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

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

sesquipedalian’s more of a Turd Sandwich.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 3:16 PM

aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly


Snort.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:16 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

no, it’s just my tendency to lapse into stream-of-consciousness mode. but wake me up drunk in the middle of the night and i can still spell “petraeus” correctly any time.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

my artistic license exempts me from that rule.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Yeah we know you’re a liberal and operate under special rules. Just makes things “fair” right?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Hmmm

aren’t capable of spelling a person’s name corerctly

it’s indicative of a larger problem with comprehension and attentiveness

Hmmm

Fargin hilarious.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM

McChrystal just cut his own political throat with that statement. “Serious gun control laws”? Bet this guy hasn’t a clue as to what current laws are.

GarandFan on January 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM

no, it’s just my tendency to lapse into stream-of-consciousness mode. but wake me up drunk in the middle of the night and i can still spell “petraeus” correctly any time.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Still spell Petraeus correctly? You just spelled it wrong.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Hey Septicpig define attentiveness please.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM

sesquipedalian fancies himself the next e.e. cummings.

Illinidiva on January 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You just spelled it wrong.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM

i said “i can spell it correctly any time,” not “i spell it correctly every time. as i said, reading comprehension.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Yeah we know you’re a liberal and operate under special rules. Just makes things “fair” right?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

who said anything about fairness? in any case, if you’re going to put the founding blokes on the pedestal, and declare them divine and every word of theirs golden, at least take the effort to learn the correct fookin spelling of their names. that is all.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

sesquipedalian’s more of a Turd Sandwich.

rayra on January 8, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Turd sandwiches are insulted at that comparison.

Myron Falwell on January 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM

who said anything about fairness? in any case, if you’re going to put the founding blokes on the pedestal, and declare them divine and every word of theirs golden, at least take the effort to learn the correct fookin spelling of their names. that is all.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

So we shouldn’t take arguments seriously from people who don’t spell correctly? You are disqualifying yourself. But you get a special pass because you’re too busy (do you not have enough fingers to press shift at the same time as other letters?).

I’m still wondering why you want to infringe on a woman’s ability to make choices that affect her health and the health of her family.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM

while i go do something useful.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:10 PM

What was so useful that you hung out to post about five more times? You’re a trip.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:31 PM

McChrystal is reported to run 7 to 8 miles (11 to 13 km) daily, eat one meal per day, and sleep four hours a night.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:32 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.

Good one! :) I understand the original name for the PAC was actually “Americans for Serious Solutions” until it dawned on one of the brighter members of the organizers what the acronym spelled.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM

What was so useful that you hung out to post about five more times? You’re a trip.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I’m wondering why it takes him so long to press shift simultaneous with other keys.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM

So we shouldn’t take arguments seriously from people who don’t spell correctly? You are disqualifying yourself. But you get a special pass because you’re too busy (do you not have enough fingers to press shift at the same time as other letters?).

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM

i never told you who to take seriously, and i restricted my own standard to the spelling of person’s names.

once again, learn to read, pal.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:37 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

Wow!! First time, ever?!?!?

Siddhartha Vicious on January 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

i never told you who to take seriously, and i restricted my own standard to the spelling of person’s names.

once again, learn to read, pal.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Yet you didn’t spell Samuel correctly either.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Shortly after his removal from command in Afghanistan, McChrystal announced that he would retire from the Army. The day after the announcement, the White House announced that he would retain his four-star rank in retirement, although law generally requires a four-star officer to hold his rank for three years in order to retain it in retirement.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

It’s a concern that this (former) high ranking military official has no real understanding of the Constitution.

I say that and many others do as well, but of course he does. He knows darn good and well what the real intent of the 2nd Amendment is. He just doesn’t care. His oath probably never really meant anything to him.

He’s a Liberal and a power player as many high ranking Military folks (officer and enlisted) are nowadays.

It’s a concern and it makes me wonder: what percentage of military folks feel this way, really? Is it a majority? 50/50? Less? More?

If the time comes when they might have to actually have to act on their oaths, who will it really matter too?

Not folks like McChrystal, that’s for sure.

And that scare the shinola out of me.

catmman on January 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

McChrystal is reported to run 7 to 8 miles (11 to 13 km) daily, eat one meal per day, and sleep four hours a night.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Sounds like another OCD elitist pseudo-ascetic douchebag trying to absolve himself of ancestral guilt as he “saves the world” from the grubby ignorant peons, aka, the rest of us unable to function without his salvation.

rrpjr on January 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Shortly after his removal from command in Afghanistan, McChrystal announced that he would retire from the Army. The day after the announcement, the White House announced that he would retain his four-star rank in retirement, although law generally requires a four-star officer to hold his rank for three years in order to retain it in retirement.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Sounds like he is being groomed for something.

sharrukin on January 8, 2013 at 3:44 PM

i said “i can spell it correctly any time,” not “i spell it correctly every time. as i said, reading comprehension.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:22 PM

While I find your antics amusing, I would point out that you are applying a different standard/definition to “can” now than you did with SWalker. When he spelled a name incorrectly twice, you alleged that he “couldn’t” do it, not that he “doesn’t spell it correctly every time.” So, if you’d like others to lean to read what you write, you should first learn to write correctly.

besser tot als rot on January 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM

no, it’s just my tendency to lapse into stream-of-consciousness mode. but wake me up drunk in the middle of the night and i can still spell “petraeus” correctly any time.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Still spell Petraeus correctly? You just spelled it wrong.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM

i never told you who to take seriously, and i restricted my own standard to the spelling of person’s names.

once again, learn to read, pal.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Yet you didn’t spell Samuel correctly either.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Typical lying douche bag hypocrite liberal, sets standards,fails to meet those very same standards, then claims those standards don’t apply to themselves.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Has Stanley A. McChrystal ever killed anyone in combat?

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM

At the same time McChrystal was sending that confidential memo, he was part of the propaganda effort pushing a false narrative about Tillman’s death, the family charges.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Has Stanley A. McChrystal ever killed anyone in combat?

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM

He’s never been in combat.

sharrukin on January 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

While I find your antics amusing, I would point out that you are applying a different standard/definition to “can” now than you did with SWalker. When he spelled a name incorrectly twice, you alleged that he “couldn’t” do it, not that he “doesn’t spell it correctly every time.” So, if you’d like others to lean to read what you write, you should first learn to write correctly.

besser tot als rot on January 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM

entschuldigung herr besser, but “couldn’t” refers to a general inability to spell the name “samuel” correctly, i.e. she couldn’t even if she wanted to. i can spell “petraeus” correctly, which means that i know fully well that names should be capitalized but deliberately ignore this rule.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Jeb Bushie for POTUS?
Let me guess karl Rove will run his campaign!
I guess these Repunks really are stupid and want to lose for the third time in a row and let the country turn all Commie Red!

ConcealedKerry on January 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Sounds like he is being groomed for something.

sharrukin on January 8, 2013 at 3:44 PM

His career seems that of a poser being groomed. Harvard may have been his tell. As I read up on him, I am troubled by some of what I read.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I believe him to be a political general. Think academic doctor to get my meaning.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I do not value his opinion of this topic enough to allow it influence over my opinion.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM

His career seems that of a poser being groomed. Harvard may have been his tell. As I read up on him, I am troubled by some of what I read.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM

There are an increasing number of generals in the military who are more political, and increasingly disconnected from the reality of war. Not a good trend IMO.

sharrukin on January 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Additionally I find him unreliable.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 4:00 PM

sharrukin on January 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Agreed. My hope is the next round and subsequent rounds of promotions will be from the more hardened elements of our forces.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM

entschuldigung herr besser, but “couldn’t” refers to a general inability to spell the name “samuel” correctly, i.e. she couldn’t even if she wanted to. i can spell “petraeus” correctly, which means that i know fully well that names should be capitalized but deliberately ignore this rule.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

So how have you come to the conclusion that SWalker is incapable of spelling Samuel correctly? You claim you can but haven’t yet. In fact you’ve spelled incorrectly more times than SWalker. Why doesn’t the exception you apply to yourself work for SWalker?

Why do you want to limit a woman’s ability to make important health decisions for her and her family?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM

HEY, STAN ! . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . We need some serious “politician-control” laws.

The ones already on the books aren’t working.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 4:04 PM

why does anyone ever respond to that reprobate agitator?

tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM

The semi-auto firearm technology the General is wringing his hands about has been around for at least 100 years and has been a favorite of hunters that entire time. And during that entire time has been avaliable in much more powerful form. A 30.06 rifle is much more powerful than the guns the General was referring to. Fully auto rifles (“assault rifles”) have been illegal to own since the 1930s unless one is specially licensed by the US Government.

tommyboy on January 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

So how have you come to the conclusion that SWalker is incapable of spelling Samuel correctly? You claim you can but haven’t yet. In fact you’ve spelled incorrectly more times than SWalker. Why doesn’t the exception you apply to yourself work for SWalker?

Why do you want to limit a woman’s ability to make important health decisions for her and her family?

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Because she is a lying douche bag hypocritical liberal, nothing more, nothing less…

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

why does anyone ever respond to that reprobate agitator?

tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM

you’ve done it many times before, jesus freak.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Funny! I thought tom was referring to McChrystal or 0. Funny!!!!!!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM

You made a funny! ; )

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM

You made a funny! ; )

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM

I’m equal opportunity when it comes to leveraging discernment.

tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM

you’ve done it many times before, jesus freak.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 4:11 PM

That’s spelled Jesus. Freak.

gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 4:28 PM

HEY, STAN ! . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . We need some serious “politician-control” laws enforcement.

The ones already on the books aren’t working.

Just like more gun control laws won’t work for those who will ignore or disobey them anyway, more “politician-control” laws won’t work, as the politicians will simply ignore them as they do the ones in effect now.

What we need is criminal politician enforcement from OUTSIDE CONgress, because we’ve seen what self-enforcement gets us….either a “nothing to see here” investigation, a slap on the wrist or a sternly worded letter for the offender at best, usually, if even that.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2013 at 4:34 PM

He’s a Liberal and a power player as many high ranking Military folks (officer and enlisted) are nowadays.

It’s a concern and it makes me wonder: what percentage of military folks feel this way, really? Is it a majority? 50/50? Less? More?

If the time comes when they might have to actually have to act on their oaths, who will it really matter too?

Not folks like McChrystal, that’s for sure.

And that scare the shinola out of me.

catmman on January 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Those who think their military won’t help take away their freedom fail to have watched this country turn from one that cherishes freedom to one that cherishes ideological confrontation to take it apart.

Don L on January 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Wow, the troll feeding had extra hours today.

roy_batty on January 8, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Just in case you thought the military wouldn’t be up to the task.

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

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,

If we achieved Democratic levels of stupidity and nominated Jeb Bush, the Democrats could nominate a yellow dog or a dithering moron like the Vice President and still win. And just win. The nominee would carry every state Obama carried in 2008 plus Montana, Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri. It would serve us right.

Maybe AP is just trying to provoke the Hotair readers with a modicum of common sense in even making this suggestion?

thuja on January 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

When 500+ people get murdered in one city do you think for a micro second criminals are going to abide by any law? Murder is illegal. After the fact and it always seems to be after the fact the shooters at the schools and movies were all on some sort of medication and some of this stuff has some serious side effects but the politicians, journalists, talking heads and columnists keep ranting about gun laws. Hammers killed more people than shot guns last year. If the government gets nasty about the gun laws it may be just the spark that sets it all off and that’s no solution. More lies than facts came out of Sandy Hook by the journalists and there are those that think the media is beyond reproach and believe the trash these people keep telling. I’m not going to list the tales but they sure are tales of deceit.

mixplix on January 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I’m always a little amused that conservatives are surprised when people who’ve spent forty years rising to the top of what’s arguably the World’s only successful form of communism turn out to be… not freedom oriented.

PersonFromPorlock on January 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

A (former) general doesn’t think the populace should possess guns that come close to rivaling the military’s… And anyone is surprised by that stance? According to many military commanders the world over, they know better than the civilian government how things should be run. When they act upon that, it’s called a coup, and they typically form a junta. The key, of course, is that the civilians didn’t have the firepower and numbers to threaten either the corrupt government or the righteous military.

Same dance throughout history…

twgriff on January 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Here is a novel idea: Let’s start by making it a Criminal Act for ANY Federal Employee to have possession of HOLLOW POINT AMMUNITION!

A minimum of 5 years incaration for possession, and the death penalty if they actually fire off a single round or more. /smug

DannoJyd on January 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Jeb Bush…Stanley McChrystal…

Please stop.

SukieTawdry on January 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM

A McChrystal candidacy isn’t going anywhere; he’ll be torpedoed by those he served with in nothing flat. We learned our lesson with Kerry and Clark.

M240H on January 8, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Has Stanley A. McChrystal ever killed anyone in combat?

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Do US Soldiers because of his Rules of Engagement count?

hawkdriver on January 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Stan McChrystal – another Petraeus/Pelosi type general who thinks his oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution was a joke. Hey Stanley, what’s the body count up to now of American troops killed by what you called their “Partners in Peace” with the guns you gave them?

VorDaj on January 8, 2013 at 8:14 PM

It is because of men like Stanley MCChyrstal that the Founding Fathers figured they better put things in writing with the Second Amendment. It is also because of men like him that the Founding Fathers didn’t like standing armies.

VorDaj on January 8, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Do US Soldiers because of his Rules of Engagement count?

hawkdriver on January 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM

No, they don’t count, not at all, not with our current and recent crop of generals anyway. To them they are just Human Sacrifices/”Cannon Fodder” on the alter of their Most Holy Doctrine of COIN/”Winning Muslims Hearts and Minds” on their Trillion Dollar Bridge to Nowhere in Afcrapistan, strewn with the Lives and Limbs of American Troops.

VorDaj on January 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Thank you General Cornwallis!

MCGIRV on January 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM

I’m always a little amused that conservatives are surprised when people who’ve spent forty years rising to the top of what’s arguably the World’s only successful form of communism turn out to be… not freedom oriented.

PersonFromPorlock on January 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Which is why the Founding Fathers hated the very idea of a large standing army.

VorDaj on January 8, 2013 at 8:30 PM

i didn’t mean typos, but great catch.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM

…hey sameul!…whose your typo dealer?

KOOLAID2 on January 8, 2013 at 8:54 PM

he has probably spent a lot of time wargaming quelling US citizen uprising and realizes the only way to do it is to disarm us.

dmacleo on January 8, 2013 at 9:14 PM

..is there anyone else getting to feel like that the anti-gun crusade will be the New ObamaCare cause for this assshole’s second term?

When the tax the rich mantra will fail o close the deficit and all the rest of this buttwipe’s straw house comes crashing down around his ears, he will need to divide and make an enemy out of the gun-owning citizenry.

The War Planner on January 8, 2013 at 9:24 PM

I have a son in Afghanistan and I’m glad McChrystal is not.

Rudemeister on January 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM

No way he is liberal. He just got that glowing endorsement from Hannity last night on Fox News which he apparently doesn’t like. Did he have a change of heart?

tdavisjr on January 8, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Hate to ruin this for everyone, but…every field grade officer becomes a douchebag politician whether they like it or not. Or they don’t get augmented their turn, and then they go into business for themselves or into private industry. (usually DoD-dependent, big effin’ shock)

The politicians usually are scumbag leftists….because they are pragmatists, and really couldn’t care less that they are now working to destroy the country they swore to defend. Stan’s words, along with those of Colin Powell and the like…can drift unhindered straight into the mouth of Hell for all I care.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. I *could* be wrong. (pretty sure I aint, though.)

…And before anyone starts with the whole “spent their whole lives defending the Constitution” nonsense…I couldn’t be less swayed by that argument. So did I; That and about 4 bucks will get you a fancy coffee-drink at Starbucks. Using their personal history as some kind of justification for a ridiculous stance now, is bullshit.

a5minmajor on January 8, 2013 at 10:51 PM

he allegedly banned Fox News from TVs in his headquarters in Afghanistan

Actually, he’s a typical General. They don’t like being told bad news, until they wake up one morning and hear that the bad news bit them in the rear end. In modern times, Generalship requires they measure and calculate the words they use to avoid controversy or a blot on their record that might prevent them moving up the ladder. It’s all about CYA. McCrystal wasn’t smart enough to realize he shouldn’t trust a liberal Rolling Stones reporter.

TulsAmerican on January 8, 2013 at 11:32 PM

I’m always a little amused that conservatives are surprised when people who’ve spent forty years rising to the top of what’s arguably the World’s only successful form of communism turn out to be… not freedom oriented.

PersonFromPorlock on January 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM

No surprises here. It’s expected. People (in fly-over country) just don’t expect their children to follow those orders. They’ll use recruits from the cities instead.

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2013 at 11:39 PM

..is there anyone else getting to feel like that the anti-gun crusade will be the New ObamaCare cause for this assshole’s second term?

The War Planner on January 8, 2013 at 9:24 PM

You got it.

rrpjr on January 9, 2013 at 12:21 AM

It’s easy. Gen. McCrystal is going to head up the New Civilian Security agency that is “just as strong” as the US Military. It is the Obama equivalent of the SS or the GRU and its mission willl be to seize weapons. Check points, lists of names from shooting ranges, CCW permits and so on.

What he means by “strong gun laws” is STRONG gun laws. Seizure, no more manufacturing, no possession.

Gun owners have been ridiculed in the press, publicly identified, their addresses published. Next they will have to wear armbands.

Go ahead and laugh and play with the troll, but memorize his face, because he is coming. The New Himmler

Bulletchaser on January 9, 2013 at 12:39 AM

Just shows how liberals have transformed our generals into a—licking wimps.

MaiDee on January 9, 2013 at 6:34 AM

Does McChrystal remember his oath (I know Obama did)?

“TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

It just does not get any clearer than that.

kregg on January 9, 2013 at 7:24 AM

Oops: “I know Obama did not

kregg on January 9, 2013 at 7:26 AM

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Definitions of words have been twisted & hijacked.
And since people do not know the history of this country anymore bcs they are content to let Hollywood & the media teach it to them through propaganda & lies, it’s no wonder that people actually believe the 2nd is about hunting or just arming an army & not the individual.

Regarding this general, I am sure he received his promotions bcs he is liberal. When you have liberals in charge of things, the packing of liberals into important positions is a must.
They succeeded in education, the courts, why not the military?
This is no surprise.
Sure there are a lot of conservative types in the military. But let’s not fool ourselves about a lot of the higher ups.
With a progressive federal government in charge, you are going to get these positions filled up with those who tow the liberal mindset.
Look at the Forest Service & Fish & Wildlife agencies, BLM, etc.
These agencies used to be filled with people who grew up on the land, like on farms & ranches & had common sense.
Now these kinds of people are passed over for promotions or hire. At least from some of the oldsters I have personally known who were in these agencies.
Once the government take over is complete, we’re going to be seeing a lot more aggression from all facets of the government in the violation of our rights.
It will accelerate.
So that 2nd Amendment is on they need to really get rid of.
You know, I find it interesting the left is so concerned & outraged about the deaths at Sandy Hook.
But yet, they were so complicit in the deaths, caused by the GOVERNMENT, at Waco. That was murder. It doesn’t matter if Koresh was nuts, what happened at Waco was the Federal government murdering people: CHILDREN.
And we got crickets from the media about it.
This will get worse. Even with a Republican POTUS it will still get worse.
Bcs the people do not know their history.

Badger40 on January 9, 2013 at 8:03 AM

I am surprised that anyone believes McChrystal has anything useful or intellectually significant to say.

Why should we listen or debate what he says? Does he speak for anyone but himself? Should we simply turn over our rights and ability to speak intelligently because others allege he has- credibility?

What McChrystal has done is offered his opinion. And it’s an opinion not grounded in facts or reality.

This isn’t some third-world banana republic where tyranny from one or a majority rules. We are a Constitutional Republic and a nation of laws whose representatives serve at the people’s pleasure. Mr McChrystal best remember that.

The sine qua non of liberals is to use emotion and alleged “status” to distract from the real problems and issues. So in place of facts, intellectual discussion and solutions to actual problems they supplant McChrystal. “Oh, yes, well if HE says so it must be right.”

Nonsense, what he stated doesn’t even make sense in the proper context. He’s just another player in the liberal mob wearing a different color suit.

Marcus Traianus on January 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Just shows how liberals have transformed our generals into a—licking wimps.

MaiDee on January 9, 2013 at 6:34 AM

Except for the ones that have cheated on the wives, misappropriated government funds and sexually harassed or abused their underlings . . . my count is 5 so far.

rplat on January 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM

A big shot general calling for taking away people’s guns? Now you know the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment!

dczombie on January 9, 2013 at 10:19 AM

What the hell do civilians need assault weapons and 30-bullet clips for? You don’t need that to “protect your family”. A nice baseball bat works just fine, but a non-automatic shotgun with only a few bullets in it is more than enough if you want fire power.

The whole reason for the second amendment is to protect yourself from hypothetical government tyranny, right? So what will civilians do about aaaaalll the other weapons that the US government possesses? Drones, high-powered sniper rifles with ranges of 2+ miles, tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, massive ordinance bombs, etc. etc. etc…

If the government comes after civilians, the civilians will be outgunned 1000:1 in terms of firepower.

When the US government is trying to limit civilians’ ownership of weapons it is not because the government is scared of those civilians. It is because it is scared FOR those civilians. And you silly goats keep mentioning Mao and Stalin and Hitler… what the hell do you know of the armies that these 3 commanded? Hitler almost beat the might of the Soviet Red Army (and all the allies put together) with all the weapons that they’ve had. You think a bunch of civilians armed with inferior weapons, untrained in soldiering, could have stopped either of these 3 maniacs?

Listen to Stanley McChrystal – a guy who has killed people with his bare hands and knows more about soldiering and weapons than all of you put together.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

BREAKING NEWS — OBAMA TO IGNORE CONSITUTION / CONGRESS TO ‘GO AFTER GUNS’

VP Biden states Obama is considerig issuing EXECUTIVE ORDERS, thereby BY-PASSING CONGRESS, to institute new gun laws / regulations as a result of the recent shooting crime…

2ND TERM, NOTHING TO LOSE – OBAMA ‘GOING FOR BROKE’!

easyt65 on January 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

If you or others want to repeal the Second Amendment, there is a process for doing so. But unfortunately you won’t- instead choosing to obfuscate and dilute that right using the law and processes which have no basis for such endeavors in a Constitutional Republic. That’s called tyranny, no matter how you slice it.

The question is not whether citizens need it. WE are guaranteed it as articulated by the Second Amendment in its text;

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

And there are thankfully those of us who believe we should not sacrifice our liberties and rights just because someone says it is so or attempts a wrongful plea based on emotion. Emotion which attempts to circumvent reason and democratic process.

There are millions of lawful gun owners in our country who behave responsibly. They won’t be tarred or have their rights removed because of acts by a few criminal maniacs with mental health issues, who under current law could not even purchase a weapon.

How about we embark on resolving these issues by not coddling individuals with mental health issues to ensure they don’t feel “different” or “left-out”? How about we examine the use of psychotropic drugs by these individuals? How about we examine “their” right not be forced into treatment- at the expense of the rights of the many people they killed?

None of what is being proposed by the anti-gun forces would have made a difference in these tragedies. Yet those forces disgustingly stand on the backs of their victims to further personal agendas. I can think of very few actions more contemptible and dishonest. They, and you, should be ashamed.

McChrystal is just a man with an opinion, and not a very intellectual or factual one. He’s not a king nor does he hold a special place in our democracy. He’s simply another advocate for a certain brand of politics and his musing should be treated with that perspective- not yielded to.

Marcus Traianus on January 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Pass all the gun laws they want it only insures that criminals will have more freedom to do just what they have been doing for years. But don’t you politicians dare to allow profile to be the issue because the crazies zipped up on prescription drugs must be protected at all costs and a recent study showed that just about all the shooters have been taking prescribed drugs and some of those drugs have violent side effects. I wonder about the intelligence of the politicians that hitch their wagon to anything that the public is worked up about. Example: NYC mayor.

mixplix on January 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Listen to Stanley McChrystal – a guy who has killed people with his bare hands and knows more about soldiering and weapons than all of you put together.
AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

How peculiar. Generals become multi-star generals because they are either good at or lucky with ‘program management’ tasks. Rarely for leading troops.
King Putt is intent on bringing down the status of the United States … by any and all means possible. As any good poker player will tell you, it doesn’t matter what your opponent SAYS, pay attention to what he DOES.
A long time ago there was a interchange prior to WWI, between a General of the Kaisers formidable army infantry. He posed a tactical problem to a member of the Swiss militia where he asked the local commander, “What would you do if I amassed one million of my infantry on your border and invaded?”
The Swiss militia leader not blinking said, “I would disperse my men appropriately to our positions, whereupon each man would fire five shots, and we’d all go home.”

Missilengr on January 9, 2013 at 12:14 PM

So what will civilians do about aaaaalll the other weapons that the US government possesses? Drones, high-powered sniper rifles with ranges of 2+ miles, tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, massive ordinance bombs, etc. etc. etc…

If the government comes after civilians, the civilians will be outgunned 1000:1 in terms of firepower.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Hey shit for brains… Ever hear of a little country called Vietnam? How about Iraq or maybe you have heard of it’s neighbor Afghanistan? Less then 1% of the population of Afghanistan has held off the full might of the United States Military for a good ten years now. Every military commander on earth knows that you cannot defeat a determined and entrenched domestic insurgency. It’s never been done anywhere. EVER.

1% of American firearms owners equal roughly 800,000 armed insurgents. 10% of American Firearms owners, (roughly 8 million insurgents) would constitute the largest standing army in world history.

If 50,000 armed determined insurgents in Afghanistan can hold off the US Military for 10 years, what do you think 8 million determined armed insurgents here can do?

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM

If the government comes after civilians, the civilians will be outgunned 1000:1 in terms of firepower.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

.
Even IF … all our military ‘ground forces’ joined with the government in a nationwide gun-grab effort (they won’t), that wouldn’t be true.
.

When the US government is trying to limit civilians’ ownership of weapons it is not because the government is scared of those civilians. It is because it is scared FOR those civilians.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

.
B U L L ( E X P L E T I V E )

Just ask the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver.
.

And you silly goats keep mentioning Mao and Stalin and Hitler… what the hell do you know of the armies that these 3 commanded? Hitler almost beat the might of the Soviet Red Army (and all the allies put together) with all the weapons that they’ve had. You think a bunch of civilians armed with inferior weapons, untrained in soldiering, could have stopped either of these 3 maniacs?

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

.
1) – We know at least as much about “Mao and Stalin and Hitler” as you do.
Probably more, I’m guessing.

2) – Hitler was stopped by the English Channel, and a handful of British Fighter pilots.
“Never have so many owed so much, to so few”

3) – Yes, they would … semi-auto civilian models of military “light-arms” are NOT that “inferior”.
.

Listen to Stanley McChrystal – a guy who has killed people with his bare hands and knows more about soldiering and weapons than all of you put together.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

.
Stanley McChrystal’s “pedigree of qualifications” become meaningless, if he’s aiding and abetting the abolition of the current U.S. Constitution in favor of the WCPA’s Constitution.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM

When the US government is trying to limit civilians’ ownership of weapons it is not because the government is scared of those civilians. It is because it is scared FOR those civilians. And you silly goats keep mentioning Mao and Stalin and Hitler… what the hell do you know of the armies that these 3 commanded? Hitler almost beat the might of the Soviet Red Army (and all the allies put together) with all the weapons that they’ve had. You think a bunch of civilians armed with inferior weapons, untrained in soldiering, could have stopped either of these 3 maniacs?

Listen to Stanley McChrystal – a guy who has killed people with his bare hands and knows more about soldiering and weapons than all of you put together.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Have you read the history of Soviet Russia? Do you know what shape those soldiers were in?
Do you know how THOUSANDS & TENS of THOUSANDS of them died? They didn’t have to. The numbers that were SACRIFICED was outrageous & not necessary.The Soviets beat Hitler DESPITE everything.
And regarding the Federal government & it’s love of us & just wants to protect & care for us?
WTF is wrong with you?
Your history is sorely lacking.
You don’t think a benevolent government can’t turn against its citizens?
Did yoiu ever hear of WACO?

Badger40 on January 9, 2013 at 12:33 PM

What the hell do civilians need assault weapons and 30-bullet clips for? You don’t need that to “protect your family”. A nice baseball bat works just fine, but a non-automatic shotgun with only a few bullets in it is more than enough if you want fire power.

AlexB on January 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM

.
My apologies, Alex’. I missed this at the top of your comment.
.
That openning statement tells us everything you know about firearms, right there.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Stan McChrystal is why all you good patriots that are depending on support from the military to prevent the obama/marxist suborning of The Constitution will be disappointed. Many higher ranking officers, O5 and above, are not the “Duty, Honor, Country” patriots that you think them to be. Most that I have met are “what’s in it for me patriots.”

Which is why We, the People, need weapons as good as the Colonels and Generals.

Old Country Boy on January 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM

HEY, STAN ! . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . We need some serious “politician-control” laws.

The ones already on the books aren’t working.

listens2glenn on January 8, 2013 at 4:04 PM

.
Just like more gun control laws won’t work for those who will ignore or disobey them anyway, more “politician-control” laws won’t work, as the politicians will simply ignore them as they do the ones in effect now.

What we need is criminal politician enforcement from OUTSIDE CONgress, because we’ve seen what self-enforcement gets us….either a “nothing to see here” investigation, a slap on the wrist or a sternly worded letter for the offender at best, usually, if even that.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2013 at 4:34 PM

.
I think you missed my sarcastic absurdity.

Either way, you are of course exactly correct:

“What we need is criminal politician enforcement from OUTSIDE Congress.”

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I read a view of McC new book review in the WaPo by Greg Jaffe, and it was damning in my eyes: he felt the soldiers should not feel bad of a fallen friend(dog) when there were seven enemy dead. He was sympathizing more with fallen enemies than with his own people. There were other quotes in the same vain. When I offered those comments on a review by Bing West, I was attacked by people who hadn’t bother to actually read what I had said.

McC is a common type: he made rank based on his family connections then thumbed his nose at it because he knew he could. He figured he could let his people went to Rolling Stone, and get by with it because he didn’t do it himself: more fool him.

I will say what I said there: I would not serve with him or risk dying in his company. I am a former Naval Intelligence Office who got out just because I saw his type coming.

Denver Bob on January 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Nobody said that generals were especially smart or logical. This is a clown that wants to run for office in some liberal state somewhere.

kens on January 9, 2013 at 7:06 PM

AlexB is a fool liberal but he’s half right. It won’t be the U.S. military armed civilians will have to face, or at least not solely. Think blue helmets and epicanthic flaps. By the millions.

S.P. Link on January 9, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Will they stack like cord wood?

tom daschle concerned on January 9, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Well, I most definitely won’t be buying his book. I don’t want to give him one red cent of my money. I wonder how many other of our military leaders don’t believe in the Constitution.

There is a full on assault on the 2nd amendment. The socialists have been emboldened by the last election, especially the MSM. The media proved that they control what hot topics will resonate with the public.

Ibanez Lotus on January 9, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3