Stanley McChrystal On Gun Control
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 11 months ago
In his own words.
Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led the war in Afghanistan, endorsed strong gun control laws Tuesday on Morning Joe.
“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”
“We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’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,” McChrystal said. “Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
“The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations, and I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty country,” he said. “We need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”
First of all, when McChrystal carried a weapon it had selective fire capability, unlike my own rifles, but I don’t want to press that difference too far because I think it should be legal for mine to have selective fire capability too.
But the irony is that McChrystal, who issued the most restrictive rules of engagement ever promulgated on American troops, waxes know-it-all on what it takes to keep our people safe. He can micromanage the campaign, release a bunch of inept, bureacratic, PowerPoint jockeys into highly protected mega-bases to command the troops under fire in the field, turn so-called general purpose troops into constabulary patrolmen, and become a laughingstock when his juvenile staff turned party-animal with Rolling Stone. But he didn’t manage the campaign in such a manner as to keep our children in uniform safe in Afghanistan. If he didn’t do that, why should I care what he has to say about anything else regarding my safety?
This is what happens when media stars think they know somethng about policy. So here is a suggestion for Mr. McChrystal. You go read the lamentations at this article from the families and widows of SFC Kenneth Westbrook, Gunnery Sgt Aaron M Kenefick, Corpsman James Ray “Doc” Layton, and others in the Ganjgal engagement. You know the one I’m talking about, even if others have forgotten. You and I will never forget. The one where they left our men to perish without fire support because of your rules of engagement. You sleep with this reality, if you can, you ponder on those men and their lives morning and night, and you lament with the widows and families. And then you tell me why I should give a shit what you have to say about anything, much less what it takes to keep my children or loved ones safe?
UPDATE: Hot Air also weighs in.
Reprimands in the Marine Deaths in the Ganjgal Engagement
Problems with the Applied Rules of Engagement
Why Marines in Afghanistan Want The Taliban To Open Fire
More Rules Of Engagement Examples From Afghanistan II
More Rules Of Engagement Examples From Afghanistan
Afghanistan Policy In Disarray
The Side Effects Of Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement
Rules Of Engagement Too Prohibitive To Achieve Sustained Tactical Success
AR 15-6 Investigation Of Marine Deaths In Kunar Province
Rules Of Engagement Slow Progress In Marjah
On January 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm, Bill said:
AMEN.
On January 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm, Jean said:
Hershel,
You are being to kind. Allow me:
This guy has zero credibility; he has been living in an alternate reality land for 30 years, surrounded by his own personal PSD and his family protected by extensive post 9/11 security precautions. It wasn’t enough to remove flexibility and restrict the action of his combat leaders; he wants to add insult to injury by offering his opinions on the 2nd amendment. No thanks, just retire, go away, and find some double dipping job at the Pentagon. BTW, avoid the press, you don’t have a PAO watching your back…not that the last one did a good job.
On January 8, 2013 at 9:13 pm, Anthony Fezio said:
As a Viet Nam veteran and defender of the 2nd amendment I respectfully disagree with the General. He, having gone through West Point must have been behind the door when it came to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is NOT for sportsman, it is to allow the people to protect themselves from a government that has become Tyranical, which is what we are approaching. When that happens, it will be the SEMI-AUTOMATIC version of his M16 and M4 that “We The People” will have to defend ourselves and NO they should NOT be on the streets, they should be in our homes, on a range and owned by an American Citizen ready to protect Freedom that is currently waining. I must say his loyalty to a tyrant is amazing. I was going to buy his book after I saw him on Hanity last night but no more. Not a dime to those that would “INFRINGE” on our rights to bear arms.
On January 9, 2013 at 12:44 am, Bill said:
New mention is that he’s applying for for head of DHS. That would probably be giving the fox the keys to the Tyson poultry plant.
On January 9, 2013 at 2:46 am, P. Lee said:
He will forever bear the stain of the Battle of Kamdesh (OP Keating). Always seemed more interested in his way rather than what was best for all.
On January 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm, Rwillimon said:
does general mcchrystal own a gun?
On January 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm, Reynauld said:
Tyrants like McChrystal are why the founding fathers distrusted a standing army.