Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

[von_noobie]

The first thing to be done should be to get the millions of guns out of the hands of known street gang members. Make it a felony for a known street gang member to posses any firearms. Give them a chance to secretly turn their guns into the authorities first. Offer them rewards to make then squeal/rat-out on other gang members who still had guns, so the CRASH units could come and get them. After you take all those Gangsta guns away, then we can have a real conversation about US law-abiding gun owners. Also, you will have to allow school teachers to carry CCW guns, that is my second recommendation to all you gun grabbers.

Agreed about the criminals and there gun's, Hell I'm not saying we have to ban gun's but I would prefer I national system that can ensure to an extent that only law abiding citizens have access to them.

So in simple terms (Choose which you agree with or disagree with and why =))

1. Ban all known criminals/gang members from owning a fire arm (unless they get police check? There crime could have been minor, Also perhaps we should define the gang member thing better as in perhaps gang's known to have criminal activity as not all 'gangs' commit illegal acts, There are more then a few 'gangs' that are just social and even charitable)

2. Set up a national gun hand back/buy back similar to what one US town did recently where any weapon could be handed in and there where no questions asked, More then a few Illegal weapons found there way there.

3. Offer rewards to those that pass on information leading to seizure of illegal weapon ownership/weapons (Such as those from crime committing gang members)

4. Ban the carrying of high capacity weapons on the street (I find no credible need for it, All past reasons Ive heard from those that do sound far fetched at best but Im open minded so if your polite I'm willing to debate it)

5. Set up a national system that tracks the weapons and there owner's, That can also track those with mental health problems to ensure that they can not access these weapons unless perhaps under supervision at a shooting range/event.

As for the teacher's being allowed CCW guns, That I can not agree with outright.. If a teacher or staff member has gone through a course and received proper training (which would likely be better then anything your cops get ) then I would say yes but teacher's have a very stressful job and it is not unheard of the,m to lash out at there student's, Putting a gun in the hand's can cause more issues then it would solve but that does not mean to say I'm against not have a gun on the school premises as long as they are either securely locked up or in the hand's of those that are trained. (as in tactical training, Big difference between shooting a stationary target or deer in the woods then shooting a gun men/woman that is mixed in amongst innocents)

 

[Bfgrn]

The first thing to be done should be to get the millions of guns out of the hands of known street gang members. Make it a felony for a known street gang member to posses any firearms. Give them a chance to secretly turn their guns into the authorities first. Offer them rewards to make then squeal/rat-out on other gang members who still had guns, so the CRASH units could come and get them. After you take all those Gangsta guns away, then we can have a real conversation about US law-abiding gun owners. Also, you will have to allow school teachers to carry CCW guns, that is my second recommendation to all you gun grabbers.

What happens when Johnny and his buddies overwhelm Miss Brown and takes possession of her gun pea brain?

Ad for teachers...

Teachers needed:

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

The Bushmaster .223 killed 20 first graders, 6 teachers and the gun's owner. It is the same caliber as the M4 and the muzzle velocity 2,600 fps is almost as high

you could kill 6 year olds with a glock or revolver as well. Don't pretend you want to get rid of just assault weapons. You want to ban all guns. We know what you takers do. this is only the first step. Good luck getting rid of 300 million guns you traitor.

 

[Bfgrn]

you could kill 6 year olds with a glock or revolver as well. Don't pretend you want to get rid of just assault weapons. You want to ban all guns. We know what you takers do. this is only the first step. Good luck getting rid of 300 million guns you traitor.

You don't know what I want. I believe all law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their family and their property. Including the right to legally own a gun.

Now what???

 

[von_noobie]

you could kill 6 year olds with a glock or revolver as well. Don't pretend you want to get rid of just assault weapons. You want to ban all guns. We know what you takers do. this is only the first step. Good luck getting rid of 300 million guns you traitor.

Why is it because a person 'May' want to ban a particular weapon they so often seem to be called a traitor? Seriously grow up, Stop being a paranoid little bitch and actually use some brain cells when debating.

 

[SJJRSJJS]

Agreed about the criminals and there gun's, Hell I'm not saying we have to ban gun's but I would prefer I national system that can ensure to an extent that only law abiding citizens have access to them.

So in simple terms (Choose which you agree with or disagree with and why =))

1. Ban all known criminals/gang members from owning a fire arm (unless they get police check? There crime could have been minor, Also perhaps we should define the gang member thing better as in perhaps gang's known to have criminal activity as not all 'gangs' commit illegal acts, There are more then a few 'gangs' that are just social and even charitable)

2. Set up a national gun hand back/buy back similar to what one US town did recently where any weapon could be handed in and there where no questions asked, More then a few Illegal weapons found there way there.

3. Offer rewards to those that pass on information leading to seizure of illegal weapon ownership/weapons (Such as those from crime committing gang members)

4. Ban the carrying of high capacity weapons on the street (I find no credible need for it, All past reasons Ive heard from those that do sound far fetched at best but Im open minded so if your polite I'm willing to debate it)

5. Set up a national system that tracks the weapons and there owner's, That can also track those with mental health problems to ensure that they can not access these weapons unless perhaps under supervision at a shooting range/event.

As for the teacher's being allowed CCW guns, That I can not agree with outright.. If a teacher or staff member has gone through a course and received proper training (which would likely be better then anything your cops get ) then I would say yes but teacher's have a very stressful job and it is not unheard of the,m to lash out at there student's, Putting a gun in the hand's can cause more issues then it would solve but that does not mean to say I'm against not have a gun on the school premises as long as they are either securely locked up or in the hand's of those that are trained. (as in tactical training, Big difference between shooting a stationary target or deer in the woods then shooting a gun men/woman that is mixed in amongst innocents)

1. I'm talking about Crips, Bloods, White Fence gangs, etc. I had posted a site that lists all the Los Angeles Street Gangs and locations.
2. Los Angeles had the gun "buy" back program, they gave a $100.00 crocery "Coupon" for any gun, no questions asked. Naturally, they will trace the serial numbers, the only problem being is that if they found out that a murder was committed with a certain gun, what could they do about it since they guranteed no questions asked? Also, it is impossible to eradicate gun serial nuimbers, but I will not go into any details here, why help the dumb crooks.
3. I agree with three, but I would also allow people who knew of anyone who had mental problems or acted weird to be turned into(Their Names only) the authorities and if that person tried to purchase a firearm later, a red flag would pop up and further investigation would be needed including a face to face oral one. In California, if you want to get a CCW permit, after all the tests and gun safety programs, etc, you are still interviewed by a cop who can stop the granting of the permit right there. Then the applicant can appeal that cop's NoGo decision, to a higher up on the force.
4. There was that recent case of the women with the 2 children hiding in her closet who had a 6-shooter, which she emptied into that one violent home invasion suspect as he opened her closet door, but he still managed to drive his car away. If there was another suspect ot two there, a big problem, because she was out of ammo, so I dissagree about banning high capacity magazines. On the street, many times there are more than just one attacker, so the high capacity magazine is needed. In Arizona, that anti-gun Congress Lady Gifford and her constituents were all shot because there were no concelied carry people in that line waiting to greet Gabby, to stop the shooter. I am also surprized that there was not an armed guard there. As a Congresswomen, I am sure that a Tuscon Cop would have been assigned to her.
5. Sorry, I am against any Hitler Type system that would put all US gun owners into a Mitt Romney Binder, Hitler did that in 1935 and came back in the middle of the night in 1938 to each home and demanded the Lugers and Walthers that were in that binder.
THESE are my views, and I basically do not want to go any further with this, because I believe my views represent the views of millions of US, and are not debateable since the Second Amendment says I'm RIGHT.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The first thing to be done should be to get the millions of guns out of the hands of known street gang members. Make it a felony for a known street gang member to posses any firearms. Give them a chance to secretly turn their guns into the authorities first. Offer them rewards to make then squeal/rat-out on other gang members who still had guns, so the CRASH units could come and get them. After you take all those Gangsta guns away, then we can have a real conversation about US law-abiding gun owners. Also, you will have to allow school teachers to carry CCW guns, that is my second recommendation to all you gun grabbers.

Tackling the gangs makes perfect sense to me.

 

[SJJRSJJS]

Tackling the gangs makes perfect sense to me.

Good, but the gun grabbers will not do a thing about promoting the disarmament of the gangs, because many of the Democrats constituencies have gang family members, AKA votes. Instead, they want to come after me and any other law abiding gun owner, because they think that we are easier targets, no pun intended. In my area of Menifee, CA, there are not a whole lot of street gangs, but there are in Perris and Hemet, Hemet being about 15 miles away and Perris about 8 miles away. We are kind of in the high desert area(1600 Ft. Alt.), with lots of horses, coyotes, rattlesnakes(I have killed 3, so far), tarantulas and ranches out here, so we protect ourselves, since the cops usually have to drive always to get out here. I need a high capacity Magazine rifle, just in case a group of bad guys try to take me on at my little ranch, and I'm not running away, no way, no how...capisce? Also, horse thieves do operate out here, although I have not encountered any, I know people who have.

 

[von_noobie]

That's alright, We at least see eye to eye on some aspect's which I guess leaves open the door for both sides to negotiate and work out the gun problem with out removing the rights for law abiding citizens (that don't suffer from a mental health disorder).

As for your 2nd point, While I dont dealt some would be calling for that, In the example I hinted at they didnt check any serial's, Straight out get the gun and sent to be melted down but while some area's would go for that I'm pretty certain we could all agree that there would be some area's that try and use it to catch criminal's thus diminishing the chance of gang weapon's being handed back.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why is it because a person 'May' want to ban a particular weapon they so often seem to be called a traitor? Seriously grow up, Stop being a paranoid little bitch and actually use some brain cells when debating.

because any limitation on guns betrays the intent of the framers and the 2nd Amendment

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

because any limitation on guns betrays the intent of the framers and the 2nd Amendment

You're pulling that out of thin air. There has been ample debate regarding the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd amendment, which to me, is pretty clear by the way it's written.

And you also assume that all rights are unlimited. They simply aren't, nor were they meant to be in many cases. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting certain weapons - none of these contradict the intent of the 2nd amendment. People can still get guns.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're pulling that out of thin air. There has been ample debate regarding the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd amendment, which to me, is pretty clear by the way it's written.

the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to deny the federal gov ANY power to do ANYTHING with arms. end of story. There is no super secret clause that only the courts know about that says otherwise.

And you also assume that all rights are unlimited. They simply aren't, nor were they meant to be in many cases. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting certain weapons - none of these contradict the intent of the 2nd amendment. People can still get guns.

you're taking a statement out of an opinion by a very pro government, pro war justice, written over 100 years AFTER the constitution was ratified and applying it as you see fit falling right in line with franklins prophetic statement about security and liberty. it is completely at odds with every commentary and opinion given to the people who voted to ratify the bill of rights, that congress had NO POWER to disarm the militia. no waiting periods, no background checks, and ZERO limitations on weapons.

 

[Howey]

you're taking a statement out of an opinion by a very pro government, pro war justice, written over 100 years AFTER the constitution was ratified and applying it as you see fit

And you're using strawman arguments from one or two people said years before the Constitution was written...and never included in it. Did you ever think why?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And you're using strawman arguments from one or two people said years before the Constitution was written...and never included in it. Did you ever think why?

im using words that were presented to those that voted to ratify. that is what they understood those amendments and the constitution to mean. are you trying to say that the framers had a 'nanny nanny boo boo, fooled you' moment and substituted their own documents afterward?

 

[SJJRSJJS]

That's alright, We at least see eye to eye on some aspect's which I guess leaves open the door for both sides to negotiate and work out the gun problem with out removing the rights for law abiding citizens (that don't suffer from a mental health disorder).

As for your 2nd point, While I dont dealt some would be calling for that, In the example I hinted at they didnt check any serial's, Straight out get the gun and sent to be melted down but while some area's would go for that I'm pretty certain we could all agree that there would be some area's that try and use it to catch criminal's thus diminishing the chance of gang weapon's being handed back.

Do you really believe that the cops didn't check the gun's serial numbers, it takes 20 seconds to write down the serial number of a gun, and about the same time to run it though the system? The guns that were on the criminal system's crime list were saved for future reference, not detroyed. Once they took all the guns away, they could do what they wanted to do with them, who could stop them?

 

[von_noobie]

Do you really believe that the cops didn't check the gun's serial numbers, it takes 20 seconds to write down the serial number of a gun, and about the same time to run it though the system? The guns that were on the criminal system's crime list were saved for future reference, not detroyed. Once they took all the guns away, they could do what they wanted to do with them, who could stop them?

Agreed that it does not take all that long to run a check but simply the Cop's and the organizer's has 2 options.. Follow the spirit of the program they set up in allowing weapons to be handed in no questions asked or eventually be caught out in a lie and put at risk all other such programs nation wide. In any case the majority of any criminal weapon's handed in are very rarely registered with the person handing them in, More often then not they have passed through several sets of hands or simply stolen so any check's would net very little result's for a major risk which they know.

But that is just my opinion, We seem to disagree on this part of the debate so might I suggest we agree to disagree? Then kick back in our respective homes with a cold one and nice steak Mmm ^^

 

[IVAN CHESNOKOV]

You're pulling that out of thin air. There has been ample debate regarding the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd amendment, which to me, is pretty clear by the way it's written.

And you also assume that all rights are unlimited. They simply aren't, nor were they meant to be in many cases. Waiting periods, background checks, limiting certain weapons - none of these contradict the intent of the 2nd amendment. People can still get guns.

IS LIKE IVANS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IVAN HAS FREEDOM TO SAY ALL GLORIOUS THINGS ABOUT FATHER OF MOTHERLAND PREMIER PUTIN. IVAN IS FREE TO VOTE FOR PUTIN AS MANY TIMES AS IVAN LIKES, IF IVAN CHOOSES TO WAIT IN ONLY LINE IN COUNTRY TO VOTE. IS SAME FREEDOM, WITH SAME LIMITS.

 

[IVAN CHESNOKOV]

ALSO, IVAN IS CONFUSED. WHAT IS ASSAULT WEAPON? IN MOTHERLAND, ALL WEAPON IS ASSAULT WEAPON. IVANS RAZOR HE USE TO SLIT NAZIS THROAT IS ASSAULT WEAPON, BECAUSE IVAN ASSAULTS PUNY GERMAN WITH IT. IS NOT SAME THING IN AMERICA?

 

[von_noobie]

It seems the first thing that should be tackled is the gang's, Deal with them by any means necessary (No more Mr nice cops) and then see where the situation stands, Then both parties can sit down and talk it out.

 

[Bfgrn]

It seems the first thing that should be tackled is the gang's, Deal with them by any means necessary (No more Mr nice cops) and then see where the situation stands, Then both parties can sit down and talk it out.

The right claims to be 'tough on crime' when they are really only tough on freedom and liberty. Republicans and the right believe the only way to solve our problems is through punishment. And if that doesn't work, the punishment is just not severe enough. I suggest you research the 1994 Crimes Bill and how Republicans and the right demonized the most constructive part of that bill.

In the early to mid 90's Congress crafted a crimes bill. The original funding framework called for equal thirds of the money to go to 1) police enforcement 2) prisons 3) crime prevention

The crime prevention part of the bill would go toward education, job training, community engagement by law enforcement, child-centered activities (money for arts and crafts, dance programs, recreational activities, nutrition training, and so forth), assorted inner city youth activity programs, urban parks and recreation, schools (money is to be used "to improve the academic and social development of youths by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates efforts of social workers, teachers, and principles."), youth development for such activities as "providing youth with life skills" , drug treatment programs in prisons and facilities like community centers.

Statistics showed that the majority of youth crimes are committed after school lets out and before dinner time. It is not difficult to see what is missing during that time period, adult supervision. So the idea was to provide a safe and supervised facility where these kids could go.

It was during this period that Newt Gingrich and the 'Contract with America' Republicans took over Congress.

The 'Contract with America' Republicans attacked, demonized on did their best to de-fund this part of the bill. They even labeled it by selecting one small part of the bill and added a racial slur, They called the prevention part of the bill paying for 'midnight basketball'

The real irony of that debate; Police Chiefs from around the country ascended on Washington to lobby Congress FOR the prevention provisions, because they knew that the best way to help law enforcement was not more police or more punishment, it was through education, training and community activism.