Stan McChrystal: We need some serious gun-control laws

posted at 2:01 pm on January 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

Surprised? Don’t be. It’s an open secret that McChrystal’s a liberal, to the point where he allegedly banned Fox News from TVs in his headquarters in Afghanistan. He’s kept a low profile since he retired but between this and his criticism of O’s dependency on drone strikes, I guarantee that some liberals will start murmuring about him as a Plan B in 2016 in case Hillary decides not to run. Their bench is thin and there’s a real chance that the GOP nominee, be it Rubio or Jeb Bush, will have formidable star power. If you’re a progressive, who would you rather counter with — Andrew Cuomo or the mastermind of U.S. Special Ops in Iraq, whose stellar military service would defang charges of weakness no matter how bleeding-heart his domestic policies proved to be? You’ll know whether he’s thinking about it depending upon how he does or doesn’t capitalize on his remarks here over the next few weeks. Having the guy who liquidated Zarqawi out in front of the cameras wringing his hands about AR-15s would be a nice asset to Democrats during their coming gun-grab push. There’d be a lot of grateful liberals afterward, some of them with fat checkbooks. He’d have to really, really hate politics not to take the opportunity.

Then again, sounds like President Above The Fray is, as usual, inclined to let Congress take the lead on gun control. (The White House will at least pay lip service to the “national conversation” meme by inviting the NRA to a meeting.) Who’d blame McChrystal for not wanting to bet his political capital on Obama’s perseverance?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Since they gave up the war on drugs,
why on earth would a war on guns work ?

Hey- Maybe we can have an office in Homeland security called Gun Control office- and maybe even have a Gun Control Czar.

That’s the ticket- right Stanley ?

FlaMurph on January 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Remember your Oath of Office, General? Probably not. Your boss doesn’t either.

Joe Mama on January 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Stanley needs a “serious” backhand. With a tennis racket.

CurtZHP on January 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’ve seen some pretty vile comments about McChrystal after this interview. Come on Hot Air commenters, don’t disappoint! Let’s see you guys say what a wuss he is.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

wasn’t this the same idiot that had those crappy roi for our troops in afghanstan. now he wants to come here and disarm us?

i don’t think so.

renalin on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Stan McChrystal needs to FOAD. The 2nd Amendment is about as serious a gun law as we need.

Shall not be infringed.

Posted by doriangrey1 on October 15, 2009

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Perhaps we should instead be taking a damned serious look at the oath McChrystal swore, but clear has not upheld when he put on the Uniform of the United States Military. You know which oath… To defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

A domestic enemy would be anyone, including McChrystal or Barky McBarkbark the incredible dog eater, who intentionally and with a willful forethought of malice attempts to violate, subvert or otherwise overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You may be dismissed, herr General.

bernzright777 on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

So we have a General that doesn’t want to uphold the Constitution he SWORE to protect………

off with his head

JihadKiller1s1k on January 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

“Vile”? What post? thats KOS and Huffpo.

bernzright777 on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

So the moonbats are no longer accusing him of murdering Pat Tillman?

sentinelrules on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Umm.. why are Jeb Bush and “star power” in the same sentence?

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Since they gave up the war on drugs,
why on earth would a war on guns work ?

FlaMurph on January 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Because, like socialism, it just hasn’t been tried properly or by the right people.

ghostwalker1 on January 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Serious discussions about the Second Amendment start with enumeration of the rights of Americans and not the need to ban guns. And if certain weapons are to be out of circulation by the public, then it needs to make sense. More people are killed by hammers than by guns. Where’s the call for hammer control?

Bottom line. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and it isn’t about giving government and morons like McChrystal the ability to pick what is and isn’t part of the right to bear arms. And unlike how Pelosi words it- Gun violence protection- banning guns is decidedly UnConstitutional. Somebody ought to remind the General of that before the next time he opens his yap and makes a fool of himself.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM

And we let our soldiers be led by this wanker?

Archivarix on January 8, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I’ve seen some pretty vile comments about McChrystal after this interview. Come on Hot Air commenters, don’t disappoint! Let’s see you guys say what a wuss he is.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Should we be saying nice things about Benedict Arnold as well? Stanley Benedict Arnold McChrystal can FOAD…

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Umm.. why are Jeb Bush and “star power” in the same sentence?

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

It’s a misprint. The intended term was “tar power”, as in “tar and feathers”. Same applies to Rubio.

Archivarix on January 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Who gives a crap what he says. Generals are nothing but politicians anyways when they reach his prior level. They will do what they need to do to get that cushy post retirement job, well except maybe Gen Mattis, he tells it like it is.

gator70 on January 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I’ve seen some pretty vile comments about McChrystal after this interview. Come on Hot Air commenters, don’t disappoint! Let’s see you guys say what a wuss he is.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

he is violating his oath of office and arguing for tyranny.

he should be tried for treason today and shot against the nearest wall.

thanks for asking, patriot.

tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Traitor!

trs on January 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Remember your Oath of Office, General? Probably not. Your boss doesn’t either.

Joe Mama on January 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Good comment …

You know, when that Oath of Office thingy is based on some stupid old piece of paper with a bunch of old meaningless words that can mean whatever I decide they do and with which we frequently use to wipe our collective a$$es … it too (the Oath) becomes meaningless.

Duty.Honor.Country.
Sycophancy.Treachery.Me.

ShainS on January 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

He’s just another in a long list of Bush gifts that keep on giving.

Mr. Arrogant on January 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Their bench is thin and there’s a real chance that the GOP nominee, be it Rubio or Jeb Bush, will have formidable star power.

No. Just f*cking NO.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM

How about the general be deputized and be point man for a massive police raid into a high-crime neighborhood to confiscate illegal guns? Or is that the ‘sensible’ laws and gun bans already on the books weren’t ‘serious’?

Liam on January 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM

These same ideologues have reassured the American people over the past 40 years that they had no intention of ever:
•Telling the American people how to live;
•Limiting access to medical care;
•Attempting by fiat and legislation to dramatically limit gun ownership;
•Shifting near unlimited power to Washington D.C., by ignoring the concept of federalism;
•Deliberately bankrupting the country;
•Placing the private sector under the thumb of bureaucrats;
•Monitoring without search warrants American’s private conversations and communications;
•Allowing unrestrained illegal immigration in order to affect the voting patterns in their favor.

Yet in the America of 2013 all this, and more, has come to past and we are expected to believe the progressive cabal when they say their ultimate aim is not to effectively invalidate the second amendment by ever more stringent laws and regulations.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Why are stricter gun laws considered an appropriate response to gun violence? We’ve already seen, in many different locations, that such laws don’t work; in fact, they are often counter-productive. Just look at U.S. cities like Chicago, or Washington, D.C. Or look at Great Britain, which outlawed private gun ownership and confiscated guns from registered owners; ten years later, gun crime there had doubled.

So the left’s answer to gun violence is to enact stricter gun laws, which experience has shown will lead to . . . even more gun violence.

It’s like trying to reduce obesity rates by calling for new laws to require obese people to consume more doughnuts and pizza.

AZCoyote on January 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Fluke the general and Obama, or let them Fluke each other.

General, you scumbag – the constitution?

The other one is a charlatanic thug – you should know better, alas.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Says the guy whose senseless Rules of Engagement prevented our troops from using their own damned guns.

Daemonocracy on January 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Next, Petraeus will be for regulating prostitution.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

He’d probably be one of the first to order the military to shoot American civilians should another 1776 occur…

…after they are dis-armed…

PatriotRider on January 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Yeah, but the military will totally side with the people and not the government if / when the gun grabbing commences, right?

Why doesn’t this idiot go back to drinking his bud light limes and sleeping 4 hours a night or whatever it is he does.

Timin203 on January 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

No one should be shocked that someone who was in the top of the military command structure wants civilians disarmed since the primary reason is the prevention of tyranny by the gov’t and the military. He shows his true colors.

Maybe he should spend some time reading why the founding fathers did not want a standing army and thought it was dangerous for a democracy to have a large permanent army.

aniptofar on January 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I greatly respect his service, but gun control is non- negotiable. I don’t know how he can stand allying with Democrats after they’ve vilified him so.

juliesa on January 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Umm.. why are Jeb Bush and “star power” in the same sentence?

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The same reason you see Al Franken and funny or Barak Obama and smart written in the same sentence. Good press agents.

And, BTW, Jeb Bush wouldn’t be the worst pick but aren’t we all just more than a little tired of Bushes and Clintons setting up dynasties. Same goes for the idiots that seem to think that Michelle Obama would be a great pick for 2016.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I don’t know how he can stand allying with Democrats after they’ve vilified him so.

juliesa on January 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Because flag officers the last decade or so have been more politician than leader. McChrystal clearly sees opportunity in putting on the short skirt and shaking pom poms for Pelosi/Reid/Obama and their filthy party of parasites, moochers, and takers.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:28 PM

wasn’t this the same idiot that had those crappy roi for our troops in afghanstan. now he wants to come here and disarm us?

i don’t think so.

renalin on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

was the general investing soldier’s money and getting a bad return on investment? or did you mean ROE??

chasdal on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

And, BTW, Jeb Bush wouldn’t be the worst pick but aren’t we all just more than a little tired of Bushes and Clintons setting up dynasties. Same goes for the idiots that seem to think that Michelle Obama would be a great pick for 2016.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Jeb Bush would be THE worst pick. Hands down. I honestly can’t think of a worse pick. Maybe Charlie Crist? It’d be close. I would vote for anyone over Jeb, even if that meant President Michelle.

Timin203 on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

McChrystal and the like had and continue to have a problem with force protection over in Ashcanistan, while at the same time allowing political correctness to be the rule rather than something to be laughed at and scorned.

Just another careerist who would do himself a favor if he shut his trap about the civilian side of this country.

franciscodanconia on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

General Mcchrystal is the son of a General Officer and has known nothing outside the military his entire life. He probably thinks citizens will jump like recruits every time he says frog.

tmac on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I understand Assad is pushing for gun control in Syria as well, for everyone but the Syrian army. And himself, of course.

IndieDogg on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Maybe he should spend some time reading why the founding fathers did not want a standing army and thought it was dangerous for a democracy to have a large permanent army.

aniptofar on January 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Maybe he should spend some time walking around unarmed in Southside Chicago.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

McChrystal is NO Norman Schwarzkopf

b1jetmech on January 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM

It’s time to discuss some ruling elite control.

ronsfi on January 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM

AWRIGHT ! … Another gun thread !
.

Stan McChrystal: We need some serious gun-control laws

.
Ok, Stan . . . . . in as many words as you think necessary, explain to us what’s “insufficient” about ALL of the current laws?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I greatly respect his service,

juliesa on January 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Phuck that. While the propensity for individuals who have served to be patriots and conservatives is higher than say for those who attended UC Berserkly, it is by no means an absolute guarantee. Benedict Arnold, John Anthony Walker and Bradly Manning all come instantly to mind.

As far as I am concerned with that statement Gen. Stan McChrystal joins the ranks of Benedict Arnold, John Anthony Walker and Bradly Manning. I do not respect his service, I am disgusted and appalled that he was allowed in the Military of the United States.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Stanley Benedict Arnold McChrystal can FOAD…

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:13 PM

you guys are so predictably funny.

pathetic, too.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:13 PM

you guys are so predictably funny.

pathetic, too.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM

And you are a useless imbecile who is painfully ignorant of history.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Ban evil, first. Then you go after guns.

John the Libertarian on January 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

How about McChrystal call for the arrest of David Gregory for having that illegal magazine in DC where the things are banned?

Liam on January 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Stan McChrystal: We need some serious gun-control laws

…Go pound SAND Stan!

KOOLAID2 on January 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

If McChrystal had been in VietNam back then, he would likely have been shot by his own troops!

pilamaye on January 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I’ve seen some pretty vile comments about McChrystal after this interview. Come on Hot Air commenters, don’t disappoint! Let’s see you guys say what a wuss he is.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Sorry, but the same as with Hagel or Kerry, you can’t say and propose un-American things and then get a pass by wrapping yourself up in the American flag and reminding everybody that you served in the military. A general with decades of service should understand the basics of the Constitution enough to talk about the rights of Americans without automatically (or is that semi-automatically) going to the idea of banning stuff. Especially since the left’s real intent is to grab all the guns that they can.

And BTW, there would be far more Americans alive today had our troops not been given the most atrocious set of ROE by this guy.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

not that i was ever going to take you seriously, but you could significantly boost your words’ gravitas if you could spell “samuel” correctly. at least once out of 2 attempts.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Liberals will never give up, but they will never win on this issue either.

The only thing that will curb gun violence is arming law abiding citizen. This is a basic premise that liberals are incapable of grasping. Oh well…as long as they’re wasting their own time.

cajunpatriot on January 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The same reason you see Al Franken and funny or Barak Obama and smart written in the same sentence. Good press agents.

And, BTW, Jeb Bush wouldn’t be the worst pick but aren’t we all just more than a little tired of Bushes and Clintons setting up dynasties. Same goes for the idiots that seem to think that Michelle Obama would be a great pick for 2016.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Pretty close to it. It would guarantee a blowout victory for generic Democrat 2.0 because of Dubya’s stellar second term and Reagan level approval ratings… sarc off//

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Who gives a crap what he says. Generals are nothing but politicians anyways when they reach his prior level. They will do what they need to do to get that cushy post retirement job, well except maybe Gen Mattis, he tells it like it is.

gator70 on January 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Well Mattis is arguably freaking deranged and clearly an admirer of Patton.

CorporatePiggy on January 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

not that i was ever going to take you seriously, but you could significantly boost your words’ gravitas if you could spell “samuel” correctly. at least once out of 2 attempts.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM

ROTFLMAO… Wow… Shot the entire totality of your intellectual wad with that one didn’t you.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Rubio or Jeb Bush will end up like Mitt. They made the mistake of opening their mouth on the gun debate. The internet and gun owners don’t forget.

It still surprised me that Mitt lost. It probably due to gun owners not voting for him IMO. Even with the NRA support their was a lot of discourse within the gun community. I didn’t vote for Mitt and so did a lot of gun owners I know too.

Anyway no more Bush and Rubio kill himself with his gun remarks.

jdun on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

And you are a useless imbecile who is painfully ignorant of history.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM

how is your awesome new party going? any members yet? have you put those ropes to good use already? i worry that spending your entire day in the hotair comments section may divert your attention from all the organizing.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
not that i was ever going to take you seriously, but you could significantly boost your words’ gravitas if you could spell “samuel” correctly. at least once out of 2 attempts.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM

.
Ideological debate trumps spelling, unless the spelling is sooo bad, that we can’t figure out what someone is saying.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

General McChrystal, thank you very much for your service. Now have a nice life, someplace else.

Viper1 on January 8, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I’ve seen some pretty vile comments about McChrystal after this interview. Come on Hot Air commenters, don’t disappoint! Let’s see you guys say what a wuss he is.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Someone who has their gun tells a fellow citizen they shouldn’t be allowed to have theirs? That would qualify as a wuss.

MechanicalBill on January 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM

It’s very simple: The Constitution is a contract by which we all agree to abide, by virtue of our citizenship. If one doesn’t like the contract, one is free to either lobby for an amendment, or move to a different country.

Proggies have for a long time been blatantly breaking the contract with regard to the Second Amendment. This is completely unethical, immoral and unacceptable. Would any of us allow for such a contractual violation in any other aspect of our lives? We cannot let this continue.

(They sure don’t have a problem with the Sixteenth Amendment though.)

WhatSlushfund on January 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM

And you are a useless imbecile who is painfully ignorant of history.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM

.
how is your awesome new party going? any members yet? have you put those ropes to good use already? i worry that spending your entire day in the hotair comments section may divert your attention from all the organizing.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

.
What? … ‘Walker started a new party, and didn’t invite me ?

I feel so dissed.

HEY ! … sesquipedalian ! . . . . . you’ve got far higher priorities, than SWalker‘s “organizing”.

Ignore them at your peril.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

ROTFLMAO… Wow… Shot the entire totality of your intellectual wad with that one didn’t you.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Might as well get it over with early and take the rest of the day off…

affenhauer on January 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Pretty close to it. It would guarantee a blowout victory for generic Democrat 2.0 because of Dubya’s stellar second term and Reagan level approval ratings… sarc off//

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Believe me, I’m not feeling a Jeb Bush vibe. But I’m far more neutral to his name than I am when I hear other names being thrown out as possible candidates to include Chris Christie or Rand Paul.
I also think before the GOP ever gets down to talking about the serious candidates from the fluff, they need to figure out what their message is, their strategy for running, and just how serious are they in winning. There’s a whole lotta stupid greedy people out there that voted team “free stuff” in 2012.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Vapid.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Ideological debate trumps spelling, unless the spelling is sooo bad, that we can’t figure out what someone is saying.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

as a general rule, i usually ignore the opinions of people who aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly, let alone a name as common as ‘samuel’, because it’s indicative of a larger problem with comprehension and attentiveness. i know some people struggle with learning disabilities, well that sucks for them but it’s no excuse.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

People here loved this guy when he was ripping Obama as unengaged in the war in Afghanistan, calling Biden “Bite Me” and saying Jim Jones was a clown. To me he lacks personal discipline to be an effective leader, which is all the more suprising considering his background. Regardless, I have contempt for those who think they can parcel out natural rights, including the right to bear arms, at their own whim. We already had a revo1ution about that.

Ted Torgerson on January 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

What? … ‘Walker started a new party, and didn’t invite me ?

I feel so dissed.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM


Did to invite you…

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

corerctly
sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

You’re killing me.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Stan McChrystal: We need some serious gun-control laws

.
Ok, Stan . . . . . in as many words as you think necessary, explain to us what’s “insufficient” about ALL of the current laws?

From some peoples’ POV what is “insuffecient” is that the general population still is armed and has access to ammo and additional arms.

What is also “insufficient” about all the well intended current gun laws is that evil and some mentally ill people ignore them with regularity in their intent to kill those who are vulnerable in compliance with the gun control laws.

Serious and sufficient criminal control law and enforcement and care of the mentally ill is what is needed.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2013 at 2:54 PM

…and this is why we have civilian control of the military. And the 2nd Amendment.

Robert_Paulson on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

‘samuel’

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Oh and did you know you’re supposed to capitalize names Bi*ch?

CW on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

as a general rule, i usually ignore the opinions of people who aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly,

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Where as you take serious the advice given you by bales of hay… Pretty much tells us all we need to know about your intellectual capabilities.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

You’re killing me.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 2:54 PM

i didn’t mean typos, but great catch.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Alright McChrystal, go back to never-never land and stay there. It appears that your mouth is the source of all your problems.

rplat on January 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM

squishypud reminds me of a cousin of mine who likes to make fun of other family members who own motorcycles. He doesn’t own one. He apparently has it in his head that the only reason the others own bikes is to make themselves feel like real men. It couldn’t possibly be that they simply enjoy riding. A long time ago, it became obvious that he was exhibiting classic, textbook projection. He’s the one who feels inadequate because he doesn’t own a bike, and would probably be scared to death of the thing if he did.

squishy would probably stick his fingers in his ears at a BB gun range.

CurtZHP on January 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM

You’re killing me.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 2:54 PM

i didn’t mean typos, but great catch.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Your blatant dishonesty, hypocrisy and stupidity make my hair hurt. You point to a place where I Misspell Samuel and then where a mere 5 words later spell it correctly, yet attempt to hide behind typos when you clearly can’t spell correctly.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Yet another lefty moron speaks.

What we really need is some serious fork control laws. Forks, especially those “military style” “high capacity” “Assault forks” cause obesity across the nation! look how many people those dreadful assault forks killed, last year alone!

In the interests of full disclosure, I own and used a high capacity assault fork on a well dressed turkey recently. However, I have years of experience and specialized training…

dogsoldier on January 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Where as you take serious the advice given you by bales of hay… Pretty much tells us all we need to know about your intellectual capabilities.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

“seriously.”

hope you’ll have better luck with spanish when it becomes the lingua franca in a few years.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM

You can bet that any flag officer that serves or is appointed during Obama’s reign will be just as liberal. Remember, a prime rule for a revolution is that the military must be replaced.

rplat on January 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM

as a general rule, i usually ignore the opinions of people who aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly, let alone a name as common as ‘samuel’, because it’s indicative of a larger problem with comprehension and attentiveness. i know some people struggle with learning disabilities, well that sucks for them but it’s no excuse.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

It’s spelled Samuel, not samuel.

Do you ignore your own opinions?

And as far as your opinions go – why do you want to become between a woman and her rights to protect herself and her family? Who do you think you are?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Because the public should as safe and orderly as military bases.

Speakup on January 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM

i didn’t mean typos, but great catch.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

You’re a joke.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:03 PM

i didn’t mean typos, but great catch.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

You do realize you look like the idiot you are right?

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM

…and this is why we have civilian control of the military. And the 2nd Amendment.

For now. I’m thinkin’ one of Barry’s goals in the coming term is to radically forge the military into his very own personal praetorian guard, guided by the same ideology that permeates within his admin, many if not most federal bureaucracies, education, the courts, and the LSM

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Disappointing. I guess we know who would be willing to order his troops to seize weapons at gunpoint, eh?

clippermiami on January 8, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Your blatant dishonesty, hypocrisy and stupidity make my hair hurt. You point to a place where I Misspell Samuel and then where a mere 5 words later spell it correctly, yet attempt to hide behind typos when you clearly can’t spell correctly.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

i’ll forgo the incorrect capitalization of “misspell” and just note that twice in a row is not a typo.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I haven’t watched the interview. I’m in public without earphones. But I read he said the .223 round is too deadly for civilian use. WTF? What about those hunters going out every weekend with much heavier stuff? I mean WTF?

juliesa on January 8, 2013 at 3:08 PM

It’s spelled Samuel, not samuel.

And as far as your opinions go – why do you want to become between a woman and her rights to protect herself and her family? Who do you think you are?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM

feel free to correct all of the word i should have capitalized, but purposely did not, while i go do something useful.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

i’ll forgo the incorrect capitalization of “misspell” and just note that twice in a row is not a typo.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM

The idiocy continues. Say did you know the first word in a sentence is supposed to be capitalized? I have to note that as many times as you have made this error it is not a typo.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

i’ll forgo the incorrect capitalization of “misspell” and just note that twice in a row is not a typo.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Capitalization is your problem? Every single sentence you’ve written in this thread has capitalization errors.

But the fact you’ve turned into a hypocritical grammar nazi just goes to show you don’t really have anything to say.

(Pro tip: sentences start with a capitalized letter, just like proper nouns, like Samuel).

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM

feel free to correct all of the word i should have capitalized, but purposely did not, while i go do something useful.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

You’re a C-unt.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Stan can’t wait till America is unarmed, and he can finally take over with a military coup

burserker on January 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Political General, on the Yale payroll. I wonder when he got the call from Jarrett to speak up.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 3:13 PM

feel free to correct all of the word i should have capitalized, but purposely did not, while i go do something useful.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Allow me to retort:

as a general rule, i usually ignore the opinions of people who aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly, let alone a name as common as ‘samuel’, because it’s indicative of a larger problem with comprehension and attentiveness. i know some people struggle with learning disabilities, well that sucks for them but it’s no excuse.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Are you sure you don’t have a learning disability? Or are you just a hypocritical douche?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:13 PM

It takes a good while to wrap your mind around how pervasive the hive mind is.

How anyone could perform hard service, in many places around the world that prove protecting a document that guarantees our freedom so necessary, which has no validation for liberalism whatsoever, is pretty hard to square.

How do you protect a Constitution you either don’t understand or believe in?

Speakup on January 8, 2013 at 3:13 PM

feel free to correct all of the word i should have capitalized, but purposely did not, while i go do something useful.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Something useful? Like thinking up new regulations that will do nothing to stop criminals but get between a woman and her right and ability to make choices regarding her health and safety and that of her family?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Say did you know the first word in a sentence is supposed to be capitalized?

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

my artistic license exempts me from that rule.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Speaking of political shills for gun control, Gabby Giffords and husband Kelly have announced they are forming a new PAC, ‘Americans for Responsible Solutions’ [to gun violence]. It’ll be anti-gun. Just like the Brady bullshit.
I hereby dub them ARSholes.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3