General mchrystal makes strange arguement

General mchrystal makes strange arguement

This is a discussion on General mchrystal makes strange arguement within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; .223 BAN - Thank you, Gen. McChrystal - Rex Reviews - YouTube I found this video pretty interesting, just wanted to pass it on. Also ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By ElkSniper
  • 1 Post By rugergunner
  • 1 Post By tangoseal
  • 1 Post By suntzu

Thread: General mchrystal makes strange arguement

  1. #1
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457

    General mchrystal makes strange arguement

    .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


  2. #2
    Member Array ElkSniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    184
    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.
    SpringerXD likes this.

  3. #3
    Member Array Aiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    387
    He also said he voted for Obama the first election (declined to say who he voted for during the second)

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    How does someone who knows so little about the armament used in the military, get so far?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array rugergunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    709
    Well, he does not wear the uniform anymore, so he has obviously become a politician.
    StevePVB likes this.
    I would rather die on my feet, than to live on my knees.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by rugergunner View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array Exacto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,630
    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.
    Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.

    The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.

  8. #8
    Member Array John Luttrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    How does someone who knows so little about the armament used in the military, get so far?
    Exactly...............
    John Luttrell

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    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.
    SpringerXD likes this.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    What Rex said.....
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  11. #11
    Member Array 84jeepjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Fl space coast
    Posts
    29
    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.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    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?
    bklynboy likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  13. #13
    Member Array 1911srule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    366
    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..
    RIP Jeff Cooper

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,792
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    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.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors