McChrystal and guns

| January 8, 2013

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

Comments (101)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Perspectives | January 9, 2013
  1. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @45 there is nothing wrong with civilians disagreeing with each other Joe.

    McChrystal can certainly voice his opinions, as you are also most welcome to do.

    The fact that some here disagree with his current stance doesn’t lessen the respect for the man, it just means on this issue we believe he is taking the wrong position.

    If we are being honest however, there have been blemishes on this man’s career long before he decided to become a political animal. Looking at those blemishes might be a predictor of what kind of political animal he might become, in that regard there is nothing fickle about not respecting the opinion of a man whose character when reporting the truth is suspect.

  2. David says:

    Ah, Joe, you finally got around to defining a turn-of-the-16th Century musket as an “assault rifle”….. your credibility (sadly) remains unchanged.

    McChrystal, like any general officer in modern times, is a politician first, last, and always. I support 100% his right to his opinion. I also think he’s a flaming idiot, and do not find those two sentences incompatible.

  3. Twist says:

    @52, He also seems to think that the first gun invented in 8th century China is an “assault rifle”.

  4. NHSparky says:

    Awwww, Joey–U mad, bro?

  5. PintoNag says:

    It’s been hit or miss for me on the blog lately, so someone may have asked this question already; Joe, do you own any guns or have any experience with them?

  6. Jonn Lilyea says:

    PintoNag, #55, if I was so inclined, I could find a comment Joe wrote once in which he explained that he supported the Second Amendment – of course, that was before this grand opportunity the Left has in deaths of 20 children to stand on their bodies in that way they do when they think they have a moral issue to flog.

  7. Joe says:

    If you can’t “stand on their (Sandy Hook children) bodies” to force meaningful change, what can we stand on? Talk about nihilism….

  8. Twist says:

    So you would happily stand on dead childrens memories just to push your agenda? You need to seek mental help ASAP.

  9. Twist says:

    JP, Joe has already stated that anything that goes “bang” and fires a bullet is an assault weapon. So by his standard the top picture is an assault rifle.

  10. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    What meaningful change is being proposed?

    There is nothing pending as law, and no one is suggesting collecting any weapons at this time. A ban would address weapons not yet manufactured and that are involved in 2% of deaths each year, once the definitions are legal those weapons will be cosmetically altered to comply with the new legislation as was done after the 1994 ban. Joe Biden even said in 2008 that if anyone tries to take his Beretta “there’s going to be a problem”….

    Is there legislation pending to address the 40 people each day who are murdered? Through dealing with mental illness in an effect manner, or addressing the constant daily murders of young black males fighting over drug turf? Now that would be useful legislation that might have a meaningful change, but one has suggested addressing or reviewing legislation to fix those problems. Probably because the deaths of 35-40 mostly minority gang members each days is of little concern to society at large. Throw in a missing white girl, white woman, or a bunch of dead white upper middle class kids and suddenly there is an overwhelming need for meaningful change. Where has the outrage been for the other 40 victims killed every day? Where has the call for action been for them? What great liberal mind has created meaningful legislation to deal with gang related crime, or drug crime? The Dems had 4 years to pass any legislation they wanted, they didn’t give 2 sh1ts about the murder rate for the entire time, instead they focused on building a voter base through entitlements and trying to convince their own party they needed to add a health care plan that will finally bankrupt the nation.

    Another law that will be circumvented within a few months, and only adds to the mass of laws currently on the book having zero effect does nothing useful other than to make some folks feel like they’ve done something….politically it’s suicide. The Clintonites were warned in 1994 that the AWB was a mistake, Clinton ignored them and the Dems were handed their 4sses in the mid-terms.

    Sorry Joe, no traction with rhetoric….a new law designed to protect white folks in suburbia doesn’t seem much like meaningful change to me…seems like more of the same tired old bullsh1t.

  11. PintoNag says:

    @56 I actually remember that comment from Joe. It’s hard to support something if you don’t know what it is. It’s my experience that people today are very reluctant to admit they don’t know about something. In the gun debate, everyone is an expert…but the number of experienced shooters in the conversation can fluctuate greatly, depending on who you’re talking to. It’s also been my experience that someone who has never handled a gun or been around them is afraid of them. Understandable…but fear of something doesn’t make you an expert on the subject. And not to be facitious or anything, but fear of DYING of something doesn’t make one an expert, either.

  12. USMCE8Ret says:

    It’s that time of the day again, just like the other day.

    I have to post an obvious trend, which someone noticed a few posts ago.

    Joey seems to launch into his illogical, uneducated and unsupported diatribes at certain times of the day – which leads me to suspect that the babysitter is asleep on the couch (when he’s supposed to be napping), and he’s found his way to the computer (which he isn’t supposed to be on), and somehow manages to troll on this site.

  13. Common Sense says:

    It looks like King Obama is going to act without Congress – again:

    “The president is going to act,” Biden said. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

  14. Joe says:

    Well, the next couple of generations are doomed to suffer the scourge of gun violence no matter what we do. But maybe the kids in 75 years can read in their history books about the time before the 2nd was repealed, during the dark days after Sandy Hook, before everything but hunting riles were declared illegal. But to equate little kids’ lives with the cost of doing business is repulsive.

  15. Joe says:

    “The president is going to act,” Biden said. Yeehaw!

  16. JP says:

    Yeehaw…who cares about the Constitution or Separation of Powers, right Joe?

    You’re a disgrace.

  17. PintoNag says:

    The scourge we are suffering from is mental illness.

    If the president circumvents the constitution by executive order in order to force his will on the people, he is breaking the law. He is supposed to work for US, not the other wasy around.

  18. PintoNag says:

    “…way around.” Sorry.

  19. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:

    Joe … thank God!

    After hearing you blather on and on … I realize there is HOPE for this country … it will just take a little more doing (right) … rather than undoing (left = wrong)!

  20. Twist says:

    @65, Your blather makes a strong arguement for repeal of the 1st.

  21. Hondo says:

    Twist: close. Published specs for standard loads for the .30-06 give muzzle velocities between about 2,500 and 2,900 FPS, depending on bullet type and weight. But virtually all .30-06 bullets are about 3x heavier (or more) than those of a .223, so it typically does WAY more damage.

    So, our own “Comrade Joey, Glorious Socialist Hero of Rockclimbing” was for the 2nd Amendment before he was against it, eh? Figures. Now I just might be inclined to do a bit of looking . . . .

  22. Hondo says:

    Joe: you DO realize that you just admitted you’re using the deaths of innocents as a tool to further a political agenda, facts be damned, in comment 58 above, don’t you?

    We all suspected the outrage was fake and being exhibited solely to promote an agenda. Thanks for confirming our suspicions.

  23. NHSparky says:

    before everything but hunting riles were declared illegal.

    Again, shit-for-brains, are you aware of the lethality of say, a .300 WinMag in the hands of a trained individual? It’d make an AR-15 look like a kid with a BB gun.

  24. Joe says:

    I’m using the senseless deaths as a tool to prevent other senseless deaths. If you wanna call that “an agenda”, be my guest.

  25. Richard W. says:

    does general mcchrystal own a gun?

  26. Twist says:

    “I’m using the senseless deaths as a tool”

    That says all I ever need to know about you.

  27. Joe says:

    Yeah, you guys and your buddies in the NRA always support the status quo, knowing how short the public’s memory is. If there’s a tragedy the party line is, “Don’t make decisions when emotions run high”. A few weeks or months later it’s, “Problem? what problem?”. Nice scheme you got there.

  28. NHSparky says:

    Oh bullshit Joe. We’ve shown you time and again how so-called “progressive” nations with strict gun control laws in fact have much HIGHER violent crime rates.

    Guns don’t commit the crime. People do. And when you take away the people’s ability to defend themselves, you create MORE, not LESS crime.

  29. Hondo says:

    Joe: that’s called “not rushing to judgement”. Lets emotions settle and leads to a more rational, better outcome.

    By your logic, an immediate lynching would be preferred to a jury trial. Uh, no thanks.

    Never thought I’d see a lib actually arguing in favor of lynchings. I guess if you live long enough you really can see anything. (smile)

  30. Joe says:

    When the same entity is guilty of killing 8,000 people a year, year after year, maybe that’s one rare case where a lynching, if that’s what you want to call it, is in order.

  31. PintoNag says:

    Joe, if someone commits a murder with a gun and the sentence is to kill them with a gun, that is justice. If someone owns a gun and has never broken the law and they are declared criminal and persecuted and prosecuted and hounded for practicing a right enshrined in our constitution, that is tyranny.

  32. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Joe, I noticed that with al of your high-minded rhetoric in this thread, you’re avoiding the David Gregory thread like the plague. Surely, if you believe that high capacity magazines are the bane of civilization, you should be condemning Gregory for breaking an important law and the MPD for not arresting him.

  33. Joe says:


    Thank goodness the constitution can be amended.

  34. Joe says:

    Y’know Jonn, if a NYC prosecutor decided David Gregory was really worth prosecuting, then maybe David should accept his sentence like a man, knowing he broke the law for a damn good reason.

  35. PintoNag says:

    Yes, Joe…but the bill of RIGHTS? Do you think we know more about tyranny than the men who wrote that document? A time of nations when the Right of Kings was an accepted and practiced belief? When nobles could run peasants through with a blade to test its sharpness and there was no recourse? And a thousand other outrages! That document was written by men fresh from countries were the common man had only the rights that the nobles gave them, and that included the “right” to LIVE.

  36. Hondo says:

    Yes, the Constitution can be amended, Joey. You only need 2/3 of each House of Congress to agree on the text a proposed amendment, then 3/4 of the States to ratify it.

    Good luck with that. I don’t recommend holding your breath waiting.

  37. Hondo says:

    Uh, Joey-boy: David Gregory committed his crime in DC – not NYC.

    I know they’re both big Eastern cities, but they’re definitely not the same place. But perhaps that was beneath your notice as “Great Example of Heroic Socialist Rock-Climbing”.

  38. Joe says:


    Listen to yourself – kings, peasants, nobles. Do you sense a certain archaic natue to your arguments? Actually, it sounds a lot like today’s Taliban. But in the 21st century in the USA I don’t think those threats hold a candle to the chance of a family member being killed by a lunatic with a gun. But like I said, whatever happens, our generation and the next couple are doomed to live in this violent world created by an amendment that is 250 years old (I’ve heard it called the dead ruling the living), but maybe we can do something for future generations.

  39. Joe says:


    Guess I’m not enough of a TV addict to give a damn where that broadcast was coming from.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Porsches and ferraris don’t murder dozens of people in a matter of minutes. Sorry that giving small children the right to grow up infringes on your right to have a “cooler” gun.

  41. Twist says:

    “Yeah, you guys and your buddies in the NRA always support the status quo”

    The NRA fought tooth and nail to ensure that African-Americans had the same 2nd Ammendment rights as white people. They fought against the status quo, but apparantly you didn’t know that judgeing by your rhetoric.

  42. Twist says:

    @92, Apparantly Ryder moving trucks kill 168 people, including 19 children in a matter of seconds. Better make a move to ban those. Sorry that giving small children the right to grow up infringes on your right to have a moving truck.

  43. Hondo says:

    Joe: actually, what that proves is you’re (1) an ignorant fool who (2) doesn’t realize that fact, (3) is relatively clueless regarding events about which he professes an interest, and (4) doesn’t have the initiative or research skills to educate himself about said issues – even when one can do so in minutes today using publicly-available online tools.

    In short, it proves you are indeed exactly what we thought: someone the Soviets would have called a “useful idiot”. We’ll omit the “useful” part in the interest of accuracy.

  44. Old Trooper says:

    Hey Joe; you’re right. Let’s get rid of that old piece of animal skin. It’s old, outdated, and doesn’t matter anymore. I think we should start with the 4th Amendment. It’s not needed, because if you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s no reason for you to object to law enforcement agents coming by and walking in your house and searching it whenever the mood hits them; right? I mean, that way, we can get rid of abortion, too, because the baby killers use the 4th for the “woman’s right”; correct? How about the Miranda statement? If we get rid of the 5th, then we don’t have to worry about being read our “rights”, because we won’t have that option anymore and it will cut down on paperwork and court cases, which will save money so that it can be given to welfare recipients, instead. It’s a win/win!!! I can play this game all day, Joe.

    The truth is; you’re trying to be intellectual, but you don’t have the juice to back up your fantasy.

  45. USMCE8Ret says:

    The few questions I have for Joe are these:

    Why weren’t you raising your voice about gun control prior to the shootings at Sandy Hook or Aurora, CO?

    Do you have any guns and do you have any experience with them?

    We already have an idea what answer you’re going to give to my first question, since you’ve shown your colors here already. I ask the second question because you never answered it when PintoNag asked it in #55.

  46. UpNorth says:

    @#58. Joey, I don’t think “nihilism” means what you think it does.
    And, seriously, an “assault weapon” is any weapon that fires a bullet? You’re too funny. Well, actually, you’re just an ignorant, uninformed lefty who wants to be on the right end of the few guns left when government confiscates the rest of the guns. In 1944, you would have been called a Kapo, as you herded your fellow citizens into the box cars.

  47. Twist says:

    Joe doesn’t care. He, by his own statement, has no problem ” using the senseless deaths as a tool”. Joseph Mengele would be so proud of him knowing that someone else thought that the death of innocents would support the greater good.

  48. DaveO says:

    Joe is a terrorist. He worships Osama and Obama, his twin gods of blood.