General mchrystal makes strange arguement

[mg27]

.223 BAN - Thank you, Gen. McChrystal - Rex Reviews - YouTube

I found this video pretty interesting, just wanted to pass it on.

Also Jan 19 12 noon and feb 8 I believe at the states capitals will be pro gun rallys..

Double check the dates .. Just passing along

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ElkSniper]

Good Video.

For those that don't have the time or inclination to watch it, General Stanley McChrystal (Ret) made a remark that the .223 should be banned because it is is way too powerful and kills too effeciently.
The Video shows a .223, a .270, and a 7mm cartridge, noting the size of the cartridge, muzzle velocity, and grain of the bullets. He also points out that the .223 is so ineffecient at killing (relatively), that it is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states. McChrystal should know this basic information about stopping power.

He also mentions the strategy apparently being used is to suggest 2 new laws, one of which is the real goal, and the second is way out there. They will then 'compromise' on the second law, and settle for the more reasonable first one. They get what they want, and the gun-rights groups get to say that they prevented the second one. It looks like a win-win scenario, but in fact, we have lost.

[Aiko]

He also said he voted for Obama the first election (declined to say who he voted for during the second)

[cmdrdredd]

How does someone who knows so little about the armament used in the military, get so far?

[rugergunner]

Well, he does not wear the uniform anymore, so he has obviously become a politician.

[StevePVB]

Well, he does not wear the uniform anymore, so he has obviously become a politician.

And I suspect a Democrat, since he voted for Obama.

[Exacto]

Why would our military immune from being penetrated by these progressives with a political agenda. They're in the White House, why not the military.

[John Luttrel]

How does someone who knows so little about the armament used in the military, get so far?

Exactly...............

[tangoseal]

McCrystal, regardless of his service, is a Traitor or at a minimum in violation of the Oath of Office if he doesn't stand up for the Constitution, PERIOD. I mean this. I took the same oath and it means the CONSTITUTION as it is written.

[Crowman]

What Rex said.....

[84jeepjohn]

Lol 5.56 too powerful. Ahhh ok....
We moved from the 7.62 because it killed people. And you would take one person off the field. Soooo useing the 5.56 you WOUND a combatant, and now one or two of his buddies have to drag him to an aid station..... You have effectively doubbled or tripled the combat effectiveness of your round. Instead of one dead soldier. You now have two to three out of the fight.

Too powerful. Even my wife who is not into weapons made the connection to bigger bullet more damage.

[suntzu]

McCrystal, regardless of his service, is a Traitor or at a minimum in violation of the Oath of Office if he doesn't stand up for the Constitution, PERIOD. I mean this. I took the same oath and it means the CONSTITUTION as it is written.

Pleasse. First of all I disagree with teh General but folks that call other citizens traitors or whatever really need to start thinking a bit more clearly. It is not treasonous to want to change laws or the Constitution. Were folks treasonous when they wanted to amend the Constitution to address slavery, womens sufferage, putting a limit on terms for a president, want me to go on. It is called a process and their is nothing wrong with it.

I was in the military also and am I traitor because I disagree with a lot of our foreign policies and involvement in other folks affairs? Am I a traitor for speaking my mind about it while I was serving (not in an official capacity)? Are folks that supported our foreign policy and incursions in other countries traitors?

But back to the General....what is treasonous that he did? Or how did he break his Oath of Office. It still is a free country and people can spout whatever they want (please, don't go down the Yeager road...his CCL was suspended..not revoked...and I bet he will get it back after seeing a shrink LOL.)

Just seems like just because one has worn a uniform you can not speak out about firearms unless it is agreeable to the 2A crowd.

Sounds to me like you want to stifle any conversation on gun laws or an amendment to the 2A. Maybe you should also look at the Constitution and our laws about what free speach and protected speach is all about.

Folks all over the forums are advocating or insuating a revolution if gun laws are passed.....is that not possibly inciting treasonous activity before you even know what laws are about to be passed?

[1911srule]

Back when Clinton injected PC into our military, there seemed to be Conservative minded types leaving in droves thereafter. I'm not surprised that our Senior officers tend to be PC now. Collin Powell just made a similar statement. So I wonder would they support using troops to act on confiscation? Would their peers follow an unlawful order? I'm sick that law abiding Americans are being demonized and officers like these hold these opinions..

[TX expat]

How does someone who knows so little about the armament used in the military, get so far?

Oh make no mistake, he knows. His soundbite is for political purposes, not informational purposes. Much like every other politician (and that's obviously what he's become), making up facts to mislead the dumb public is par for the course.