Stanley McChrystal: America needs “serious” gun laws
McChrystal said some assault weapons currently legal for civilian use should be limited to only the military.
”I spent a career carrying, typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal 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.”
“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets, and particularly around the schools in America,” McChrystal continued. “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 and we’ve got to protect our population. And I think we’ve got to take a very mature look at that.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wonder if he’s planning to run for something.
Doomberg on January 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Using Children as a human shield to pass gun laws is despicable.
portlandon on January 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM
His mentality might help explain why we don’t really “win” wars anymore.
MechanicalBill on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Wow. Shocking that a liberal Dem wants to do a gun grab. Who woulda thunk it.
Southernblogger on January 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM
I carry a 1911 that fires a subsonic slug nicknamed the “Flying Ashtray”, and I guarantee you the hit of a .223 round is a feather-tickle in comparison.
It does however have a shoulder thing that goes up bullet clip, so merely having such a gun in your possession means you are one step away from slaughtering every customer in a busy restaurant.
Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM
The .223 is SO powerful that it’s prohibited for use in dear hunting in several states.
macnorfin on January 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Since libtard logic seems to believe that outlawing guns is a cure, maybe we could just nip the whole thing in the bud by outlawing murder. Oops. Never mind.
Southernblogger on January 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Well, on his plus side he actually knows what he’s talking about when it comes to small arms. Kinda refreshing for the point of view he’s taking.
On the other hand, it ain’t now picnic getting hit with a 00 buckshot or a deer slug, so going into to details on the horrors of a .223 can do is kinda pointless for his argument.
Eh. The gun comment is prolly the only thing the WaPo guy can focus on.
apostic on January 8, 2013 at 10:41 AM
(sigh)The right to bare arms was affirmed via the 2nd Amendment so that a free and just people could fight off an oppressive government. Sadly, that means fighting law enforcement and military personnel, that are ignoring their oath, that are attempting to circumvent our rights.
MoreLiberty on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Hammers and clubs killed more people last year than rifles.
gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM
So he is a lefty and he’s running for some kind of elective office soon.
CorporatePiggy on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Then don’t own one personally.
This is the United States of America. I don’t have to need something in order to have it.
CurtZHP on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM
wasn’t the .223 engineered for less lethality? create more casualties on the battlefield so an army would spend more resources on recovery?
tom daschle concerned on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM
And municipalities with more legally owned guns have lower violent crime. If liberals could abandon their blinding ideology for 2 minutes they’d see that the facts are that more guns in the hands of non-criminal citizens means a safer society.
gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Popping prairie dogs just wouldn’t be the same with a 30-06.
Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM
So much for swearing to serve and protect the Constitution.
Warner Todd Huston on January 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Get liberals to stop trying to take guns away and you’ll have fewer guns. People are scared to death of liberals and their historic tyrannies.
darwin on January 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Irregardless of his little lover’s spat with obama, McChrystal is STILL a liberal wacko. McChrystal voted for obama in 2008 (a fact which he proudly declares whenever he gets the chance), and as we see, he STILL supports obama’s radical, anti-America, liberal policies.
Pork-Chop on January 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Stanley McChrystal: can go phuck himself.
That was I hope sarcasm. The average hunting rifle is chambered in either 30.06 or .30.30. News Flash, just in case you genuinely are unaware, 30.06 and 30.30 are a hell of a lot more powerful than .223, by a huge margin.
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM
I agree…
How about a law that requires all law abiding citizens to possess at least one musket.
The Second Amendment recognized the Right of the People to arm themselves against their government, should the need arise. Not to have “reasonable laws” about firearm ownership.
Considering the MILLIONS of guns in America that haven’t done a darn thing to anyone, it is ridiculous to think because one or two people out of 300+ million use them inappropriately that they all need to be destroyed.
Let’s take a look at some facts about Violence against persons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Sheesh….
ProfShadow on January 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM
I think his point was that states don’t allow the .223 for deer because it cannot reliably kill
AcidReflux on January 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM
WTF? American HAS a serious gun law. It says the government can’t tell us what to do. That seems to be very unhandy to this particular government administration.
MikeA on January 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I wonder if this chucklehead even realizes that the Second Amendment is there PRECISELY for shooting people like him when they try to disarm the citizens he works for.
greggriffith on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Yeah, I think it’s at or near the minimum firepower required to hunt deer in most states.
forest on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM
It just occurred: the general is fundamentally saying guns are bad because they hurt people. Sad.
apostic on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM
This is a concern. If things were to go Mayan Apocalypse you need to keep in mind there are many in the military who are either liberal or lean that way, many of them in the leadership and power positions.
catmman on January 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Let’s keep it Constitutional shall we…
Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act.
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM
I thought the .223 wasn’t favored for deer hunting because it just results in a bunch of injured deer running around.
MechanicalBill on January 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM
It’s sad that an American General is this ignorant of the Second Amendment’s purpose and the history of people who were disarmed by dictators and genocidal maniacs. We The People control the military, and one of reasons we own less effective versions of those weapons is to remind him of that fact.
But I guess this is to be expected from a knucklehead who destroyed his career by thinking The Rolling Stone was his friend.
Gee, no kidding. And so does every other rifle of that caliber. There are far more devastating rifle rounds than that, so I suppose Mc’Chrystal wants to ban them too.
A pistol round can travel up to 1500 fps. Is that too fast? Is it acceptably devastating for Mc’Chrystal, or should we be limited to slingshots?
RadClown on January 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM
What we should do is arm deer with more powerful guns than hunters have, let’s see how those flyover gun-nut animal killers enjoy THAT.
Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Nobody on the anti side has addressed the fact that banning guns at its most ‘ideal’ would just require the lunatic to use a different weapon on 6 year olds for the 20 minutes it takes for the police to show up. Then what do you ban?
MechanicalBill on January 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM
They want a less safe society that is forced to hand over more and more power to government.
astonerii on January 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Ban everything.
Seriously, why do I have to explain everything to you dumb rubes.
Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM
What you don’t like to tackle your deer like they do in SE Ohio?
/
CW on January 8, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Ban lunatics.
I’m sorry. Not PC enough?
apostic on January 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM
But a true gun-nut animal killer only hunts the most dangerous game. Wait a minute! That might explain why a retired general would advocate removing guns from citizens!?! He’s getting to old to risk having us shoot back! OMG! He’s gone insane!
MechanicalBill on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM
I used a 22-250 to shoot a deer once, at under 50 yards. Never again. I was totally mortified by having to repeatedly shoot when my 7mm would have done it with one shot. Hunting is one thing cruelty to animals is another.
CW20 on January 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM
IIRC, the 30.30 is about equal to the 7.62 x 39 round fired by the old AKs and SKS models.
a capella on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Look at McChrystal’s comments. Then figure there are quite a few currently-serving junior officers who likely agree with him, out of political expediency if nothing else.
Then try and convince me that military will refuse to obey an order to confiscate firearms.
JohnTant on January 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM
This.
CW on January 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM
It’s what leftists do.
And about what I’d expect from a guy (mcchrystal) who spent his entire career in Special Operations, rose to the rank of general….and never once engaged in combat. That’s quite an accomplishment//.
I’ve never even heard of a Special Forces – or any kind of SpecOps – trooper or officer who spent 20+ years in SpecOps and managed to NEVER meet the elephant.
That takes some “very careful” career management.
Solaratov on January 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Yeah I never understood this line of argument.
Let’s ban cars that go over 65. Do you really NEED to drive faster than that? It’s dangerous.
Let’s ban TVs. Do you really NEED TVs? Lot’s of people die of heart disease because they sit around watching TV and get no exercise. It’s dangerous.
Fezzik on January 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Sorry SWalker, I didn’t use the sarcasm font.
Quite true. Liberals would like to take your guns away but would like to give them to the deer that we hunt so they can fight back. Is that sort of like a deer 2A? I wonder if there are liberal gun-grabbing whitetail out there that want to disarm their fellow deer?
macnorfin on January 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM
McChrystal’s argument sounds stupid even for this layman, and I expect it to be stupid for a host of reasons. No doubt those reason will be listed here in no time. Going to the comment now ….
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 11:22 AM
[SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM]
Could you tell us which ones you are talking about wrt this chart?
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Not me. That’s a losing bet. I look at how Turkey has handled her “military problem” since the Islamists came into power. Just requires some advance planning and promotions.
a capella on January 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM
The individuals who will obey that order will thus declare themselves to be the exact enemy the founders had in mind when they set it up so you would have weapons to fight back with. you have to be prepared to use that right then, or be prepared to lose it.
MikeA on January 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM
http://libertylawsite.org/2013/01/06/sen-dianne-feinsteins-gun-control-alchemy/#.UOtmKCCbbkg.twitter
a capella on January 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Why would the military take our guns away . They have bigger badder fire power and we wouldn’t stand a chance.
/sarc
I love those anti gun rights arguments that center around the military and its distinct advantage over the people. What the politicians and military understand is that it takes a single shot to take out a target.
CW on January 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Could someone please explain why the Feral government should have control over one of it Restraints – the 2nd amendment?
Galt2009 on January 8, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »