Tuesday, January 8, 2013

General McChrystal, Tory

We can scratch this fellow off the list when the revolution comes.
"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he 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."

The general added, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. 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, we've got to protect our population."
The population can defend itself, my dear General, but not if it’s disarmed. And if the M4 and its variants are good enough for our soldiers, then they are good enough for law-abiding private citizens, who should be trusted to determine their own security needs and act accordingly and responsibly – which is to say, that our citizens are good enough for those types of weapons.

We must protect our children, our police and our population? Why, yes, but the occasional crazed gunman isn’t the only threat. There’s also the little matter of a tyrannical government which seeks to usurp our freedom – a danger that is becoming less hypothetical with every passing day, and the precise danger that the Second Amendment was intended to guard against.

The issue is not whether the government should trust the people with guns; it's whether the people should trust the government without them.

But continue, by all means, to express your opinion as a private citizen – one whose views on gun control do not, I am bound to say, carry any special weight simply because of your military service.


JeffS said...

I've come to realize that i will take all this talk about "gun control" seriously if, and only if, all of the politicians and talking heads do away with their own security details, and walk around with exactly the same level of security the average American citizen enjoys.

This does not mean that they are at any less risk than the average America; it obvious that they, and their families, are at higher risk.

But if these self-appointed intellectual elites (including elected officials) are unwilling to even consider the measures the hoi poi rely upon to protect themselves and their own as valuable, to hell with them. It's obvious just where their priorities lay, and it's not with the common citizen.

Anonymous said...

I am certainly not anti-military, but perhaps, we're seeing an unintended side effect of a professional army.

These guys are government employees and have fed at the public trough for their entire careers. Why shouldn't they be politically correct Government First types? It's what they've heard all of their career; it's how they got ahead and it's in their personal self interest.

Petraeus wanted to toss over the First Amendment so as not to offend terrorists and make his job easier.

Now, this guy wants to toss over the Second Amendment.

Once upon a time the Armed Forces swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

Oh, I guess the President does, too.

Never mind.

Minicapt said...

He might be a Dipper or a Grit; he is definitely not a Tory.

Also, the original M-16, using standard ball powder, fired it's bullet at 3000 fps, which was about 400fps less than Stoner's original design specs. The M-4, with an 8" shorter barrel is not likely to achieve that muzzle velocity.


Anonymous said...

Deborah said.... The operative word is "we". It is the parent/child policy that was used on Indians. We know how that worked out. Just remember, don't take the beads or the blankets. Especially the blankets.

Mark. Phillips is subing for Dennis Prager. Today he talked about the proposal to have the President use his power to confiscate guns as was done in New Orleans during Katrina.

I was thinking about waiting until we relocate to buy guns, but may do it sooner. We may have to rethink the gun safe and instead find a place to keep them safe.

Martin said...

Don't officers swear to defend the Constitution?

JeffS said...

We do indeed, Martin. As a retired officer, McChrystal may be recalled to active duty, and hence remains bound to his oath.

But the sad fact is that current crop of flag officers were chosen more for their political abilities than their military prowess. Look at Schwartzkopf and see the differences between him and McChrystal. Stormin' Norman went into retirement quietly. McChrystal looks to be yet another attention whore.

Yojimbo said...

Gee Stan,, this is another nice kettle of fish you are trying to get us into.

According to his bio he graduated from the Academy in 1976 and by 1981 he was already in Korea as an Intel officer. Highly unlikely he was burdened by much metal after serving as a weapon's officer in the 82nd in the late seventies.

But I could be wrong, shocking that.

mojo said...

The purpose of the 2nd is not hunting, it is the enabling of armed insurrection against a government grown tyrannical. And since the government will be using troops armed with "military" weapons, the people MUST have access to the same level of firepower to have any hope of success.

Q.E. fuckin' D.

Paco said...

Mojo: you got that right.