Riterd General McChrystal weighs in on the AWB...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ...".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 . . .
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top