Riterd General McChrystal weighs in on the AWB...


PDA






SigSour
January 8, 2013, 10:09 PM
and it ain't good.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mcchrystal-says-serious-action-needed-gun-control-174328785.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Riterd General McChrystal weighs in on the AWB..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TennJed
January 8, 2013, 10:13 PM
A general who resigned because of the bad press fallout in comments he made by the president and who is currently promoting his book, opinion should be taken with a very large grain of salt

BHP FAN
January 8, 2013, 10:38 PM
He didn'd resign, he offered his resignation, and if you don't understand the difference, you were probably never in the service.

Jim NE
January 8, 2013, 11:01 PM
Retired General McChrystal weighs in on the AWB...
and it ain't good.

Why would it be good? The Second Amendment is intended to give American citizens some small measure of parity with an all powerful American military. What general would like that?

Leanwolf
January 8, 2013, 11:16 PM
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, were he still an active general, if given the order by his Master to "confiscate the arms of the worker peasants and serfs, by any means necessary" would send out his troops to butcher as many thousands of civilians as his troops could find.

And McChrystal is not the only one "upstairs" who'd do it, either.

"Just following orders, sir."

L.W.

gp911
January 9, 2013, 12:29 AM
I just watched him on the Daily Show a couple minutes ago stating he doesn't want "5.56 rounds on our streets, in our schools..." Absolutely sickening, as was the entire episode. So now a bunch.of uninformed college students will be parroting the talking points from this episode. It was typical "we're reasonable and if you don't give up ground you're unreasonable" BS. Just awful...

BHP FAN
January 9, 2013, 12:35 AM
I'm guessing he's not an Oathkeeper? After the WWII trials at Nuremberg ''just following orders'' is not an excuse.

Old Dog
January 9, 2013, 12:44 AM
He didn'd resign, he offered his resignation, and if you don't understand the difference, you were probably never in the service.Yep, and it's purely a symbolic gesture anyway once you're past your twenty and eligible for retirement. 0-9 monthly retirement pay is probably more than most of us gross while still in the workforce ...

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 9, 2013, 12:52 AM
It was never a secret that there would eventually be modern day Redcoats in the US Army. Generals like him are exactly why we absolutely need access to military grade weapons. He is the very living embodiment of United States soldiers who swore an oath, but would then choose to break that oath and be complicit in our tyranny.

The will always be the next Benedict Arnold in our midst. We must stay vigilant.

gbran
January 9, 2013, 01:19 AM
"And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."

So, now we have gun control based on caliber? If .223 is too powerful, then everything more powerful should be banned too?

Cesiumsponge
January 9, 2013, 01:50 AM
There are plenty of anti-gun military personnel and LEO. It isn't that hard to find them and have the media promote them in a manner that suggests their opinion is the predominant opinion of an entire organization.

Why should we be surprised?

12131
January 9, 2013, 01:54 AM
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, were he still an active general, if given the order by his Master to "confiscate the arms of the worker peasants and serfs, by any means necessary" would send out his troops to butcher as many thousands of civilians as his troops could find.

And McChrystal is not the only one "upstairs" who'd do it, either.

"Just following orders, sir."

L.W.
This is the very same thing I said on another board. I have very little doubt about it.

Water-Man
January 9, 2013, 02:05 AM
I watched him on Hannity and he didn't give one direct answer to Hannity's questions.

A true politician but one not good enough to keep his job.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2013, 02:09 AM
He can go play poker with Wesley Clark.

kwguy
January 9, 2013, 07:09 AM
Yeah, he was no great loss to the military.

With that little tirade, he just made himself look like a fool to those of us that know better. The sad thing is, the fact that he was a general will stick to the impressionable, even though what he said was garbage and inaccurate. Sad.

Plan2Live
January 9, 2013, 07:12 AM
One flaw I saw in his argument against civilians owning AR15s was his reference to the .223/5.56 caliber as if that is the only round this platform will chamber. The troubling part of my observation is that in attempting to bring out the multi-caliber argument, you underscore my previous premise that the antigunners have the advantage of being able to condense their stance to simple one or two sentences that will fit in a tweet, on a bumper sticker or in a headline and come with a heaping helping of brainless empathy. Our counterpoints are lengthy, wordy, technical and require thought, logic and analysis. If we can't find a way aorund that hurdle then we will lose something, maybe a lot, once this debate is finished and the votes are in.

leapfrog
January 9, 2013, 07:47 AM
Plan2live, you are exactly right, america loves buzz words they can't handle a lengthly arguments.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 9, 2013, 07:53 AM
Plan2live, you are exactly right, america loves buzz words they can't handle a lengthly arguments.

Funny how close to the truth Orwell got with "Newspeak".

swathdiver
January 9, 2013, 08:10 AM
The guys a liberal who never took his oath seriously.

Ehtereon11B
January 9, 2013, 08:13 AM
When a General "offers" his resignation, he was told to. You don't get to be that rank without being pushed around by civilians in suits.

I don't like McCrystal. Didn't like him as CG and certainly don't like him now. Gives every real grunt a bad name.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 9, 2013, 08:17 AM
This is just icing on the cake to the fact that a lot of his direct policy decisions got a lot of good US soldiers hurt and killed in Afghanistan. He's just continuing on his tradition of being bad for the US in every way.

bikerdoc
January 9, 2013, 08:59 AM
Only contempt for him, trying to turn his disgrace into book bucks by pandering.

M-Cameron
January 9, 2013, 10:14 AM
"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he said. "And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."


thats funny, because i can name about half a dozen servicemen who think the 5.56 is woefully underpowered....



"I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."


and apparently when Mr. McChrystal took an oath to uphold the constitution.....he never actually bothered to read the damn thing.

22-rimfire
January 9, 2013, 10:21 AM
He is engrained into the military way and that is essentially a dictatorship. You give orders and they are performed.

kwguy
January 9, 2013, 10:27 AM
It's a darned shame. His ignorance, or deliberate misinformation, is a shame to see, but I guess it didn't really surprise me seeing him try to grab onto this. If there was a shred of credibility left in him on behalf of any soldiers at all (prior, or whatever), that should have ended it. Either he is really that stupid to believe that about the 5.56, or he deliberately said that stuff, KNOWING that soldiers would realize what a bunch of bs it was, and he didn't care. Nice character.

Jaag
January 9, 2013, 10:33 AM
I too saw the Daily Show and thought this guy is severely out of touch with reality. Its a real shame to think that minds like his have ever been in a position to command.
Its also a sad fact that many younger people get their information from Jon Stewart. Sounded like he was gonna to start crying as he pontificated about the stupidity of our gun laws.

lexjj
January 9, 2013, 10:45 AM
Disgraced former General Mcchrystal did such a good job controlling weapons in Afghanistan, where he had tens of thousands of America's best troops and even more from NATO - he is basically an expert on the subject. :rolleyes:

beatledog7
January 9, 2013, 11:24 AM
Everyone who reaches the rank of O-7 and above does so because he or she has been groomed from about the rank of O-5 to say the right things and do the right things. They have to be able to demonstrate political savvy to get that far. This has been true pretty much since General Patton openly demonstrated a contempt for his boss's silly decisions.

When a general or admiral falls into disfavor it's because of a temporary slip into thinking for himself and saying something out of school. Stanley McChrystal fell, but this indicates he's trying to recover.

kwguy
January 9, 2013, 11:34 AM
Yeah, but with a "recovery" like what he's trying to accomplish, I wonder how he can look himself in the mirror.

ApacheCoTodd
January 9, 2013, 11:49 AM
Enlisted over E-7 and commissioned over (well... all of them now but most importantly) 0-4 have been heavily politicized since the Clinton administration.

No surprise here. What a great way for a has been to get media love. Look, we're talking about him because of it.

Captain33036
January 9, 2013, 12:14 PM
Disgusted.

The general obviously cares more about being invited to the right wash DC parties again, than he does his oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States.

Glad the military is rid of him. He can be a shill for the liberals now.

Carl N. Brown
January 9, 2013, 12:54 PM
Retird or Retired (or did you mean returd?) i is close to u on the keyboard.

I think this general is out of step.

Back in the 1960s, when Arthur D. Little was asked to evaluate the civilian marksmanship program, several military officers gave support to civilian training in martial arms.

More recently in Heller several officers supported the right of the people to keep and bear arms and a duty to train in martial arms.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCu11GeneralsAHSA.pdf
District of Columbia v. Heller amicus curiae of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., etc al.

The amicus curiae brief of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al., in the case of DC v Heller, argued that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms supports and enhances the collective goal of supporting national defense, and that the dichotomy between individual right and militia right interpretations is false:
The Petitioners and Respondent are asking this Court to select among two mutually exclusive interpretations of the Second Amendment: one establishing an individual’s right to bear arms and, the other memorializing society’s right to organize a force for its collective defense.

Amici suggest that this dichotomy, pitting individual rights against group rights, is not ordained by the language of the Second Amendment, which is a cogent blend of both individual rights and community rights, with each depending on the other.

A well-regulated militia – whether ad hoc or as part of our organized military – depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms – rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Amici suggest that the Second Amendment ensures both the individual’s right to possess firearms, subject to reasonable regulation, and the constitutional goal of collective defense readiness.

Based on decades of military experience, amici have concluded that the District of Columbia’s Gun Law (“D.C. Gun Law”), D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 et seq., directly interferes with various Acts of Congress aimed at enhancing the national defense by promoting martial training amongst the citizenry.

Saying that the Second supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms and supports the goal of collective volunteer defense, is kinda like the argument that the First protects both artistic expression (a private interest) and political discourse (a public interest) by supporting the right of the people to free speech and free press.

RetiredUSNChief
January 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
Enlisted over E-7 and commissioned over (well... all of them now but most importantly) 0-4 have been heavily politicized since the Clinton administration.

*ahem*

At the risk of accruing some disfavor here, what with my somewhat biased perspective as a retired Chief Petty Officer (E-7) myself, might I point out that this is no more a universal truism than it is to say that everyone who owns a gun is a "gun-nut". (And yes, I know you said "over" E-7.)

Yes, there are retards in the military. That should come as no surprise, because the military is populated with people from all walks of life, having come from our own civilian population...as broad and diverse as that is.

Yes, the military has evolved over the decades. But then, it has always been evolving.

Yes, politics does have a part in that. But then, it has always had a part in it.


But the military, contrary to popular belief, isn't all about the upper eschelons. Have faith in the rest of our troops.

I do.

BHP FAN
January 9, 2013, 03:37 PM
Me too, Chief, but I was deeply shaken by what I read here.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 9, 2013, 04:46 PM
What general would like that?

You make it sound as though every General dreams of being a dictator, throwing the good ones under the bus.

SigSour
January 9, 2013, 04:54 PM
Quote:
"And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."
So, now we have gun control based on caliber? If .223 is too powerful, then everything more powerful should be banned too?

That is a damn good point. I could see that catching on if this godforsaken AWB takes place. That's how it works "we won this battle! Let's keep going!"

Unfortunately most liberals can't see the forest for the trees.. they think "eliminating the 2nd amendment is great!" but they never think that a government that would get rid of one amendment, might just be inclined to get rid of others... like the 1st amendment, the 5th amendment etc. They are setting us ALL up but because of their self righteousness and misplaced panic and they don't even realize it.

"Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"

racenutz
January 9, 2013, 05:10 PM
I wonder if he's ever seen what a 7.62x51 NATO fired from a M240B will do to a human, let alone a 12.7×99mm NATO fired from a M2HB.

asia331
January 9, 2013, 05:29 PM
Retired USMC commissioned myself I'd say the General's understanding of the terminal effects of a single 5.56 from an M4 is woefully misunderstood. No disrespect intended but by the time one has reached the upper General grades they of necessity have been removed from active "trigger pulling" for quite a long, long period of time.

SlamFire1
January 9, 2013, 06:02 PM
The Officer Corp in the military is profoundly anti gun. Prior to WW2 and a little past Korea there was support in the Officer Corp for “marksmanship”, etc, but the further you get from WW2 the more anti gun the Officer Corp became.

I have a bud who taught Statistics at West Point. The whole time he was there he tried to convince Army management to open the Officer’s Pistol range. This range existed for a very long time but West Point closed it down as guns were dangerous and they saw no need for an Officer to shoot a firearm.

McCrystal is probably upset after his experience in Afghanistan. All those armed Afghanistan’s shooting up his troops and he could not do a thing about it. Like all control freaks he prefers a nice passive population.

McCrystal showed a total lack of judgment while in Command . He surrounded himself with “ handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs.” http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-runaway-general-20100622 It is evident that this guy was a loose cannon and it got him fired.

Still, it is obscene that he is probably making three times as much as a Lobbyist than his overpriced salary as a General.

Coop45
January 9, 2013, 06:14 PM
He's just another generals's son who never led a platoon in combat. Is the UCMJ just for enlisted?

HorseSoldier
January 9, 2013, 06:27 PM
Everyone who reaches the rank of O-7 and above does so because he or she has been groomed from about the rank of O-5 to say the right things and do the right things. They have to be able to demonstrate political savvy to get that far. This has been true pretty much since General Patton openly demonstrated a contempt for his boss's silly decisions.

General agreement (no pun intended) -- modern US generals and admirals should be treated with the same suspicions until proven otherwise that most thinking people apply to politicians. (Because modern O-7+ types are just political animals, only operating in a different setting -- it isn't the best and brightest, if it ever was, it's the most savvy and well connected.)

Vern Humphrey
January 9, 2013, 07:12 PM
First of all McChrystal is a criminal -- Obama could have court-martialed him for "Contempt toward officials," among other military crimes.

Do you expect a man like that to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution?

Dr.Rob
January 9, 2013, 07:24 PM
You know, a general who faced an armed populace with shifting loyalties knows exactly how tough an armed insurgency can be.

I don't trust a general, former or otherwise who wants to see the populace of his OWN country disarmed.

Captain33036
January 9, 2013, 07:46 PM
Boycott his book. He does not deserve our hard earned money.

kodiakpb
January 11, 2013, 10:33 AM
The Officer Corp in the military is profoundly anti gun.

Not true and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make broad generalizing statements, and lump us all in the same boat.

McChrystal is a politician and as such chooses his words very carefully. Now what he said was absolutely incorrect within the context of the discussion. To the uninformed, it would appear that the M16/M4 is the same as an AR15....which it is not. The only functional similarity is caliber and the fact that it accepts a detachable magazine. Having said that, he purposely mislead the audience with his answer to support whatever agenda he has.

A General who voted for Obama should tell you all you need to know. Easily influenced by flash and pie in the sky BS. He of all people should know "hope is not a method" (re: hope and change).

McChrystal does not speak for the Officer Corps I can promise you that. :cool:

Al Thompson
January 11, 2013, 10:42 AM
Got the book from the library and finished it last night. At the end he mentions doing some work for Mrs. Obama. I think he's trying to weasel in with the administration, so expect more gratuitous support of the Presidents agenda.

:rolleyes:

EMNofSeattle
January 11, 2013, 10:57 AM
What bothers me the most is that Mchrystal knows dang well that an AR is not *easily* convertible to full auto (anything is possible if you have the time, money, and inclination)

He also keeps saying ".223" the military doesn't shoot .223, they shoot 5.56x45mm NATO. .223 is not a military round, firing a nato round in a civilian weapon chambered for .223 can be catastrophic for the firearm. while a 5.56mm chambered weapon can fire .223.

Mchrystal should know that, which begs the question, did he fudge the facts on his interview in order to mislead people?

blaisenguns
January 11, 2013, 11:09 AM
It's a darned shame. His ignorance, or deliberate misinformation, is a shame to see, but I guess it didn't really surprise me seeing him try to grab onto this. If there was a shred of credibility left in him on behalf of any soldiers at all (prior, or whatever), that should have ended it. Either he is really that stupid to believe that about the 5.56, or he deliberately said that stuff, KNOWING that soldiers would realize what a bunch of bs it was, and he didn't care. Nice character.

I dont know this guys background, but if he thinks the 5.56 is devastating, he does not know a whole lot about ballistics. Like someone already mentioned, there are far more "devastating" rounds out there.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 11, 2013, 11:14 AM
Honestly, the difference between .223 and 5.56 isn't that much different regarding AR15s. 99% of AR15s are chambered for 5.56 but can fire .223 as well. Also most combat shooting is done on semi auto with the M16/M4 as full auto isn't that useful on an assault rifle. Functionally, the AR15 is only different as it lacks the full auto switch but other than that, it's the same rifle.

These rifles are arms and we have a right to own them, we must defend our right.

PBR Streetgang
January 11, 2013, 11:20 AM
All I have to say is "5.56 is more lethal than .50BMG?"

Was I lied to? Hummmmmmmmm..........

EMNofSeattle
January 11, 2013, 11:54 AM
Honestly, the difference between .223 and 5.56 isn't that much different regarding AR15s. 99% of AR15s are chambered for 5.56 but can fire .223 as well. Also most combat shooting is done on semi auto with the M16/M4 as full auto isn't that useful on an assault rifle. Functionally, the AR15 is only different as it lacks the full auto switch but other than that, it's the same rifle.

These rifles are arms and we have a right to own them, we must defend our right.
wrong, it's not "the same rifle" if it lacked only the full auto switch it would be readily restorable to full auto and thus a violation of NFA.

Civilian AR-15s are built differently then the service rifle, the recievers are built so they won't mate with parts from the service rifle, you'd need to machine out the lower just to fit the sear into the lower.

They're similar, but parts are built to different spec in order to prevent conversion to the service rifle.

Halal Pork
January 11, 2013, 02:24 PM
I wonder if he's ever seen what a 7.62x51 NATO fired from a M240B will do to a human, let alone a 12.7×99mm NATO fired from a M2HB.
I'm quite sure he has.

leapfrog
January 11, 2013, 03:00 PM
When I first saw Gen. Backstabber talking about the 223 the first thing I thought is he was confusing it with the 7.62x51.
It wouldn't be the first time a high ranking officer didn't know much about weapons.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 11, 2013, 03:36 PM
wrong, it's not "the same rifle" if it lacked only the full auto switch it would be readily restorable to full auto and thus a violation of NFA.

Word comprehension isn't your strong point is it? I said functionally, not physically. It functions the same an assault rifle set to semi auto. I know the receiver and bolt carrier are different in AR15s.

KTXdm9
January 11, 2013, 10:01 PM
I'll be sure to donate to his opponent when he runs for office (and he will).

RoboDuck
January 11, 2013, 10:06 PM
I have no respect for his kind, a total disgrace to the uniform.

Al Thompson
January 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
I'm quite sure he has.


Halal, don't think so, outside of pictures. Ol'Stan came along in my era and missed Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm and Somalia. He never pulled a trigger in anger or even confusion. ;)

I agree that he is following Wesley Clark's trail.

kwguy
January 11, 2013, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I find it difficult to believe that he's THAT ignorant about the 5.56. Which leaves that he was playing to the ignorant for his own selfish purposes.

For him to say that a weapon is inappropriate for "civilian" use just because it's used by the military is silly. It's a weapon. Of course semi auto fire is used by the military, I mean, you don't shoot all the time on auto in the military. The 9mm is also used by the military, does that mean civilians don't need it? Just because somethng has an application in the military, these clowns want to use that as an excuse for not letting civilians use them.

kwguy
January 11, 2013, 10:22 PM
LOL: Or "even in confusion" that's good.

Halal Pork
January 12, 2013, 12:48 AM
Halal, don't think so, outside of pictures. Ol'Stan came along in my era and missed Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm and Somalia. He never pulled a trigger in anger or even confusion. ;)

I agree that he is following Wesley Clark's trail.
You may be right, Al. I've heard he went out with teams periodically, which made me assume he'd seen this sort of thing. But I could be wrong. I had a conversation with him once that lasted about 5 or 10 minutes which was exactly the amount of time it took for me to escape the situation.

r1derbike
January 12, 2013, 01:46 AM
This General has zero credibility. Naught. Zip.

He, of all people, shouldn't be talking about what America should, or shouldn't have.

His views are biased/slanted/military-inspired rhetoric, from a defrocked military elitist.

While his performance in theaters may have been exemplary (or not), he would do well not to foist his opinions in civil matters, until he has been in civilian life for decades.

Okiegunner
January 12, 2013, 03:43 AM
He is no longer relevant, nor does he have any current credibility.

alsaqr
January 12, 2013, 12:24 PM
Most general officers have no clue about gun rights and the Second Amendment. General McChrystal should take a clue from General H. Norman Schwarzkopf who said: "I feel that retired generals should never miss an opportunity to remain silent ...".

Aiko492
January 12, 2013, 01:29 PM
i believe he recently stated he voted for Obama in the first election but declined to say who he voted for in the recent Presedential election, may be liberal leaning.

2zulu1
January 12, 2013, 02:31 PM
There's a lot of ominous activities happening in our country as we know. During my lifetime I've never seen our country as divided as it is now, and this schism is widening daily. As bad as some of our former presidents were, Jimmy Carter comes to mind, I didn't feel he was anti American, nor did I feel Bill Clinton was anti American. I can handle opposing political viewpoints and I understand that politicians in the past were able to compromise in order to pass legislation.

Just a few things to consider, a citizen(s) deemed to be terrorist threats can be held (imprisoned) without habeas corpus, a fundamental right granted by the Constitution. A statement by the POTUS early after his election that he would like to see a civilian army as large as our military army. Executive orders number in the thousands and dozens of departmental czars operate without accountability or oversight.

Make no doubt about it, this disgraced general knows exactly what he's doing and as long as he's in the spotlight, he'll sway a significant number of citizens to support not only disarming other citizens, but to also denigrate us as being gun fanatics.

A historical note, not only was the American Revolution a fight for independence from Great Britain, it was also a civil war that split families between patriots and loyalists (Tories) who supported the king. Two of my g.......grandfathers were lieutenants under Washington and were KIA, not by redcoats, they and hundreds of others were killed by Tories in the community they lived.

While gun control is capturing the headlines these days, I'm also seeing a geographic schism in our country as well as families having passionate discussions regarding both sides of the issue. With all that has transpired in our country during the past few years and without any regards for opposing viewpoints, I don't expect this administration to heal any wounds suffered thus far, quite the contrary, and this general is part of the problem IMO.

Al Thompson
January 12, 2013, 02:50 PM
In his book, he was very non-critical of the current administration.

Halal, I think if he was even close to a two-way rifle match, he would have trumpeted it. He mentioned straphanging on raids and patrols often enough.

HorseSoldier
January 12, 2013, 09:22 PM
Halal, I think if he was even close to a two-way rifle match, he would have trumpeted it. He mentioned straphanging on raids and patrols often enough.

A window licking general as a ride along? Now there is a nightmare I'm glad I never personally experienced . . .

sean326
January 12, 2013, 10:04 PM
So, now we have gun control based on caliber? If .223 is too powerful, then everything more powerful should be banned too?
5.56 is too powerful, what about a 30-06, .308 etc... so whats his deal anything with less energy is OK? anything with more energy is not?

I was in engineering school in the '80s and had prof who worked with stoner in the late 50's designing the AR. One of stoners sales pitches was that the 5.56 was incapacitating but generally not as lethal as the 30-06, or .308. therefore when you took down an enemy soldier since he was likely wounded he took out 4 more soldiers to carry him back, used more resources taking care of him and was psy-ops asset from initial screaming impact through recuperation.

bikerdoc
January 13, 2013, 09:55 AM
A window licking general as a ride along? Now there is a nightmare I'm glad I never personally experienced . . .

Way back in the day we did a have staff officer type, 04, come along trying to get his CIB.
I hope when he tells the story he includes the pants wetting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Riterd General McChrystal weighs in on the AWB..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!