Wesley Clark on the Man Cow Show...wow

Status
Not open for further replies.

phantomak47

Member
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
1,178
Location
Texas
I have listened to Wesley Clarks rants on gun control on several shows during his presidential bids and general comment he would provide on different interview shows. One particular time I remember watching him on an episode of one of Bill Mahrs show, where he and one of the dixie chicks was interviewed with a Republican analyst. When the topic of assault rifles (sunset was near I believe) the dixie chick started her rant, while Clark said that if you want a assault rifle you should join the military and no one should own any type of assault rifle and he supported the assault weapon ban of the 1990s.


Fast forward to yesterday. Mancow owns guns, but is not that knowledgeable about them, say that he and his brother own a bunch of machine guns. Clark sayes that citizens shouldnt own any type of machine guns, but when Mancow calls his brother on the air, his brother tells them that they are only semi automatic. When mancow asks clark about that , he states, oh they only fire when each time when you pull the trigger? What kind of rifles are they, Mancows brother sayes we have various aks and ars, Clark then states, oh thats fine then. I just dont want people owning machine guns, but if they are semi- auto aks, thats fine.

After listening to this interview, I realized that a former General, didnt really understand the difference in semi auto and full auto, and knew nothing about the assault weapons ban that he supported so much on the Bill Mahr show!
 
Just remember...high ranking officers are usually administrators, not combat types (Patton was a laudable abberration). They're also very much politicians in a peacetime military (and, even with Iraq, we are at peace since there is no declared war). Not that the military doesn't need great administrators, but they just don't inspire leadership.
All the warriors are shuffled out of the limelight during peacetime. Shame, but that's the way it is...
 
Most that support gun control don't know anything about firearms, that is the problem. All they know is AK's and AR's look scary and they don't want them around, mostly women. That is why it is so important that educating the public should be in the forefront of the NRA agenda. Also it is important who the NRA chooses to speck their message.

GC
 
Last edited:
Fast forward to yesterday. Mancow owns guns, but is not that knowledgeable about them, say that he and his brother own a bunch of machine guns. Clark sayes that citizens shouldnt own any type of machine guns, but when Mancow calls his brother on the air, his brother tells them that they are only semi automatic. When mancow asks clark about that , he states, oh they only fire when each time when you pull the trigger? What kind of rifles are they, Mancows brother sayes we have various aks and ars, Clark then states, oh thats fine then. I just dont want people owning machine guns, but if they are semi- auto aks, thats fine.

That doesn't change my opinion of him, but I must say I can understand that someone who is in the military all their life doesn't understand what an "Assault Weapon" is when they are around real "Assault Weapons" the whole time. Thats actually quite funny.
 
The way of the world

Mr. "Glockman," your assesment is correct, in my opinion.

Add to the admistration ranks -at the top of the list: MacArthur! Eisenhower too.

And to the leader category: Omar Bradley. May I also add Gen. Pace.
I would follow him into battle any time.

There is nothing new "under the sun," either. Go back in history to Benedict Arnold versus Nathaniel Greene.

Or into ancient history and the Roman Empire with it's great military leaders and the corrupt bunch who came into power by virtue of who they "knew."

There has been no congressional declaration of war; even though a pronouncement of war has been given.
So I suppose our nation is in "peace time." It sure looks like it anyways.

You know, the same can be said for police chiefs. So many make it to the top by "networking" as it is called. So there you have it. Some of the most qualified are bypassed, or nullified by those astute in political persuasion or decietfullness, and the the true warriors beneath them suffer for it.

"Max," don't count on it that someone with high rank is conservative or even patriotic enough to make decisions for the good of the USA -over their self interest or self pride!
 
Butter-bar, wonderboy found political advancement into his highest level of military incompetence. :banghead:
 
I dont like the guy, however I did find it interesting how little he actually knew about the subject and would actually admit that there is nothing wrong with semis. He is closely tied with the Clintons.................................
 
I don't know. The little bit of time I've spent around top-brass left me with mixed sentiments.
They are all smart. Intellectuals for sure. But they all reeked of a sort of corporate mentality. They may be the brains of operations but the NCOs are definitely the backbone of the Army.
I was watching the CentCom press briefings of the early phases of the Iraq War. Lo and behold I see a familiar face. General Brooks. I remember when he was Major Brooks in my brigade. I did a doubletake when I saw him.
 
Thats like most people that I talk to that are against concealed carry change their minds when they find out what you actually have to go through to get one.
 
I'm not certain Mancow can own firearms, I think he's felon in CA after the whole San Francisco Bay bridge haircut thing.

Mancow's brothers live in Missouri, where MG ownership is legal. The Cow lives in Chicago where gunowners are an endangered species.
 
I realized that a former General, didnt really understand the difference in semi auto and full auto,

No big surprise there. Clark, like many others general officers, is a political animal. If he ever did know anything about being a soldier he forgot it long ago. I guess he got shot by an AK, so you'd *hope* he'd know the difference between semi and full auto. But my bet is he couldn't even tell you what round was used to hit him. Nor would he much care. That sort of knowledge means nothing in his circles. What he doesn know is how to "give good meeting" as they say and to shake the right hands and remember the right names afterwards.

They may be the brains of operations

Indeed. And this explains much about the current state of our operations! The US military has rarely had good general officers. There have been only a handful of quality generals over our entire history, and most of those fought for the CSA. But man have we had some stinkers. Clark is mild compared with many others. The strength of the US military has always been with the NCO's. If you eliminated the entire officer corps I doubt there would be any great ill effects. The paperwork wouldn't get done on time, I suppose. But then who would care?
 
The problem of Mr. Clark is not that he is ignorant of the difference betwee semi and full auto. The problem is that a person of high rank in the military is so ignorant of history and the Constitution that he does not understand that civilian ownership of firearms is meant as a check on the potential tyranny of a standing army. But many federal employees are at least bad. The lack of fealty to history and law should forever bar Clark/Clinton/Obama/Kucinich/Dean etc from even being elected as local dog-catcher. How will our country survive when the core of those that swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foriegn and domestic, are void of knowledge of the social contract that they swear to uphold?
 
maybe he was just confused and thought "assault weapon" meant select fire rifles...dont smithe me if im wrong :S

i however dont think that would be too far fetched, if youre used to selective fire "assault rifles" and then hear about "assault weapons" which from what ive heard is never described as "semi auto" or "fully auto"....


i dunno...
 
Personally, I have no doubt that if given a photo of a semi-auto AK and/or AR, Clark would certainly go back to his original position. No "assault rifles" for anyone (outside of the military), that includes the ones that look like them. It does not sound from his response as if he understands that they are nearly identical (semis and true assaults) externally but different internally and once he figures this out, he'll go back on his word (his second word. that is).
 
The very reason we need AWs is to protect ourselves from people like him. It's very alarming that a high-ranking general of our military would purposely try to disarm his own people. It's even scarier that he sought the highest position in the military (commander-in-chief) and would have begun civilian disarmament when he arrived in that position.

We're all on the same side... supposedly...
 
As I have said many times, the most ignored sound in America is when a public official puts his hand on a bible and says, ".... to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

The 2nd most ignored sound is that of a car alarm.
 
Just remember...high ranking officers are usually administrators, not combat types (Patton was a laudable abberration). They're also very much politicians in a peacetime military (and, even with Iraq, we are at peace since there is no declared war). Not that the military doesn't need great administrators, but they just don't inspire leadership.
All the warriors are shuffled out of the limelight during peacetime. Shame, but that's the way it is...

And I think you multiply the above quote by about a million when you are talking about a high-ranking military officer who wants to run for public office.

You will note that most military folks do not choose to run. Unfortunately.
 
The problem of Mr. Clark is not that he is ignorant of the difference betwee semi and full auto. The problem is that a person of high rank in the military is so ignorant of history and the Constitution that he does not understand that civilian ownership of firearms is meant as a check on the potential tyranny of a standing army. But many federal employees are at least bad. The lack of fealty to history and law should forever bar Clark/Clinton/Obama/Kucinich/Dean etc from even being elected as local dog-catcher. How will our country survive when the core of those that swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foriegn and domestic, are void of knowledge of the social contract that they swear to uphold?

Hear hear.!!

We argue about whether they know the difference between a carburetor and fuel injection when their ultimate goal is to move us back to the horse and buggy!

And in Al Gore's case - that's exactly what he advocates!
 
I say we mandate that every lawmaker be required to own and practice with a pink Cricket. That oughtta back em off of scary-looking assault weapons...:neener:
 
James T Thomas how right you are. The example that comes to mind is Sean Connery's character in the "Untouchables" movie. He was an honest cop who got shoved aside in the corruption of the big cities. It still happens today with regularity. There is nothing new under the sun.
 
To be fair, let's not slam all the officers up high. There are some good ones for sure. General Brooks did strike me as a good officer. It is just that once you get to the gold oak leaf in the Army at least, there is that big danger of becoming as Colonel David Hackworth use to say, "a perfumed prince". You become more and more administrative and less and less tactical and hardcore. The more detached from the troops that you seem(especially grunts), the more risk of incurring their resentment. Troops are human, and that is just human nature.
It is extremely political up high. A lot of backbiting among officers. A new lieutenant once confided to one of the guys how much he hated our company commander.
Once during a battalion assembly our LTC dissed my Captain in front of the whole battalion. I couldn't believe my ears. I looked over at him and my Captain looked like a scolded school boy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top