T Nation

General Stanley McChystal on Gun Control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.htm

Seems the above link is malfunctioning, here’s another.

It says there was some type of error :slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.htm[/quote]

"… we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.

But of course. After all safety trumps freedom every time.

Those who agree with the above deserve neither.[/quote]

I agree completely. I for one was frankly surprised at the position McChystal took based on his credentials and professional experience.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.htm[/quote]

"… we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.

But of course. After all safety trumps freedom every time.

Those who agree with the above deserve neither.[/quote]

I agree completely. I for one was frankly surprised at the position McChystal took based on his credentials and professional experience.[/quote]

Money sometimes trumps integrity.

Do you think money has talked to him and he listened?

Politics makes strange bed fellows :slight_smile:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.htm[/quote]

"… we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.

But of course. After all safety trumps freedom every time.

Those who agree with the above deserve neither.[/quote]

I agree completely. I for one was frankly surprised at the position McChystal took based on his credentials and professional experience.[/quote]

Money sometimes trumps integrity.

Do you think money has talked to him and he listened?

[/quote]

No. His post military career had been quite lucrative as it is.

The fact that a general is calling for the disarming of our civilian population should tell us everything we need to know about whether or not the military could be enlisted to fight against the people.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The fact that a general is calling for the disarming of our civilian population should tell us everything we need to know about whether or not the military could be enlisted to fight against the people. [/quote]

I have to agree with Push. He’s a former general more accurately, and as a private citizen he can voice his opinions in the public sphere. But hey, broad generalizations taken from one retired individual exercising his 1st amendment rights absolutely speak for the military as a whole institution.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The fact that a general is calling for the disarming of our civilian population should tell us everything we need to know about whether or not the military could be enlisted to fight against the people. [/quote]

In all fairness I think there might be 10 military officers for every McChrystal who would feel differently than him.[/quote]

Yep, the military by the very nature of its work is quite conservative.

He reportedly commands $60,000 per speaking engagement.

One has to question who is paying him such fees and whether his adjusting his integrity to suit his paying audience.

If it is a pro gun group paying him and he is standing his ground on his inner beliefs, then I say it is courageous on his part.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/08/30/129532945/gen-stanley-mcchrystal-reportedly-earns-60-000-per-speaking-engagement

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The fact that a general is calling for the disarming of our civilian population should tell us everything we need to know about whether or not the military could be enlisted to fight against the people. [/quote]

In all fairness I think there might be 10 military officers for every McChrystal who would feel differently than him.[/quote]

He’s not the only former general calling for the people to be disarmed.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Powell-Nation-Must-Come-to-'Meeting-of-the-Mindson-Guns/2013/01/13/id/471182

Powell called for everything from testing and screening all gun buyers, to creating a registry, to outlawing the Bushmaster.
â??How much are we really giving up if we said that this kind of weapon should not be readily available to anybody who wants to buy one?â??

I listened to an interview with McChrstal today on the Wilkow Majority. I was very disappointed with his reasoning. He stated that having witnessed countless home sweeps and skirmishes and having seen first hand what a NATO .556 round can do to the human body, that he has come feel that such power should not be held in the hands of the General Public.

I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. This is just asinine. In truth, the .223/.556 round is one of the least powerful rifle rounds available to the public. Many states ban its use in deer hunting as some deem it more likely to wound and not kill the animal. It is considered more of a varmint round to most.

Yes, the .566 is lethal and more than enough to kill most humans. But to act as if it is some super powered round fit only for highly trained military personnel is just nonsense.