a "civilian" round like .308 Win, .30-06, .270 Win, or .30-30 is like a kiss from grandma.

This

[Guest Cold Dead Hands]

If someone is thinking dirty thoughts about a child but they still haven't done anything in my mind, they are still a pedophile. So even though I served under the General in my mind he is a Traitor because he would go against the document he swore to protect. That's my opinion and the opinion of Millions of other men who take a more black and white, serious view of these matters. 

Edited January 9, 2013 by Cold Dead Hands

[Will H]

If someone is thinking dirty thoughts about a child but they still haven't done anything in my mind, they are still a pedophile. So even though I served under the General in my mind he is a Traitor because he would go against the document he swore to protect. That's my opinion and the opinion of Millions of other men who take a more black and white, serious view of these matters. 

 

Our opinions may be different, but that does not mean I do not take the situation as serious.

[Guest Cold Dead Hands]

Our opinions may be different, but that does not mean I do not take the situation as serious.

 

Good to hear.

[gregintenn]

Isn't Mchrystal hawking some book he's written right now? Smells like free publicity/advertising to me. Pitiful!

[Guest TNSovereignty]

I too find the General's remarks horrible, but the man is most assuredly not a traitor.

 

You know, we've REALLY got to get away from the idea that anyone who has an opinion is guilty of treason.  

 

With respect, I disagree.  

 

traitor |ˈtrātÉ™r|noun:  a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

 

I think my dictionary disagrees too.

 

Maybe we just have trouble with semantics; calling someone a traitor is harsh in our sensitized culture.  But for those of us who took the same oath as McChrystal, we see his comment as a betrayal of the principle he's sworn to uphold.  

 

Then there's this to consider - there is deliberate treason, and ignorant treason.  I think McChrystal falls into the latter category ... the guy is apparently clueless whenever a mic is put in front of his mouth.  But neither his constitutional illiteracy or his years of military service preclude him from being called a traitor to his oath.  

[TGO David]

Yeah, because I have a well documented history here of candy coating the way I feel about people, things or issues.

 

I still say it's preemptive to call the guy a traitor just because he has an opinion on something that runs sideways to what you or I think or believe.  Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, even if it's dissent that you don't agree with.  Until he starts trying to actively betray the American people, our interests, our sovereignty or dismantle the Constitution, he's guilty only of having some really fucked up ideas.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Yeah, because I have a well documented history here of candy coating the way I feel about people, things or issues.

 

I still say it's preemptive to call the guy a traitor just because he has an opinion on something that runs sideways to what you or I think or believe.  Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, even if it's dissent that you don't agree with.  Until he starts trying to actively betray the American people, our interests, our sovereignty or dismantle the Constitution, he's guilty only of having some really fucked up ideas.

Dissent has to do with differing opinions on issues that might be ambiguous ... no betrayal of principle involved.  We have differing opinions on many constitutional elements because it's challenging to tease out the fundamental intent of some of the language in the document.   Not so the 2nd Amendment ... it's terse, curt, direct, and unambiguous ... as clear as the English language can possibly be made.  Dissent can be a good thing when fought on behalf of liberty.  What should we call dissent when it's clearly on behalf of tyranny?  I opt for traitorous ... maybe he's a nice, ignorant guy, which would make him a nice, ignorant traitor.  A guy like McChrystal should know better, so that makes him a nice, ignorant, stooopid traitor.

 

See ... I don't sugar coat things either. ;)

[Guest bkelm18]

Dissent has to do with differing opinions on issues that might be ambiguous ... no betrayal of principle involved. We have differing opinions on many constitutional elements because it's challenging to tease out the fundamental intent of some of the language in the document. Not so the 2nd Amendment ... it's terse, curt, direct, and unambiguous ... as clear as the English language can possibly be made. Dissent can be a good thing when fought on behalf of liberty. What should we call dissent when it's clearly on behalf of tyranny? I opt for traitorous ... maybe he's a nice, ignorant guy, which would make him a nice, ignorant traitor. A guy like McChrystal should know better, so that makes him a nice, ignorant, stooopid traitor.

See ... I don't sugar coat things either. ;)

We start branding those as traitors who have differing opinions than us then we are no better than they are.

An opinion is not an act of betrayal. It is simply an opinion. Calling him a stupid traitor because he simply stated his opinion is… stupidly childish and goes against everything this country stands for. Thankfully, your opinion, like his, means little in the grand scheme of things. Edited January 9, 2013 by bkelm18

[K191145]

Yeah, because I have a well documented history here of candy coating the way I feel about people, things or issues.

 

I still say it's preemptive to call the guy a traitor just because he has an opinion on something that runs sideways to what you or I think or believe.  Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, even if it's dissent that you don't agree with.  Until he starts trying to actively betray the American people, our interests, our sovereignty or dismantle the Constitution, he's guilty only of having some really fucked up ideas.

Certainly he's not a traitor for expressing his opinion, but his opinion is in favor of comitting a treasonous act by the U.S. government.

[TGO David]

Certainly he's not a traitor for expressing his opinion, but his opinion is in favor of comitting a treasonous act by the U.S. government.

 

We've got to wrap our heads around the rules of engagement, folks.  Those who seek to do away or castrate the Second Amendment will argue that the Constitution is a living document, open to interpretation and subject to editing and revision via Amendments.  We're trying to fight this battle as though there is some magic fail-safe in place that will keep them from doing this when the sad fact of the matter is that, though written in the blood of patriots, as far as these leaches are concerned the Constitution is not written in indelible ink.  To them it's a matter of drafting new legal documents, sailing them through Congress and calling it a day's work.

 

If they succeed in doing that, legally they will have changed the fabric of the nation's cornerstone document and with the Second Amendment gone, it won't be so treasonous anymore when viewed through the frame of the newly modified Constitution.  See what I'm getting at?

 

 

 

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

 

 

If they legally change it... the Supreme Court won't hear of anyone being called up on charges of treason.  The charges will have to be framed in context of the law, and the law will be different.

 

 

Our fight is to keep them from changing the Constitution.  If we lose that fight, we're fucked.  Plain and simple.   We can sit around now and make claims against people for treasonous thoughts, treasonous desires and treasonous machinations, but if we lose this fight, all of that will amount to squat.   We need to be aware of what these cretin are doing, and we need to fight them every step of the way.  But calling them traitors to the country and expecting that to sell on the battlefield of mass media is public relations suicide.  The voting public will close their ears to it and write us all off as a bunch of right wing loons.

 

The complacency of the past few generations has screwed us into a disadvantage by allowing the Left to gain complete control of the media, to foster an "on the government tit" society of entitlement, and allowing the Liberals to write the rules of engagement.  Our fight is going to be a really difficult one but the sooner we start taking up the tactics being used against traditional, conservative values and fight fire with fire, the better off we will be.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

We start branding those as traitors who have differing opinions than us then we are no better than they are.

An opinion is not an act of betrayal. It is simply an opinion. Calling him a stupid traitor because he simply stated his opinion is… stupidly childish and goes against everything this country stands for. Thankfully, your opinion, like his, means little in the grand scheme of things.

If you're serious then this is a tragic response.

 

1.  All opinions are welcomed in the 'court of ideas', but all opinions are not valid.  Some opinions are treasonous ... 'treasonous is a good/valid English word to define an act when an individual violates an oath or principle.  So I'm not 'branding' anyone with anything; I'm just using a word that, for me, best articulates his act against the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.  I'm doubly sensitive because I took the same oath.  

2.  I actually thought calling Gen McChrystal "stupid" was a rather kind gesture on my part.  Would you rather I call him out as a cunning, deliberate traitor?  No, he's too good for that.  Ignorant of his own Constitution ... of that he is very guilty.  And when you swear an oath to some principles, and serve the better part of your life while putting your life in jeopardy, and NOT KNOW THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF WHAT YOU SWORE TO ... that, sir, is idiocy, and stupid, and tragic.

 

As a 27 year veteran I hold uniformed folks to a higher standard.   If your standards are different I give you your leave ... and your opinion. ;)

 

I'm onboard w/ TGO David's last response ... thanks for providing context.

[Guest Gwith40]

As many martial strategists have clearly demonstrated, it is wise to know your enemy. Patton read Rommels book. So, in a way this is a good thing. We know by the words of the general that he is clearly an enemy of the Constitution. If things go bad, it would be very wise to understand your enemy, how he/she operates and where they are. Having a handful of bodyguards might  protect a gun-grabber in NYC...not so much rolling down a street in TN. So it is easy to speak of confiscating weapons while sitting in the relative safety of lefty lala land. That might not always be the case.

I think we have a situation here wherein a lot of people are exploiting a tragedy and writing checks they cannot cash...from the top on down. They have no idea what they might unleash. Once it starts, there will be no quick or clear end. We are not talking about a conflict with clear delineations. We are talking about multiple conflicts going on at the same time. There will be no front line.

The Federal government made a mess out of Waco and showed a clear lack of ability to handle one situation. Could it handle 25, 50, or 100 events like that occuring at the same time? I don't think so. I don't think it is impossible to believe something like this could well destroy the Federal government.

These are the kinds of events that are ripe for coup d etats. From there, nobody knows what would happen, but likely a military dictatorship. And by the way, this is the normal process of events...from democracy to dictatorship. Yes, I know we are supposed to be a representative republic. We stopped being that long ago and moved closer to a democracy. The founding fathers knew that a democracy would be the worst form of government they could have chosen. Unfortunately, we are devoid of such wise men today.

[PC7]

Here is a real General's take on things....

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/hero-general-obama-following-castros-plan/

[Guest macmonkey]

^^^ scary stuff.

[Mechanic_X]

This is a pic from the early 70's showing the AR platform has been used for hunting almost since it came into civilian hands. This is from upstate NY where my Dad and my Uncle were woodchuck hunting. Dad also used a Ruger #1 22-250 for the really long ones.