McChrystal and guns

| January 8, 2013 | 100 Comments

McChrystal guns

Yup, if you say things like assault weapons (whatever those are today) shouldn’t be in schools, I’ll agree with you every time. That’s why none of the guns I own have ever been in a school – because the law tells me that I can’t take guns (of any type) into schools. But, then, I’m a law abiding citizen.

This load from McChrystal is exactly that…a load. I’ve stayed quiet since the discussion about his book began, because I really did respect the job he did in the Middle East, but honestly, I think he’s a tool. Obviously, he didn’t like the job that the Obama Administration was doing in Afghanistan, but he kept his mouth shut after he was effectively fired for what others told a reporter. Soldiers in Afghanistan died while he kept his mouth shut. McCrystal had the horsepower and the capital to spend while soldiers were being shot while the administration disarmed in the face of the enemy.

And now, he wants to jump in behind the Obama Administration on gun control? Seriously? He let the Obama Administration disarm our troops on the battlefield, and now he wants to disarm the folks at home?

In this link, sent to us by FrostyCWO, McChrystal says;

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

Yeah, I spent a career carrying an M16, too. I like the feeling of it, it feels comfortable. Like I said, I don’t take mine around schools – I take it to the range, like I did during my career. While I agree that there’s no need, per se, there’s also no need for a Porsche or a Ferrari on the street. But there they are.

Yeah, this is more of McChrystal’s blind obedience to Obama, regardless of the consequences.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Gun Grabbing Fascists

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (101)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Perspectives | January 9, 2013
  1. Just an Old Dog says:

    What a nut-hugging brown nosing moron. Guns are for battlefields, not for schools… thanks Captain Obviuos. Why do these idjits think gun rights advocates want to put an M4 every 3rd Grader’s Lunchbox? Go back to supply and draw a new set of balls, apparently yours are no longer servicable

  2. FltMedic says:

    I think Generals get a bit stupid when it comes to this stuff, from controlling day to day life as division/garrison commands. I think they just get used to telling everyone what, when, and how to do things. Only reason I can think that so many are turning out to be progressive democrats.

  3. MAJMike says:

    For the majority of my less than stellar military career, I too carried an M-16A1. While in OCS, I saved enough money to purchase a Colt SP1 (AR15 to most folks). When I lived in the country, I killed various varments (skunks, foxes, coyotes, etc).

    None of my evil black rifles are assault rifles. None of them have killed any humans. My Russia-capture Kar98 Mauser, on the other hand, may be assumed to have killed quite a number of people. Yet, the anti-rights folks would ban my semiautomatic rifles and over-look (for the time being) bolt-action military rifles that have certainly killed humans.

    Its not the tool, its the operator. I don’t see how limiting my ability to own and shoot firearms of my choice may prevent the criminal actions of someone else.

    By the way, McCrystal can kiss my straight-leg ass.

  4. Smaj says:

    It’s just Chatty Stan spouting the “elitist” line. FOAD. He’s become a disgrace.

  5. USMCE8Ret says:

    Yeah… whatever. He’s entitled to his opinion. As such, his comments were brought up and discussed lightly elsewhere within this blog and some good sentiments were shared there on the subject.
    Stanley McChrystal doesn’t influence me just because of who he is. He’s a private citizen of this country, and so am I. We don’t have the same views on the subject. He doesn’t carry any credence with me partly, IMO, because I question his ability to make sound and informed decisions. The Rolling Stone interview he gave was about as timely as the recent CNN interview, and the rationale he gives about gun control is questionable, too.
    Like most of those who join this blog, I also carried a weapon of some sort while serving. Most of us grew up using them before serving in the military. Some of us are enthusiasts for firearms for historical purposes, others for design, and others just for sport. Still, I support having firearms for protection for defense – whether at home OR on the battlefield. I guess I’m radical that way, but so were the Founding Fathers, I suppose.

  6. geetwillickers says:

    Could be someone is simply trying to drum up some publicity for his upcoming book? Nothing gets your face splashed across the MSM like spouting the party line.

  7. 0311 says:

    “Assault weapons are for battlefields”
    “Assault weapons are weapons of war”
    “The only thing assault weapons are good for is killing a lot of people quickly or indiscriminately.”

    I hear variations of these lines quite frequently. Next time you hear it, ask: “If that’s true, then why the hell do police departments nationwide use them??”

    PDs are not at war. PDs are not going to need to kill a lot of people quickly (right??). If this logic is to be credited, PDs have zero reason for having “assault weapons.” Yet, you can be goddamned sure any bill that seeks to ban them will have an exception for law enforcement. If Sen. Feinstein, President Obama, Gen. McChrystal, or anyone else who uses this argument believes it, they’d better ante the fuck up and ban police departments and federal government LE agencies from having these “weapons of war.” Lead by example and whatnot.

    Any assault weapons ban that exempts law enforcement is a tacit admission that “assault weapons” have a valid self-defense purpose. If it’s good enough for PDs to carry among us for their own defense, it’s good enough for the rest of us. My life is not less valuable than a cop’s.

  8. Nik says:

    Frankly, McChrystal is more than a tool. He’s a landmine.

    If people say they like and respect him, the libs say “Well, you must be for gun control”. Then if they say “No, I’m not anti-gun”, they’ll say “Oh, so you’ll just throw McChrystal, and anyone, away as soon as they don’t toe the party line”.

    It’s an ugly little trap.

  9. LIRight says:

    I planned to watch Hannity last night until McChrystal said on Hannity’s radio program yesterday afternoon that he voted for Obama. Jeeze! I turned the radio off at that point and did not watch the liberal retired four star on TV double-speak like most other politicians.

  10. MAJMike says:

    @7 — I like your reasoning. If its good enough for the LEO’s then its good enough for a law abiding old phart like myself.

    I don’t hunt, but I do fear an oppressive government

  11. Al T. says:

    No surprise there. IMHO, very few senior officers understand the constitution as their chosen profession is exempt from it.

  12. NR Pax says:

    Dear Mr. McChrystal,

    You have your opinion. My answer to you is “go forth and procreate with yourself.” I’ll let your filters decipher what I really said.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I’m with USMCRet8. It’s McCrystal’s PERSONAL opinion. He’s not speaking for Veterans, active, NG, or Reserve military. Of course the libs will broadcast his viewpoint. And the fact that he did not keep his personal opinion to himself does signal that he is a willing useful idiot–in the eyes of the left. He’s entitled to associate with whomever he pleases. It would be nice, however, if he would think things through and articulate his rationale more thoroughly if he is going to opine in public.

  14. Anonymous says:

    @13. Hell, I am not anonymous. I am 2/17 Air Cav–which is anonymous, sorta.

  15. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Dammit, I did it again. Here, I’ll say it for you: “What a ma-roon!”

  16. Roger in Republic says:

    Mister McCrystal is welcome to come over and personally try to take my guns. He must come alone and be unarmed. We will see how he reacts to an armed man upholding the constitution.

  17. B Woodman says:

    Where have we heard this and similar line of crap before . . . .OH Yeah!! Colin Powell.
    ‘Nuff said.

  18. streetsweeper says:

    Okay, to prove you are indeed 2/17 Air Cav what was the serial number of your Huey.

  19. USMCE8Ret says:

    …and no, I didn’t watch the interview to hear him speak. I already knew what he was going to say, and I refuse to watch anything associated with CNN because I also know it will be lopsided.

    The fact he’s pushing a book and touting it on CNN comes as no surprise either. ‘Nuff said.

  20. Hondo says:

    Nik: the proper response to that feeble attempt at a trap by libidiots is this: “McCrystal? You mean that fool of an ex-General who got himself fired when tolerated his staff being openly disrespectful of the POTUS, then was stupid enough to let Rolling Stone tell the world about it? Why on earth would anyone listen to him? He’s got less common sense than a really dumb squirrel.”

  21. AndyN says:

    @7 – I think as a matter of moral and intellectual consistency, before any gun bans are voted on, Congress should insist that everyone carrying any guns affected by the ban be removed from the capital building. I’m thinking they wouldn’t be as enthused about people being forced to disarm, if the people protecting them were included.

    Likewise McChrystal – is there even a ghost of a chance that he lives his entire life without someone carrying an evil black gun nearby to discourage those who wish him ill?

  22. O-4E says:

    Wow…he obviously trust the Govenrment and his fellow man a lot more than I do

    Me? 24 years in the US Army so far

  23. Stacy0311 says:

    Stan went full retard on his way to becoming the next Wesly Clark

  24. Hondo says:

    Stacy0311: not quite. He hasn’t posed in a leather jacket on the cover of “Advocate” mag yet.

  25. USMCE8Ret says:

    “Yet” Hondo says.

    Yes, I remember Wesley Clark, too – Kosovo/Bosnia and all that, and the whole Pristina Airport debacle where he tried to start WWIII with the Russians. Somehow, Clark and his conduct reminded me of General Jack D. Ripper from “Dr. Strangelove”, the guy who commanded the SAC base, and Peter Sellers was his XO. (You know the rest.) But I digress.

  26. DaveO says:

    The whole gun-grabbing, anti-2nd Amendment campaign by the WH is a feint.

    Sure the WH will push hard and its proxies (who have no legal power) will never give up. But Obama’s crew is dancing in the blood of children to accomplish three things:

    1. Distract folks. We haven’t gone a month since 2008 without some national economic crisis. We’re already back to the fiscal cliff and sequestration talk. 3.3 million Americans are permanently out of work, and who knows how many illegals are not working, but drawing full welfare and benefits.

    2. Make crazy, obscene amounts of cash through POTUS discretionary funds (and the all the pork in the latest budget deal). One thing consistent about Obama is his policy of government (himself) selecting winners and losers. From basketball picks to allegedly green corporations, Obama sucks at picking winners. It’s more like a con game – a company starts up, calls itself green and gets a big government loan/grant, close-to-immediately files bankruptcy and pays off its owners and investors, and DOJ refuses to investigate or prosecute. And like with Solyndra, Obama just ‘happens’ to be an investor.

    3. Find leverage by trading the gun rights for additional funding, and to secure freedom from oversight by IGs, Congress, FOIA, and so on – cash that will find itself in the bank accounts of Obama, his friends, and those who will ensure his maintaining power in 2017.

  27. 11B3P says:

    DaveO: I think you’re exactly right–gun control is a throw-away issue for the Obama administration; they’re quite willing to trade it away for other political goals. However, the anti-gun nutters in Congress don’t feel that way. And since the administration isn’t just going to give up on gun control because it isn’t their highest priority, they will run as far as they can with it. If, in the end, all they succeed in doing this election cycle is raising taxes on some kinds of scary-sounding ammunition, then it’s both a victory for them and a defeat for us. If they don’t happen to meet serious political opposition, they’ll ban everything that isn’t a muzzle-loader. Hell, probably those too.

  28. deadcenter says:

    Ask him the same question about the 30.06, the M1 Garland or the 1903-A3. I’d bet my lunch money his first response would be the same as a deer in the headlights.

  29. OldSoldier54 says:

    Well, I guess this puts to rest any question of his politics. No wonder he gave an interview to a Leftist rag in A-stan. He’s an Obama acolyte.

    Shove it up your fourth point of contact, Stan.

  30. Janaburg says:

    Wasn’t he the JSOC Commander during the Pat Tillman fiasco?

  31. Just an Old Dog says:

    I will say this. The only way they can feasibly ask that citizens give up these so called “assault weapons” in to make it illegal for any Law enforcement agency or Military Organizations in CONUS to carry them. Whats good for the people is good for the government, if citizens aren’t allowed to have a rifle or handgun that is semiautomatic and carries more than 10 rounds there shouldn’t be a reason for Police or National Guard Units to carry them.

  32. TrapperFrank says:

    Hey, I carried an M-16 & an M-4 myself. The only way I can legally have one of those exactly like I carried (full auto) is to go through an extensive background check, pay a prohibitive tax and allow the ATF to visit my abode anytime they feel like it. While we are at it, doesn’t a general officer get to keep the pistol that is issued to him? I believe it is a Colt .380. Wonder if Stan is willing to give that up?

  33. Old Trooper says:

    He’s a life long democrat. Just because he puts on the uniform doesn’t change that. That he was bent over and taken dry by Obama doesn’t mean that he had an epiphany. He will continue to be a democrat and support democrat policies.

  34. Former3c0 says:

    That could actually be a fun thread topic to run with, stating something painfully obvious like that, I’ll go first.

    ICBMs belong in underground silos, not playgrounds. ;)

  35. bullnav says:

    DaveO: exactly. What was that quote from a couple of years ago, never let a crisis go to waste? I agree that the dems will use the whole gun control issue to distract America from the real crises, the complete loss of fiscal control and responsibilty by the federal government and the economy.

    By the way, in Michigan a Concealed Pistol License holder can legally open carry in a school…

  36. NHSparky says:

    And as someone else pointed out, a CCW permit holder in Utah can also carry in schools there.

    Frankly, Gen. McChrystal has jumped the shark, but not before the MSM milks him dry for a few more talking points–kinda like what they’re doing with former Rep. Giffords and her husband.

    Psst…Gabby…it’s your party’s policies who keep the lunatics out of the asylum and off their meds.

  37. Twist says:

    @35, Utah is also teaching it’s teachers how to effectivly use guns.

  38. Twist says:

    #37 was directed at Sparky not #35. I need coffee.

  39. Devtun says:

    Keep him away from the sauce. GEN Stan and his entourage took over an Irish pub in Paris…got shitfaced, sang songs, and talked crap about the civilian leadership. He only had his 4 stars for a year…he’s lucky BO decided to let him retire in grade. Oh yeah, Stan did alot of sucking up all right…”Mr. President, I voted for you” (This guy is a Ranger?).

  40. S6R says:

    “An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating.”

    As opposed to..? What? A .357 is designed to tickle? When a .30-06 hits a human body, the effects are…whimsical?

    This is some of the silliest “analysis” I’ve ever seen. Guns are designed to make bullets go really fast and damage things, they all are. Pretending that the “scarier looking” guns are somehow more dangerous is absurd.

    It was nice of the General to have one of his staff look up specs on the weapon for him though.

  41. Twist says:

    Isn’t the muzzle speed velocity of a .30-06 around 3000 FPS? I guess that’s ok since it isn’t scary looking.

  42. NHSparky says:

    Concur–as I said elsewhere, I’d rather not be shot at all, but if you’re going to set me 100 meters out from a M-4 as opposed to my father’s .308 and I take one shot from each, I know which one I’d rather be hit by.

  43. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @40 my thoughts exactly. The easy way to keep finding speaking engagements is to mouth the words folks who pay for those engagements want to hear. Appear as an “expert” on a news interview, get a job speaking to a liberal event about gun control and become their “expert”…well played indeed.

    Jonn, I never thought he was the right man for the job. I certainly respect his service and commitment to the nation. I just never thought he was a guy who was going to push for a large scale operation to dominate our enemy. Despite his good work at JSOC, he seemed far too willing to be politically correct for whomever was president for my taste. Many of you have mentioned that at some point officers become more politically oriented than militarily oriented. I think that happened with him some time ago as well. Fabrication of facts to avoid embarrassing truths never works out as planned. His recall and dismissal in my mind were the karmic justice for previous falsehoods.

    He certainly has a right to continue to make a living how he sees fit, but sucking political tit to get by doesn’t always work out so well either.

  44. MAJMike says:

    Remember kids, Ol’ Stan has a book debuting soon. This is all to generate buzz and encourage book sales.

    As usual, I state the obvious.

  45. Joe says:

    Fickle bunch.

  46. UpNorth says:

    @#41. Twist, I’ve got some hand-loaded 30-06 in an ammo can that have a muzzle velocity of about 3295 fps. And, you’re right, my 06 isn’t “scary looking”.
    Joey, what’s the definition of an “assault weapon”? Still waiting.

  47. Joe says:

    Um, a gun that goes “Bang!” and shoots bullets?

  48. OldSoldier54 says:

    @45

    Really? It’s so simple, Joe, even a caveman could do it.

    New data, revise hypothesis or point of view. YMMV …

  49. Twist says:

    So a single shot .22 squirrle rifle is an “assault weapon” in your eyes, Joe? Please seek help for your irrational fear issues.

  50. PintoNag says:

    It’s always been my belief that a gun that is pointed at YOU is an ‘assault weapon.’

    A .22 round kills a whole lot more people every year than the big scary .223. Only difference being is that it’s one person at a time, and not a whole bunch all at once.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *