Above, the latest national ad from Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Senior, flag rank, retired military officials weighing-in in favor of gun reform. This is part of the answer to the anti-reform side trying to claim that they are the tough-guy side; that they are the manly side in this debate. Who would you pick in a fight?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: US failure to maintain infrastructure betrays national legacy
Video: Foolhardy budget cuts cripple government operations
Video: Canada, home of many nice things
Video: Social conservative extremists fill Virginia GOP slate
Video: Rare confirmation of Obama pick prompts Supreme Court talk
Video: Crack smoking video claim dogs Toronto mayor
Video: A genuine Maddow show
Leave a Comment:
In any fight, when one side is armed and the other side is unarmed, guess who is going to win.
It depends what they are armed with. Intelligence and common sense outflanks bravado and buffoonery any day.
Of course, Alva, that wasn't the question - Way to miss the point.
Here in America, fortunately, we use words (And hopefully facts) to decide who's right.
Even if only one side is armed.
Words can only be used to settle disputes so long as civil order remains intact. How sure are you that will continue with Republicans playing chicken with our nation's finances?
The Pentagon regularly runs a series of hypothetical scenarios, in order to plan for the worst. We have plans of what to do in case China attacks, or if this or that city is attacked with a biological weapon, if you can think of what might happen, there's a file somewhere in the Defense Department about what is to done.
Question: if civil order broke down, and the US government ceased to exist, even if it was on a temporary basis in a particular location, for instance say New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, then what would you do?
What would anyone do? In a nation where conservatives are armed to the teeth and progressives are disarmed, what do you think would happen?
Enough contolled media, enough contoled hollywood, money, banks , Church the preach the Scolfield bible, dumbing down our kid , using actors to stage a mass killing, 2nd amendment was written so Americans have a right to defend themselve is a currupt Goverment turns on it people. Amercians buy Rocket Launches , grenades and all the guns u can get. Time to get rid of these Devil worshiper.
A bravado presentation of word salad incoherence in the finest tradition of Sistah Sarah.
wow, I do love to watch TrueChristians spew lies like this, but what can you expect from idiots who think "Left Behind" was true and going to happen just for them. Poor thing, he's been waiting for his god to come back for so long, he's now desperate for *anything* to show his little version of Christianity to be right.
Hilarious title, thank you so much. Added to that is the fact that Scott Walker in my state is definitely not macho. He rejected the Medicare expansion and people I know including me are suffering. In WI you cannot get health care as an (older, my kids grew up) adult. Period. No health care for me. I earn $9 an hour which is the new min wage and work nights hence I'm up. Haven't seen anything about the downwaging of the customer service jobs. That really needs attention since I was told since the Reagan admin that we would be a service industry.
I say go into a fight with the guy that actually fights for your rights as an american. Not the retired political hack.
Please get Benen to whip up one of those awesome 3d pie charts showing how many boots on the ground agree with the General.
Or go with the guy who actually fights as opposed to the draft dodger who $hit himself and played insane to get out of military service.
Your crowd has some peculiar heroes and standard bearers. He is someone you look up to?
Inspector aligns himself with chickenhawks? What a surprise.
I align my self with those who uphold the constitution of the United States of America. The General does not fit the criteria. He is as uninformed about firearms as many on the left are. In his interview on morning Joe he actually said that we don't need military weapons on the streets. If he had any knowledge at all about the subject he would know that military weapons are already illegal to own. If ,as I suspect he does know then he is lying to further an agenda.
Why thank you Inspector you are in fact a true patriot . I was totally mistaken in assuming that an assault weapon with a 30 or 100 round clip was military grade armament. Only for personal defense and hunting as the NRA has told me . Those pesky wabbits and cwazy ducks
wow "inspector" how hilarious. Sorry, the Constitution doesn't say people can have anythign they want and do anything they want to another American. Ted Nugent, and similar twits like Limbaugh, Beck, etc don't uphold it either since he conveniently forgets that the Constitution allows for the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. He's just one more wannabee who thinks that only his religion should be followed and only his opinion should be heard. One cannot pick and choose from the Constitution as one chooses fruit.
The military weapons that the general is talking about are those that are only meant for battle and killing lots of people quickly. Automatic weapons are this and came from the military. (hmmm, now who doesn't know much about the history of weapons?) Now we have poor people like you who think they need automatic weapons, high volume clips becuase you think that will make you safer because golly, you are just so important and those awful brown people are just hungering for your blood. Real soldiers can indeed be idiots like you but more are not. I am guessing that you never served even though you could have. It was just too *inconvenient* for you to actually defend the Constitution that you bastardize. You want to play soldier but you don't want the responsiblity that real soldiers must deal with. You are a coward just like Ted Nugent and the rest. It's a shame that people like my husband, brother and father did do their duty and you benefited from it.
That is not what the General was talking about in the interview, He actually was talking about the M-4 and the .223 round. The .223 round was first developed for bolt action rifles for varmint hunting. It was adapted for the military because of it,s light weight. The M-4 is a fully automatic weapon that is NOT on the market for legal sale in the U.S.
I align my self with those who uphold the constitution of the United States of America. The General does not fit the criteria.
He took an oath, just as I took an oath, to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and doesn't need to be patronized about what that means.
He is as uninformed about firearms as many on the left are.
He was in the UNITED STATES ARMY. Maybe you don't know this, but one of the things they teach you in the Army is how to use firearms.
If he had any knowledge at all about the subject he would know that military weapons are already illegal to own.
If matters on your definition of "military weapons". If you're talking an operational M-252 81mm mortar or an AT4 with a HEAT round, then sure.
But you can purchase a civilian variant of the AR-15, the basis for the M-16/M-4. While the civilian AR-15 lacks the selective fire capability of the military version, it can still use the magazines of the M-16, including the 100-round C-Mag, which is currently available to civilians.
And why would any civilian need that much firepower?
Velkyn
Your President did not serve in the military. He did not even sign up for selective service until 1 year after he was supposed to. So don't give me any crap about serving in the military. I signed up the day I turned 18. In 1980 there wasn't any war. As for your lack of knowledge about firearms, Let me inform you. Automatic weapons aren't legal to own by citizens of the U.S. Furthermore I don't personally own any semi-automatic "asault" weapons and Brown people as put it don't scare me. My home protection is a German Shepherd and a .357 revolver .
Well inspector clueless, I take it you have never heard of a Class 3 firearms license. Depending on where you live determines whether or not you can collect or sell fully automatic firearms.
Expect less12
Must be tough to go through life in constant fear ...the scared little boy in you is showing through.
2man
The general was talking about military grade weapons. They are illegal to own. As for the .223 round ? It was first used in bolt action hunting rifles. When the military moves on to the next great bullit then it will still be used in hunting rifles.
BTW don't use only the part of my replies that you can twist to further your agenda. If you have a problem with the whole sentence then by all means discuss it. You know full well what the point of my post was and you only had a problem if you twist it a little. WOW, you should go to work for MSNBC as a commentator
The General is now retired and doesn't have to live by the oath anymore.
Marty
Don't be an ass. Class 3 federal firearms dealers aren't "the general public"
I didn't "twist" anything, I took your comments, word for word, and replied to them. You're the one using the expression "military grade weapons" that the general never used.
Do you seriously think that General McChrystal believes that there are selective fire weapons on America's streets?
And you never forget the oath that you take, even when you leave the military.
If anybody questions who Sick and Effin Tired is referring to, it's none other than the big mouth traitor Ted Nugent. I found it interesting that when Nugent submitted to an interview with MSNBC after the State of the Union speech, he said and I quote, "I literally sh-t in my pants to get out of this interview", familiar approach for phony patriot Ted apparently. Unfortunately, Luke Russert wasn't informed or quick enough to call Nugent on it. It is always informative to see how gun nuts spokesmen are often chicken hawks like Nugent, LaPierre (nervous condition to avoid Vietnam) and let's not forget Limbaugh who got out of Vietnam also (some sort of backside condition).
hmmm, the choice between a man who took on responsiblity and one who is a wannabee, who didn't have the nerve to actually serve his country or the ability to actually take responsiblity?
That does seem to be often a thread that binds a lot of conservative types together, all pro-gun and pro-military but when it comes down to it, they couldn't be bothered to serve or to support the actual soldiers. They live in a complete fantasy world, where they delude themselves into thinking that they are heroes but where they have to sacrifice nothing.
Seems by the logic posted by people here that we have a President chickenhawk.
This is a silly question to ask. Who is more macho? I think a better question to ask is who is more nutty. Ted Nugent is a nutcase. He makes every responsible gun owner in the country look like a nutcase as well.
But what is worse? Being a nutcase, or being a disingenuous liar? McChrystal said:
So, if McChrystal believes that a weapon like a M-16 or a M-4 carbine shouldn't be on the streets of America, then one ought to ask, are they on the streets of America?
The answer to that is no, they are not. The AR-15 is the civilian variant of the M-16, and it will not function as the military version functions. Civilian AR-15's are not capable of selective fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
But what of the incredibly deadly .223 round? After all, the effect of a .223 round when it hits the human body is, in McChrystal's words, "devastating".
So, the question is, just how deadly is a .223 round, say compared to other rifle calibers? Let's take a look.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/calibers.jpg
The .223 round is only a hair bigger than the 22LR, which is the smallest and least powerful handgun round that is commonly produced. The .223 is one of the smallest and least powerful rifle rounds that are commonly produced.
In fact, when the military chose to switch to the .223 round after World War 2 it was a controversial decision, as many believed that the round would not be powerful enough to protect soldiers in a theater of war. The military decided that this was a risk worth taking because the round was small enough so that it would allow soldiers to carry more rounds because of their small size.
Agreed, The whole gun control crowd is disingenuous. Nothing that I've read or heard form the liberals on this will do anything but make them "feel" good. Nothing proposed to date will take firearms from crack heads and looneys. MSNBC and the rest never want to talk to or about responsible gun owners because that doesn't fit the agenda. They would be lost if it wasn't for Ted Nugent being a nut case. BTW As far as anyone knows, Ted Nugent has never killed anybody.
"So, the question is, just how deadly is a .223 round, say compared to other rifle calibers? Let's take a look."
The 5.56/.223 projectile is designed to "upset" or "tumble" when it impacts human flesh, what this does is create a wound track that is 2" to 5" wide and 6" to 12" deep. If you had ever seen any ballistic gel tests of this round you would know that it is devastating.
Mark, getting shot with any round is devastating. But what would you rather be shot with? A .223 round or a 50BMG?
Of course you are right, every citizen should be armed with a Barrett or a Ma Deuce.
Why didn't I think of that?
Mark, or how about we have a simple test for what should be regulated and what shouldn't. If a particular weapon is effective for an individual to protect him or herself against other individuals, then it is not appropriate to bar the sale or ownership of that weapon.