General Stanley McChrystal [Ret.]: .223 Too Lethal for Civilians

A TTAG reader saw General McChrystal’s pro-civilian disarmament remarks on Morning Joe and sent us an email:

I think there is a real fear in the ruling class and their sycophants that a warrior class, much like the gun culture people, may be more loyal to the country than its rulers. Many of us former enlisted scum have serious doubts about way too many of the officer corps as to their commitment to freedom. No knowledge or support of Constitution or Bill of Rights? Having had the privilege of knowing Gen. Joe Foss, there are of course many outstanding officers who do have that commitment. BTW, I suspect that every Afghan and many Iraqi males having a rifle was a major frustration to McChrystal and others who needed a “win” on their resume. Including more than a few Russian and British generals. When is the last time any of us saw a General carry a rifle? We do see them with a herd of armed bodyguards though.

 

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

128 Responses to General Stanley McChrystal [Ret.]: .223 Too Lethal for Civilians

  1. avatarLemming says:

    Okay, I’m confused, it’s too powerful for civilians, but too weak for hunters? Can the antis get together and come up with a consensus position?

    • avatarLarry says:

      So I’m guessing he’s not cool with .338 laupa?

      • avatarS.CROCK says:

        i would assume he is ok with the .338 laupa, because it isn’t the caliber on the grabbers mind right now. they say the .223 is to lethal… this means can kill a bunch of people. why are they not coming for the .22? it kills way more people each year than the .223. oh yah thats right the .223 recently killed 26 people so they point to that specific caliber, and want to change the constitution. i guarantee you that there has been 26 dgu since Newton. but they don’t want to talk about that.

    • avatarrosignol says:

      Can the antis get together and come up with a consensus position?

      The consensus position is “BAN IT ALL”.

      They’re just taking an incremental approach to achieving their ultimate goal.

  2. avatarCaleb says:

    What a crock of crap.

  3. avatarRalph says:

    Answering the question: would our own Army shoot us if we didn’t give up our guns? Yes. Yes they would. And then they’d take some nice snapshots for the folks back home.

    • avatarCulpeper Kid says:

      Ralph, if my brother in law’s nephews, fresh back from Afghanistan (five and four year vets, both Army Rangers), one finishing his 4th tour in five years, are any indication, anybody pulling down on their rifle toting families had better be ready to get it on with these guys. And somehow, I think there are a lot more of them out there.

      • avatarRob G says:

        It was our own Army boys who kicked down doors and confiscated weapons from innocent civilians in New Orleans during Katrina…

        • avatargen4n9 says:

          Some refused to confiscate weapons. Here is a video about it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRZfvtYlCY And lets not forget, that the confiscation was not a well known event as it happened and it wasn’t nationwide. If that were the case it would have changed everything.

        • avatarRob G says:

          True, some refused but most didn’t. I promise I’m not out to bash our amazing military, but if it happened once, it can and will happen again. And I’m pretty certain the next time won’t end as well.

          Our troops swear an oath to the Constitution when they enlist. Perhaps the meaning of the Constitution needs to be explained better to them and more often.

          Just a thought.

        • avatarJake says:

          Genny dude if you believe German civilians the friggin HOLOCAUST was not a well known event. People lived a freaking chip shot from the camps with the smoke and stink wafting over and they never questioned or imagined what could be happening. But of course the accepted explanation is they just must have been all baby eating evul gnatzees, not that the power of a cult can overwhelm all sense and sensibility, or even simpler that not everyone knows about all things that happen within 50 miles of their residence and can’t be held responsible for things they did not perpetrate or actively support. “It wasn’t well known” falls on its face since it was completely known to each perpetrator, victim, and witness to the crime of confiscation, and most did nothing but “sorry just doing my job” “please don’t kill me I didn’t do nothin” and “Not my problem, didn’t see nothin’” respectively.

  4. avatarCapt. Howdy says:

    The General has been in the beltway too long sucking up those fumes from the transit buses. He needs to go re-read the Constitution and his oath to it. The 2nd Amendment exists so that we, the militia/civilian soldier can protect our nation, property and lives. What a buffoon.

    • avatarCapt. Howdy says:

      BTW just because he is a General doesn’t mean he knows what he is talking about. Can the General even perform PMCS on a rifle?

  5. avatarNelson says:

    LOL

    This cocksucker POS who took over/ran Abu Ghraib & Bagram WOULD want the civilian population disarmed.

    Any asshole who holds this traitorous douchebag as some paragon of virtue has his head so far up his ass so deep, he wakes up to brown tinted windows in the morning.

    When’s the last time we had a general who actually knew how to fight a battle along with infantry, rather than worrying about NSA wiretapping him and his mistress’ emails, or worrying about how he would best attain a corporatist Military Ind. Complex job after retirement while giving them insider deals when they were in charge of GSA procurements?

    Genna, puhleeze.

    • avatarJeff O. says:

      Patton?

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        Gen. Roger Price 1st Infantry Division Forward, Division Commander,(early 80′s) and Gen. Paul Funk 1st Cavalry Division, Division Commander, Ft Hood Tx(later became the III Corps Commander I think)!!!
        Both were combat veterans and knew them both personally. Gen Funk was the 1st Air Cav commander in Vietnam and well versed in combat tactics!!!

  6. avatar36IDRedleg says:

    I rank McChrystal in the same catagory with Wesley Clark. Another military politician that would throw his country and his mother under the bus just get to his next photo op. No loyalty to the Constitution or his fellow citizens. An Obama stooge. He has no credibility by doing an interview on Morning Joe.

  7. avatarB says:

    This guy lost my respect after he took away the restaurants on bases in Afghanistan. Good food is one of the easiest morale boosters. DFAC even if its good gets old. Fucking moron asshole.

  8. avatarGuywithagun says:

    So the .223 is too dangerous for civilians, huh? There are bolt action and single shot rifles that shoot the .223. Funny how no one is interested in banning the ammo or the other non-semi-automatic guns that shoot the same ammo. They just want the “evil assault weapons” banned. Makes perfect sense to me.

  9. avatarjbarr says:

    From the video clip:

    “We have to protect out police…we have to protect our population.”

    So how did we do this at Sandy Hook? Obviously, we didn’t. We provided an environment that allowed a shooter to commit a crime without fear of any resistance whatsoever.

  10. avatarMichael B. says:

    This is the same guy who tried to cover up the true cause of Pat Tillman’s death and was promoted afterwards anyway.

    Guys like him and Wesley Clark had to go through plenty of pairs of kneepads to get where they were.

    • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

      Aye!

      These scumbags are a totally different breed.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Whaddaya MEAN, “anyway”? (That’s WHY he was promoted, to clarify my meaning…)

      I’m pretty sure I know who issued Pat’s death warrant; this may have been the guy who passed it down.

    • avatarJay Dunn says:

      But he clearly found some new knee pads and is eager to wear them out.

  11. avatarPulatso says:

    Lord, nobody tell him about the .308.

    • avatarChris says:

      Actually he was one of the driving forces getting the .308 back in the field in Afghanistan since it can be effective at longer ranges than a .223. He just doesn’t want an armed militia pure and simple.

  12. avatarInBox485 says:

    Really? .223 is too lethal? It’s a freaking squirrel round. It does the job, and it is arguably the most ideal HD round (especially for the recoil sensitive), but it is hardly over powered.

    Tell him to grow a spine and wipe Obama’s poo off his nose.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Here I am, wondering how big the squirrels are where you are. DEFINITELY a place to avoid. Only thing I hate more than squirrels is GIANT squirrels.

  13. avatarJeff O. says:

    Well and least we’d still have 7.62×39, .308, 30-06, .270, 5.45×39…

    • avatarMike S says:

      Don’t forget 45/70! I won’t.

      • avatarJeff O. says:

        And shotguns with #1 or 00 buck or slugs. After all, those are just hunting loads.

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        Or 7.62x54r. .338 Lapua, and other good rounds. Wish they had developed 6.5 Creedmore to replace the 5.56mm NATO. Might have been a better round!!!

      • avatarJake says:

        That dang doorstop of a bullet “concerns” me more than almost any ammo out there, if I bother having such “concerns” at all. That thing is a massive amputator, the howling about a specific type of gun that looks a certain way shows that modern american politicians (left or right) know nothing but what they “learned” in their political “science” and “business” management classes, completely ignoring abject realities such as the physics of ballistics and the nature of life.

  14. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    “We have to protect our children…”

    There are no “our children.” There are “your” children and “my” children. Looks like I’ll have to protect “my” children from you.

    Maybe I shouldn’t blame him… he is a brainwashed automaton after all.

    Speaking of the military, Maj Gen Butler had this to say: “My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

  15. avatarA** Hat says:

    He’s a total a** hat. I am an Army officer, and this makes me sick. However, considering his background in the Ranger Regiment and as a Green Beret, he probably has plenty of experience with the M4. Probably more than the vast majority of enlisted personnel in the Army.
    That said, this statement is abhorrent. He is clearly trying to regain his public status after his forced retirement. He has a lecture position at Yale, and is promoting his book. This is simply a way of getting lots of publicity.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      Now Sir!! Not all Rangers are asshats!! Just part of them, usually the ones that went to Ranger school and never served in a Ranger Batt or Unit and probably spent most of their time in the back of a Bradley telling everyone how badass he was in school!! LOL!!!
      Thank You Sir for your service and the balls to speak up!! As a former Ranger/Airborne 11B30 LRSD/LRSC NCO(Team Leader) it is nice to find a Commisioned Officer who will speak their peace without fear!!

  16. avatarJhonnieB. says:

    I hope a Marine general never says anything like that. What a bunch of BS!

    Tom H.
    Cpl. HQ Plt., C Co., 1/4
    MCAGCC 29 Palms, CA
    1985-1987

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Compare McChrystal to Mattis. Oh wait, that can’t be done.

      “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all” – Gen. James Mattis

  17. avatarJFP says:

    He’s a traitor, plain and simple.

  18. avatarLance says:

    .223 too powerful then what do you think 3006 or .308 would be? Shows even idiots like him can make general by brown nosing liberal scum in congress.

  19. avatarMark N. says:

    The illogic of his comments amazes me. If the .223 is “too powerful” for civilians doesn’t that mean that anything as or more powerful than that is also “too powerful”? And that would mean we would have to wipe out all hunting calibers other than varmint guns to “protect the civilians”? Give me a break. No wonder Obama canned his ass–he’s an idiot. Or maybe he’s saying these things so that gun banners will buy his new book.

    • avatarGIsaacs says:

      You’re right. Just a bit of research reveals the .223 was originally designed as a varmint round and the military adopted it. It’s just about the same size as a .22 as others have pointed out there are many more common rounds more lethal. This is all BS and politically motivated by the Prez and his team.
      Just remember…as the saying goes ” Hitler, Stalin and Mao all say – Gun Control Works!”

  20. During an inteview with Hannity last night, McCrystal supported Obama’s proposed cabinet appointments – citing that their backgrounds and previous national security-related blunders were inconsequential and overshadowed by their ability to get along with the President. He’s not worthy of carrying Patton’s latrine bucket.

    • avatarLance says:

      I guess since he love Obama’s pic for Sec of Defense he is anti-Israel and pro Iran too showing he is brainless letting Obama attack our rights while arming Islamist Egypt with new F-16s and M-60A1 and M-1A1 tanks to be used against Israel. May he take a flying leap threw a doughnut scumbag.

      • Lance: In keeping with Obama’s Director of National intelligence, James Clapper, who proclaimed that the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood (which spawned both al Qaeda and Hamas) is “largely a secular organization” – certainly begging the question as to how these fruitcakes can disseminate such bullcrap with a straight face.

    • avatarRalph says:

      He’s not worthy of carrying Patton’s latrine bucket.

      He certainly is.

      • avatarBill says:

        He’s worthy of wearing Patton’s latrine bucket.

        There, fixed it for you Ralph.

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        Then Maj. Patton was part of the assault on the Bonus Army, a group of WWI veterans who held an extended peaceful protest in Washington during the Great Depression demanding that the Federal government pay their WWI service bonuses early as a form of economic stimulus to restart the economy.

        Gen. MacArthur lead the assault on the peaceful protest, and continued even after President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. Maj. Patton was among those who continued to attack American veterans against orders.

        Not only is McChrystal worthy of Patton’s latrine bucket, the two of them combined are worth less than the contents of that latrine bucket when it comes to American war veterans.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      He’s not worthy of carrying Patton’s latrine bucket.

      Given that Patton lead a massacre of unarmed US veterans on US soil, Patton wasn’t worthy of carrying his own latrine bucket.

  21. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Stanley A. McChrystal = CFR Member per 2012 Member Roster posted online

    Go ahead and tar and feather me, but it’s a little bit more than a coincidence when all of the people calling for gun confiscation and civilian disarmament are part of the same Club…..the Council on Foreign Relations.

  22. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    The current military has breed into the ranks all sorts of attitudes which are .. well… un-American. I objected to the all volunteer military for just this reason. A cloistered world. Self selected they develop the us and them attitude towards fellow citizens. The whole “civilian” vs. whatever. It ain’t good. It argues for bringing back the draft. While no one wants malcontents, bitching and disrespect, it injects into the military the blessing of societal thinking. Even worse is the tremendous focus on “special forces”. Again, isolated and insulated from others. More and more seeing the world with special goggles. Very dangerous folks. Not for their training or skills. But for how they think of us.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      It argues for bringing back the draft.

      I’d say just the opposite. I’d say it’s an argument for reducing the standing army by at least 90% and forcing the states to train and fund citizen militias for their own defense, Swiss-style, as was intended.

      This idea that we must have a huge standing army at all times is idiotic. Ours was just as big as Belgium’s in the lead-up to World War II. If the SHTF in a big way it doesn’t take an extremely long amount of time to churn out draftee ground pounders, especially not if they have previous martial training via militia service.

      • avatarTommy Knocker says:

        @Michael B … heck I’d go for the Swiss model in a heartbeat. It essentially does the same as I remarked. Makes citizen participation the norm. Whether its at the Federal or State level is an argument I’ll skip. But otherwise we agree on this….

        P.S. if you have any info on the Swiss universal draft and if it is at the Canton level or nationally I would appreciate it.

      • avatarDavid says:

        I could not agree more about reducing the size of our standing fighting force.

      • avatarSkyler says:

        The new model being developed by the USMC gets closer to that ideal with a much greater reliance on the reserves for unit deployment programs (UDP) and other planned military operations.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Agreed. This is one area that I’m in extreme disagreement with my girlfriend on. She’s ex-Air Force and blindly believes that the military is always good and that we NEED to have a military base in every country and use force to make other countries do as we desire instead of letting them choose their own internal politics.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          Totenglocke you’re involved with a chick who sounds like an unhinged imperialist and a crazed control freak.

          Does not bode well, my friend.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Yea, I know, but most girls are messed in the head, so dating / getting married is always a lose-lose proposition. We’ll see what happens long term, but it’s definitely a hit against me wanting to ever get married to her.

          She also told me that she viewed Gary Johnson as being just as bad as Obama and Romney because, while she agreed with everything Johnson wants to do in the US, Johnson wanted to end our imperialist policy (not her words) and that made him a bad candidate.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          It’s hard finding someone who actually gives a **** about liberty and has other nice qualities.

          I typically sleep with lefties and date conservatives and people who don’t care one way or another about politics.

          I’m finding the third group to be the most pleasant to interact with these days as long as they’re intelligent.

          I’m not sure that libertarian women actually exist.

      • avatarSIGCDR says:

        General Washington offered the founders some sound advice on avoiding a large standing army in times of peace.

        “He pointed out that a large standing army in time of peace had always been considered “dangerous to the liberties of a country” and that the nation was “too poor to maintain a standing army adequate to our defense.” The question might also be considered, he continued, whether any surplus funds that became available should not better be applied to “building and equipping a Navy without which, in case of War we could neither protect our Commerce, nor yield that assistance to each other which, on such an extent of seacoast, our mutual safety would require.” He believed that America should rely ultimately on an improved version of the historic citizens’ militia, a force enrolling all males between eighteen and fifty liable for service to the nation in emergencies. He also recommended a volunteer militia, recruited in units, periodically trained, and subject to national rather than state control. At the same time Washington did suggest the creation of a small Regular Army “to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbors of Canada and the Floridas, and guard us at least from surprises; also for security of our magazines.” He recommended a force of four regiments of infantry and one of artillery, totaling 2,630 officers and men.”

        http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch05.htm

        I am a retired Navy submarine officer and met way too many Army officers who would fit right in with McChrystal. Our nation can’t afford the Army and which has been deployed to fight for Saudi princes or deter aggression for Southeast Asian countries, rich Koreans, and effete Europeans who are more than willing to let Uncle Sam protect them. A large standing army and the military-industrial complex is an existential threat to our liberty.

        If we followed Jefferson’s advice on “entangling alliances with none” and Teddy Roosevelt’s advice to speak softly but carry a big stick (the US Navy’s Great White Fleet) we would not need a big standing Army, Army Reserve, National Guard, or US Air Force to threaten our liberties. The Navy carrier battle groups, Trident submarines and a smaller USMC off shore is plenty enough to take care our our national security needs.

        I have two sons who are serving in the Army who are the fourth generation of my family to serve our country but we don’t need the draft and we don’t need a large standing Army either.

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      I don’t know what you personal experience with the military may be but, after serving for 21 years, I can say with out a doubt the “us vs them” mentality IRT the Constitution is not prevalent in the Military. We take our oaths very seriously. We may bitch about how civilian vs military pay equates or who works harder but, I can count on one hand the number people I worked with that had an elitist mentality.

      Today’s military is a cross section of American society. We come from all demographics. The majority are hard working kids when they join and most of the rest learn how to be hard working and responsible. Few are found wanting and sent packing. A good portion come from middle class families and are fairly sheltered from tough choices. Some are hard cases and need more direction. 99% are better citizens after serving. Draft or no draft.

  23. avatarRKflorida says:

    He knows better which means that he is lying. And lying for his own benefit.

  24. avatarإبليس says:

    I guess his camo panties knotted up when Pashtuns slung 303 British his way! He resembles the homosexual from American Beauty.

    • avatarLance says:

      Think he is a “Dont Ask” solder. Find it funny how many men armed with “Powerful” 5.56mm weapon where killed by bad guys armed with .303 Enfeilds and 7.62x54mm Nagants and they did a better job in open combat.

      Shows this guy is a stupid democratic bureaucrat.

  25. avatarMatt in SD says:

    I’m really starting to regret selling that .222 bolt action Remington I had…..

  26. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Yeah, to all the hunters, remember .223 is too powerfull for a civilian. What is a good civilian round? pinfire, get your magnifing glass before the ban, Randy

  27. avatarEvan says:

    Wait, I thought the consensus in the 1960′s was that the military thought the .223 couldn’t kill anything! Now it’s too powerful?

  28. avatarMikeinid says:

    Most, if not all flag rank are political. They almost have to be to get where they are. If they made it past Col, they are probably compromised. While you really can’t trust any of these clowns, I would be reluctant to tar the rank and file with the same brush. Many, if not most, still share our exact same values, and many exemplify them.

  29. avatarShane says:

    McChystal must have a foot fetish as often as he puts his foot in his mouth.

  30. avatarHal says:

    5.56×45 is far too powerful for civilian use?

    What does he expect us to use…harsh language?

  31. avataruncommon_sense says:

    According to the general, no one needs a .223 / 5.56mm semi-automatic rifle. If no one needs one, why is there one in almost every police car in the U.S.?!?!?!?

    Regardless, we don’t refer to them as “needs”, we call them “rights”. Think about it. No one needs to be able to stand with a sign in front of city hall. They won’t die if someone prevents them from standing with a sign. Nevertheless it would be WRONG to prevent someone from standing in front of city hall with a sign. And it is just as wrong to tell someone they cannot have a semi-automatic rifle in any caliber.

    One final comment. We must realize that anyone in the military at level is simply a politician. I trust the general’s comments as much as I trust any other politician’s comments — which means I don’t.

  32. avatarChuckN says:

    I’d love to hear him recite Tennyson’s
    “The Charge of the Light Brigade”

    Sometimes great generals are just
    born too late.

  33. avatarSkyler says:

    He’s right, the 5.56 NATO is powerful enough for the military. That’s why I have one in my collection. I never intend to use my rifles for military puposes, but that’s what they’re for and that’s why I practice my marksmanship with them.

    General McChrystal screwed up as a military commander and had an appallingly unprofessional staff. I can’t even imagine a staff officer, let alone several, saying the unprofessional things they were quoted as saying about the commander in chief. It reflects on his leadership and his ability to control and manage a staff. America should not deem his words to be worth hearing.

  34. avatarDavid-p says:

    We have one general who says the 5.56 is way too powerful and hundreds of others that say its not powerful enough. Luckily he quoted a fps of almost 3000. We can make everyone happy with this, ban the 223 and make everyone start using the 308. Generals who know what the hell they are talking about know that it can get the job done and this general would be happy because the fps on a 308 is only 2500. That’s what I call a compromise. 308′s for all!!

  35. avatarMercutio says:

    Oh yeah… much more dangerous than my Grandfather’s .30-06…..

  36. avatarFyrewerx says:

    “When is the last time any of us saw a General carry a rifle?”

    I didn’t actually see him personally, but here is a photograph of Gen. George A. Custer with his rifle (which, incidently, was sold at auction on Dec. 20, 2012, for $179,250):

    http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/general-george-custer-unknown.jpg

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      At the risk of being a pedantic history buff, Custer’s rank when he died was Lt. Colonel. His General rank was a Brevet promotion from the Civil War.

      Brevets were honorary ranks that were given out for conspicuous gallantry or other notable achievements in war. Although theoretically a general could command at his brevet rank, in the post-civil-war Army, when they had more generals than they had jobs for them, very few did.

  37. avatarTacticalDad says:

    Now I really miss “Stormin’ Norman. -RIP Class act.

  38. avatarPowers says:

    I can’t believe this guy thinks disarming the citizens of ONE specific caliber is going to change anything, and I think he knows it’s BS. But there is an agenda to follow, and a Commander In Chief to impress again for future nominations.
    I hope, since I am not in the military and never was, that he is just one lone moron trying to brown nose for a nice appointment. By using the Sandy Hook tragedy as the platform to try and gain back favor with the liberals and the media.. etc etc.. I hope and pray he is not even the least bit representative of our great men and women in the Armed Forces.

  39. avatarSean Browne says:

    What a load of crap. Even the State of Connecticut concedes that .223 is not powerful enough to hunt deer in their state. ( .243 minimum ). This is where you have to see the connection between fighting the ‘assault rifle ban’ and losing all our rights, hunting as well.

  40. avatarTherapist says:

    He needs to go back to what he’s good at, compromising himself in Rolling Stone magazine.

  41. avatarJWhite says:

    Well.. Than he sure as shit aint gonna like my .300 BLK

    • avatarJWhite says:

      Hes a twat. A bullet does devistating damage regardless. How do you even compare the types of ammo?

      “Oh this round only punches a hole! This one though, it punches holes and vital organs!” whatveer that means. Getting shot is getting shot. If you shot someone wether it by a pellet gun, or a firearm, if you did so as a means of intimidation or as a means of causing fear, you’ve just assaulted someone. Regardless of what kind of bullet it is, do you really think anyone cares when they get shot? I could careless if it was a golden unicorn bullet or a 9mm +p+, I have a hole in my body leaking blood… I love how for years the .5.56 has been deemed an “inadequate” round with insufficient “stopping power”, but now that there is an agenda to push… It’s a devastating round used by only mad men and military bad asses. This is in no ay suitable for civilian use…

      I read it the other day, and I’ll gladly repeat it here..

      Why should I have to show necessity to avoid loosing a right? I dont need a knife everyday. I still carry one incase I need it. Same goes for anything else. Why did I buy two tubes of tooth paste? Incase I run out, I have a back up…

  42. avatarMolon Labe says:

    Would my 7.62 battle rifle be ok?

    One of the last great generals. Gen. Alexander Haig . Battle of Ap Gu in March 1967.
    During the battle, Haig’s troops (of the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (United States)) became pinned down by a Viet Cong force that outnumbered US forces by three to one. In an attempt to survey the battlefield, LTC Haig boarded a helicopter and flew to the point of contact. His helicopter was subsequently shot down. Two days of bloody hand-to-hand combat ensued. An excerpt from Haig’s official Army citation follows:

    When two of his companies were engaged by a large hostile force, Colonel Haig landed amid a hail of fire, personally took charge of the units, called for artillery and air fire support and succeeded in soundly defeating the insurgent force … the next day a barrage of 400 rounds was fired by the Viet Cong, but it was ineffective because of the warning and preparations by Colonel Haig. As the barrage subsided, a force three times larger than his began a series of human wave assaults on the camp. Heedless of the danger himself, Colonel Haig repeatedly braved intense hostile fire to survey the battlefield. His personal courage and determination, and his skillful employment of every defense and support tactic possible, inspired his men to fight with previously unimagined power. Although his force was outnumbered three to one, Colonel Haig succeeded in inflicting 592 casualties on the Viet Cong … (HQ US Army, Vietnam, General Orders No. 2318 (May 22, 1967)[9]
    Awarded Distinguished Service Cross.

  43. avatarC says:

    A lot of military officers are closet fascists. Just sayin….

    • avatarrosignol says:

      How many do you know personally?

      • avatarJake says:

        I don’t have to know anyone else personally to know from their actions that they have a fascist mentality whether they know/admit it or not. I have thankfully never been within 100 feet of the president (sadly not by choice have been within about 1000) and I still know he is a fascist because that is what the publicly available data indicates. I don’t see why it should be different for members of the military. Can you point to some scientific data that shows military members are of a different species prone to radically different behaviors than human beings? No? Then we will continue assessing them based on all available data just like all the other nearly hairless apes, not just on job titles.

  44. avatarSmaj says:

    It’s just Chatty Stan spouting the “elitist” line. Of course, he’ll be able to keep his weapons in the coming confiscation. This toad is an absolute disgrace. It should be clear by now that there is a deep, deep progressive rot at the top of the officer corps (this clown, Casey, Demspey, Allen, Patraeus, Mullen, Clapper to name a recent few).

  45. avatarMOG says:

    Another “General” looking for a political position. Generals never impressed many of us. The company clerk was the one you best stay on the good side of. If a .223 is too lethal for civilians, how much lower could we go? It is a frigging .22 after all. Look on the bright side, if the AR clones are banned, the firearm manufacturers could go back to making real rifles, instead of something just to hang bs gadgets on. (Forgive my blasphemy, I have harbored hate for the M16 from day one).

  46. avatarscottlac says:

    Wow, a 22-250 must really be absolutely insane at FOUR thousand fps! Turn them all in NOW!

    /sarcasm

    • avatarRetired 3rd Infantry Grunt says:

      You can go even higher than that by using a 55 gr .223 bullet in a .30 caliber sabot in a .300 Win Mag round. It is up around 4600 fps. It is spinning so fast that it actually starts to wobble. But it is amazing what it will do to a gallon milk jug filled with water at 100 yards. It nearly vaporizes the jug.

  47. avatarRetired 3rd Infantry Grunt says:

    McChrystal is just another Obama ball-washing, dick licking weasel. I was both Army enlisted and officer in the Infantry, going from PV1 to SFC before becoming an officer and then retiring as a MAJ when I absolutely WOULD NOT serve under Obama. Once an officer achieves field grade (MAJ) they start becoming politicians. That’s all this dipshit is, a POLITICIAN. I’ll bet he has not carried an M16 or M4 for MANY years. There is no need when you rarely leave the CP. He has always been a TALKING General, instead of a WALKING General.

    • avatarLance says:

      I know too. But how many men who died like over 200,000 airmen over Europe died for our right to own AR-15s how Pentagon deskjockies make them look bad.

      Same on you McCristal!

  48. avatarEd Rogers says:

    Sure, he’s already got his…another case of the privileged (ala Feinstein) casting his dismissal on the general public. I wonder if HE ever read the Second Amendment!

  49. avatarPatriot says:

    A new White House petition asking President Obama to keep his promise of not taking our guns and to keep his oath of office. If not, to please step down.
    Please sign and distribute link.
    http://wh.gov/Pbb0

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I suggest as an honorable man, if unable to keep his promise or more importantly his oath of office, to please step down.

      Except he’s not an honorable man, nor are 99.999% of our “leaders”.

  50. avatarChris says:

    If they get the “assault rifles” next it’ll be the “high-powered precision sniper rifles” and then the “high-capacity rapid-fire lever-action rifles”. Not to mention, the “street-sweeping riot shotguns”.

  51. avatarWLCE says:

    “BTW, I suspect that every Afghan and many Iraqi males having a rifle was a major frustration to McChrystal and others who needed a “win” on their resume.”

    very seldom does such a comment on here provoke my thoughts the same level as that one. you hit the nail on the head and drove it home. Iraqi and Afghanis with beat up rifles and homemade fertilizer bombs have managed to maul the worlds most powerful military with state of the art equipment. Afghanistan is a graveyard of empires. chalk the United States as one of the failed empires to Afghanistan’s eternal stone walls.

    “Including more than a few Russian and British generals. When is the last time any of us saw a General carry a rifle? We do see them with a herd of armed bodyguards though.””

    I have nothing more to say than this, “soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them” -Napleon Bonaparte-

    • avatarSIGCDR says:

      Don’t blame the losses in Afghanistan on the Army troops. It was McChrystal and the President who are responsible for getting a lot young Americans killed and wounded. They died because McChrystal implemented PC rules of engagement that made it impossible to kill enough of a determined and ruthless enemy to make them put down their arms and go back to camel humping. Remember McChrystal and the brass told the troops they had to look the other way when their “allies” were raping little boys. That tells me all I need to know about McChrystal.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        and where did i say it was the troops’ fault? read my reply again.

        Everybody bitches about “PC rules of engagement”. funny thing, when i was there, our rules of engagement were pretty clear and there was no ambiguous grey area of when to shoot and when not to.

        the PC rules of engagement has been a excuse for superpower armies getting spanked by insurgents since the early 20th century.

  52. avatartjlarson2k says:

    Sigh.

    Why are they even talking about specific calibers? It’s so asinine and irrelevant to the big picture.

    There is no middle ground with guns. Either we’re allowed to have them or we aren’t. That’s it.

    There is no “safe” gun out there that exists that is immune to being used by bad people because bad people aren’t nearly as stupid as the anti-gunners that keep trying to disarm the good guys. Priceless.

    Considering 100% of all mass shooting are done by crazy people, well there’s your problem. Fix the mental health problem and you fix mass shootings via crazies.

    Until then, all we can do now is the responsible and obvious thing and that is enabling the armed good guys to outnumber the armed bad guys with superior firepower whenever possible and give the good guys the means to carry where ever they want so they don’t become victims along with everyone that doesn’t carry.

  53. avatarCitizen soldier says:

    Something the general public seems to be unaware of is the amount of “gun control” that has worked its way into the military. I can only speak specifically for the Army, but I’d be willing to bet it most of it is DOD wide. Soldiers aren’t allowed to keep their privately owned weapons in their barracks. Soldiers living on post, regardless of rank, are required to register their firearms, and except for very specific times, Soldiers aren’t allowed to carry weapons on post. These regulations all come down as orders from elitist generals who don’t trust their soldiers. This guy is just another elitist who doesn’t trust American citizens.

    • avatarLance says:

      Most Marines are progun so maybe its a Army problem too many dumb liberal idiots getting in.

      Samper Fi

  54. avatarpat says:

    I guess my M1A renders me toothless. The semi 308 is the weapon you use to hunt people carrying the AR 223.

  55. avatarTom jones says:

    He’s on the daily show saying the same stuff.

  56. avatarMary H says:

    Soldiers, even generals, are subject to the same prejudices and delusions as other humans. McChrystal is a left-leaning politician, who used to wear a uniform. General McChrystal destroyed his own career by letting reporters from ROLLING STONE run around loose in his staffroom, so I don’t have a lot of respect for his perspicacity, his ability to recognize a credible threat, or his grasp of strategy and tactics.

    Gen. McChrystal should re-read the oath he took to the Constitution, and see if it has any references to caliber. (I checked, it doesn’t.) The Second Amendment says “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” N. B. It doesn’t say any thing about what kind of arms.

    Furthermore, here in the United States, we have a proud tradition of citizen soldiers-that is, civilians become soldiers, and then most of them turn back into civilians when their time of service is over. If they are fit to bear arms in the military, they are certainly fit to bear arms as civilians. Not only that, even in these benighted times, the military is subordinate to the civil government. So McChrystal should just shut it.

  57. avatarmatt says:

    He went on the Daily Show and repeated pretty much the same same.

  58. avatarStatic NAT says:

    I don’t like that he’s undermining America’s most popular semi-automatic rifle based on “need” … and stating that we ought to …”take a pretty hard look at putting our kids in jeopardy”. This is the same emotionally-based bull that Bloomberg’s groups are pushing. In-spite of his past record and issues with Obama, this guy is selling-out on upholding our Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.