Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
McChrystal says take away .223 rifles
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tulsamal" data-source="post: 2053160" data-attributes="member: 571"><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Gregg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tulsamal, post: 2053160, member: 571"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
McChrystal says take away .223 rifles
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom