McChrystal says take away .223 rifles

[tulsamal]

This didn't surprise me in the least. He's a General in a formally hierarchical organization. The average Sergeant or soldier in the US Army can be firmly in the pro-gun camp but that doesn't mean the people at the very top are. It's just like in law enforcement. The cop in the car is a lot more like Joe Average. But the boss at the top has his finger in the political wind. His opinions are the ones that will advance him still further. Plus he is at the very top of the pyramid so he firmly believes that "things would be better if he just issued orders based on his assessment of the situation."

This does remind me of a Presidential election a few cycles ago. General Clark was running on the GOP side. He was asked about the AWB and his position on guns. His quote was something along the lines of, "If people want to shoot those kinds of guns, join the Army." I was very unhappy with that response back then and you can bet I didn't vote for him. Especially since I HAD joined the Army. BUT I still wanted to own and shoot "those kinds of guns" even though I was now a civilian. And since I was no longer in the Army, I didn't really care what some General thought!

Oh, and McChrystal got away with the usual inference that somehow military weapons are amazingly powerful. He actually quoted the ballistics of the 5.56mm round. That they went an amazing 3000 fps and did horrendous damage to the human body when they struck. Somehow he conveniently forgets the decades of controversy about whether the M16 had a cartridge that was powerful enough to be trusted. How it was dismissed way back in the 60's as a "varmint cartridge." And he neglected to compare its ballistics to a common deer round like a .270 Winchester or 30/06 Springfield.

Gregg

 

[mugsy]

It wasn't decency, it was "resign or get fired".

He may have been talented, and I was one of his supporters, but he has pissed that away by staking his flag with the other camp.
His political opinions ARE worth more than yours or mine because he can go on national media programs and get attention. We can't.
In the military, there is a thing called Information Operations. They can win the IO battle if we don't stop dismissing people like this...."oh, he's just a retired General, his opinion doesn't matter". That's what you say, but some fence-sitting soccer mom says "Oh look, even this well-spoken military man, who got fired by Obama, thinks we should ban these guns."
That changes more minds than us dismissing the good General. His points must be answered and countered.

I didn't say his views weren't influential - they certainly might be. Right now you can't tell me that anyone except Mayor Bloomberg has been influenced by him.
The potential is there for sure. However, his views are still no more inherently important than yours or mine. I didn't mean to dismiss the possible influence he might have IF he becomes some kind of an gun control spokesman vice one opinion expressed in one interview.

I was trying to remind folks that his status as a combatant commander does not mean his opinion, on this matter, is really more informed than yours or mine and we shouldn't be cowed by it. You might also want to consider that addressing Americans whom you perceive as disagreeing with your position should still be addressed respectfully and their arguments countered with charity, vice using "enemy combatant" type language.
Yes, there is such a thing as information operations - I have two talented IO officers who work for me but in domestic affairs we call that politics and we don't demonize fellow Americans who hold what we believe to be an errant opinion. At least we shouldn't - leave that stuff to the lefties who like to get apoplectic about everything. Support the lobbying groups (NRA-ILA, GOA, SAF etc.) , write to your Congressmen and use every appropriate public forum to intelligently and non-belligerently push your message.

 

[SMS]

The potential is there for sure. However, his views are still no more inherently important than yours or mine. I didn't mean to dismiss the possible influence he might have IF he becomes some kind of an gun control spokesman vice one opinion expressed in one interview.

The potential is not just there....it's already being utilized. While we sit around and argue over whether or not his statements are informed, useful, potential, or don't matter.

This wasn't just one opinion in an interview....he was on a national news radio outlet again this morning spouting the same drivel.

He has set up camp on the side of the anti's and they are running with it. If you have any experience with IO operations, you know that it doesn't matter one bit if your position is "informed" or even true...what matters is that you get your message out first, often, and dominate the airwaves with an image.

The image, or idea, at play here is a fairly respected military leader, who had disagreements with the administration in the past, coming out in support of the agenda. That does, and will, resonate with people who are on the fence.

 

[abajaj11]

It wasn't decency, it was "resign or get fired".

He may have been talented, and I was one of his supporters, but he has pissed that away by staking his flag with the other camp.

His political opinions ARE worth more than yours or mine because he can go on national media programs and get attention. We can't.

In the military, there is a thing called Information Operations. They can win the IO battle if we don't stop dismissing people like this...."oh, he's just a retired General, his opinion doesn't matter". That's what you say, but some fence-sitting soccer mom says "Oh look, even this well-spoken military man, who got fired by Obama, thinks we should ban these guns."

That changes more minds than us dismissing the good General. His points must be answered and countered.

Absolutely agree. And we start by saying he is just a man, and his opinion is not more valid than someone else's.
Then we gently point out that the 223 round is an intermediate round, illegal for deer hunting in many states, and that a semiauto deer rifle has more "killing power" than the 223 rifle. so should everything semi auto with a detachable mag that can kill deer or larger game be banned, because it is more powerful than a 223? Including grandpa's deer rifle?

 

[Glocktogo]

This didn't surprise me in the least. He's a General in a formally hierarchical organization. The average Sergeant or soldier in the US Army can be firmly in the pro-gun camp but that doesn't mean the people at the very top are. It's just like in law enforcement. The cop in the car is a lot more like Joe Average. But the boss at the top has his finger in the political wind. His opinions are the ones that will advance him still further. Plus he is at the very top of the pyramid so he firmly believes that "things would be better if he just issued orders based on his assessment of the situation."

This does remind me of a Presidential election a few cycles ago. General Clark was running on the GOP side. He was asked about the AWB and his position on guns. His quote was something along the lines of, "If people want to shoot those kinds of guns, join the Army." I was very unhappy with that response back then and you can bet I didn't vote for him. Especially since I HAD joined the Army. BUT I still wanted to own and shoot "those kinds of guns" even though I was now a civilian. And since I was no longer in the Army, I didn't really care what some General thought!

Oh, and McChrystal got away with the usual inference that somehow military weapons are amazingly powerful. He actually quoted the ballistics of the 5.56mm round. That they went an amazing 3000 fps and did horrendous damage to the human body when they struck. Somehow he conveniently forgets the decades of controversy about whether the M16 had a cartridge that was powerful enough to be trusted. How it was dismissed way back in the 60's as a "varmint cartridge." And he neglected to compare its ballistics to a common deer round like a .270 Winchester or 30/06 Springfield.

Gregg

Point of order, Gen. Clark ran as a Democrat. He was always wishy-washy and moved according to political winds. McChrystal is a dangerous foe in the 2A fight because he has an audience. He's going to be looked at as a responsible figure calling for gun control, unlike Piers Morgan and his ilk.

McChrystal has a message. He has a book to sell and he still wants his Democratic handlers to find him a place to land in the American Caste system we live under. He'll never be one of the commoners he's commanded and the rules and laws will never apply to him. It's not in his best interest for the people to have effective arms against tyranny, because he'd be one of the ones they're aimed at.

 

[mons meg]

I'm out of flowery words at this point, and find myself quoting Ted Nugent more often.

 

[SMS]

I'm out of flowery words at this point, and find myself quoting Ted Nugent more often.

Wango Zee Tango?

 

[Shadowrider]

Point of order, Gen. Clark ran as a Democrat. He was always wishy-washy and moved according to political winds. McChrystal is a dangerous foe in the 2A fight because he has an audience. He's going to be looked at as a responsible figure calling for gun control, unlike Piers Morgan and his ilk.

McChrystal has a message. He has a book to sell and he still wants his Democratic handlers to find him a place to land in the American Caste system we live under. He'll never be one of the commoners he's commanded and the rules and laws will never apply to him. It's not in his best interest for the people to have effective arms against tyranny, because he'd be one of the ones they're aimed at.

And I will add that the appearance from an outsider and average Joe citizen is that all of the upper echelon Generals would fit this mold. Clarke pretty much proved that to me anyway and McChrystal cemented it. They don't rise to their rank by rocking the boat and it seems that once they get their second star they are for all practical purposes just politicians. McChrystal allowing a rag like Rolling Stone embed with him in an active theatre is pretty telling about his political philosophy.

 

[farmerbyron]

Is there any pro 2A big wigs that could be thrown out there? Seems like people give undue credibility to Mccrystal because of his position, no matter if his argument doesn't hold water.

First name that pops in my head is Tommy Franks. Now he may be anti for all I know but it seems we should be fighting fire with fire.

 

[abajaj11]

Point of order, Gen. Clark ran as a Democrat. He was always wishy-washy and moved according to political winds. McChrystal is a dangerous foe in the 2A fight because he has an audience. He's going to be looked at as a responsible figure calling for gun control, unlike Piers Morgan and his ilk.

McChrystal has a message. He has a book to sell and he still wants his Democratic handlers to find him a place to land in the American Caste system we live under. He'll never be one of the commoners he's commanded and the rules and laws will never apply to him. It's not in his best interest for the people to have effective arms against tyranny, because he'd be one of the ones they're aimed at.

Good points. While having some military bureaucratic folks (who later want to run for President maybe and are signalling they are part of the country club RINO bunch?) weigh in on "reasonable" gun control is good for the anti-2A-ers , having POTUS weigh in on this when he reads from the teleprompter with great passion and conviction ( "let me be clear...i am for the second amendment, but....this cannot go on...our hearts bleed,.....blah bah") will be the most effective PR weapon they have, next to which McChrystal fades into insignificance.
Our main weapon is 100 million + gun owners, who have hopefully now been awakened, and will join the NRA, GOA and 2AF and CALL CALL CALL their congressman and senators at least once a week saying any new gun restrictions will earn them a negative vote in the primary and election.