Big Surprise: Stanley McChrystal Backs Gun Control


To the surprise of nobody, retired General Stanley McChrystal backs strict gun control measures.   His qualifications to comment on the Second Amendment, the rights of private citizens, and how punishment of the innocent should replace prosecution of the guilty?  Virtually none.  Other than having served in the military and having carried a rifle, same as a Marine Corporal.  But that doesn’t stop him from talking.   And McChrystal is somewhat known for his impeccable judgment, and never, ever talking when he shouldn’t.

No word on whether Marty Dempsey thinks this is “using the uniform for political purposes”.  Somehow I doubt it bothers him much.   He seems pretty well settled with abridging the rights of Americans, and only sees a problem with “using the uniform” when it is a Veterans’ group that disagrees with his political benefactors.

As commentor Jeff mentions in a previous post, perhaps Stanley can go into Compton, unarmed of course, and collect up all the illegal firearms in possession of the Crips and Bloods.  Then he can get them from the Latin Kings and MS-13.   Then he can try Chicago, and then DC.   And THEN he can talk about the numbers of people “killed by firearms”, provided he isn’t one of them before then.  He might need some help, so maybe he should bring Marty Dempsey with him.

When he is finished, he can illuminate the rest of us on how new laws keep criminals from getting firearms, providing examples of how each have worked in the past.    Or maybe he can just shut up about my rights, and how he thinks they should be infringed.

If I had to trust someone with my life and my liberty, it sure as hell wouldn’t be Stanley McChrystal or Marty Dempsey.    A Marine Corporal?  Now you’re talking.

27 thoughts on “Big Surprise: Stanley McChrystal Backs Gun Control”

  1. Spot on! Little Marty Dempsey (what a loathsome creature) and Chatty Stan will of course keep their guns. Us little people will have to turn ours in. Not so much.

  2. Not just the Marine Cpl. I’d trust everyone E-6 and below in the Army as well.

    I know, I know. But there are more us that are Army than are Jarheads. But, then, we don’t need the navigational ability of the Navy to get us were we need to be.

    1. What navigational ability? They don’t even teach Celestial Navigation anymore, or at least not in ROTC, and haven’t since the 1990’s.

      If your GPS is tits-up, you’re SOL when it comes to navigation.

    2. Rusty, my understanding was the Navy was still requiring Celestial Nav in the 2 week Nav course about 10 years. ago. You may never have attended it. It was a course for career designated E-5 and above and was the hardest course the 2nd class on Sylvania (when I was) said he’d ever been through. He was a Fine Arts grad, so that may explain quite a bit.

      I didn’t find Celestial Nav to be particularly difficult and I learned it on my own. Bowditch was a handy reference to have when you decide to do such things. Using a sextant, however, takes practice to use well. It took me several months of off and on practice to get competent. It’s doable though.

      I would not be surprised if Bowditch is no longer a required shipboard pun these days, or even the reduction tables. Prolly don’t even have Sextants (I’d bring my own if I had to). Spherical Trig isn’t particularly hard, but it can be time consuming and painful. These days, I’d write a program for the TI-83 series calculators to do the sight reduction. Some clown would prolly write an App for his smart phone. But there’s no reason to carry a smart phone when you go to sea, except to use it in a Liberty port, assuming you had a phone that worked locally. I suppose you could get Sim cards where ever you went, but that would be a pain.

  3. Perhaps as the new symbol of General and Flag rank we should consider replacing stars with little circles, representing the Beltway Officer Corps the current crop has come to represent.

  4. Any of you guys know Stan personnaly?

    I do. I servd as his S3 Air in 3rd Battalion, 19th Infantry at FTStewart, GA in 1985 when he was the S3 Air.

    This is not a new foudn opinion of him.

    Oh, and trust me…Stan was a hell of a warrior.

    1. Nope, don’t know Stanley personally. However, his willingness to subvert the Constitution he was sworn to support and defend, and his public assertion that my legally-owned weapons are the problem with “gun violence” tells me everything I need to know about the man.

      Glad he is a hell of a warrior, though. He will have an easier time of it in Compton, then.

  5. I believe I can boil this down to somewhat of a fine point. I witnessed many times over when an Army E-4 SPC was promoted to Sergeant E-5 some of the “hard time” given the new NCO were words from the still E-4’s to the new SGT: ” I don’t know you anymore.”

  6. Your second amendment right is a one sentence declaration that were meant for white males carrying muskets. I

    f you want to use the 2nd amendment as you’re argument then you must wholeheartedly agree with all of the statutes of that time. Women and african americans would be exempt from your those rights if you want to hold true to what America was when the constitution was written. If that is the case I dont think a sexist,bigoted racist should be speaking for the rest of us.

    Thanks for calling this mans name to pass your judgement. I hope you have at least served in the military to qualify the difference of what is acceptable from home and abroad when it comes to the type of weapons you should own.

    Do you think civilians should have missile launchers and be able to own hand grenades? When it comes to the general public limitations need to be set.

    1. Your First Amendmentwas intended for white males using quill and parchment. Historically, the burden of gun control in the US has fallen disproportionately on the black community. How’s that worked out for them?

      And why must I agree with statutes that have been superseded, when the2nd Amendment to the Constitution- the highest law of the land- has not been repealed or otherwised rendered null? And my military service, however meager, is of no consequence. I remind you, the 2nd Amendment grants me no right. It recognizes a right by birth and constrains the government from infringing that right. I had the right to keep and bear arms before I served, while I served, and after I served. As to what arms are appropriate for use by private citizens vs. the military at home vs. abroad, I tend to think the current prohibitions on automatic weapons are skirting the fine edge of constitutionality. There is not an outright ban on the private ownership of automatic weapons (that is, machine guns) but rather an onerous regulatory environment.

      GEN McChrystal may have been a fine warrior, but his career spent in an environment where he had virtual total control over the lives of his troops has left him with faulty judgment about the very freedoms he swore to uphold and defend.

    2. No, sorry Mr. Ferreira. My Second Amendment right is a one-sentence declaration that the government cannot infringe upon my being armed as a last redress against the tyranny of that government.

  7. While i agree completely with the sentiment on maintaining my rights under the 2nd amendment, i disagree with the idea that Machrystal’s being “virtually unqualified” disqualifies him from speaking his opinion on the subject. If there was a requirement to be “qualified” to speak on a topic, I’d like to know what they are and who sets them: we all have opinions, and the right to voice them. Saying that someone can’t voice any opinion merely because they are not qualifed and you disagree it, begins to smack of infringement on other rights. What he really has is access to wide media and an opinion you and i both disagree with, and the right to voice it. You have the right to make sweeping generalizations and character assassinations based on that, but neither one advances the debate. For the record, i fully agree with the particular Marine corporal’s statement and boldness. I dont over generalize to all Marine Corporals, and i dont over generalize Machrystal’s opinion on gun control to the rest of his service or character. No, i don’t know him.

    1. Esli,

      Read again, please. What I asserted quite clearly is that McChrystal has no more qualifications than anyone else who carried a rifle. NONE. He is free to speak his opinion, and I am free to criticize it. Harshly, if I so choose. That he would exercise his First Amendment liberties to abridge mine under the Second Amendment speaks volumes about who he is and how he thinks. His actions and opinions expressed publicly on this topic and others indeed reflects on his character. As a General Officer, he was and is a public figure, and that should occur to him each and every time he opens his mouth. Which, it apparently doesn’t.

    2. I did read it closely; a couple of times. I did not say that he was or was not qualified. What i said was that a lack of qualifications does not preclude his saying anything. My thought is that you criticize him for expressing his opinion, and said that he is not qualified. My stance is that nobody here is more or less qualified; we either agree or disgree with opinion, based on fact, emotion, and logic. You dont like his opinion, and use your forum to criticise him personally. Certainly that is your right, just as he has the right to say whatever he chooses. Question: would you as vehemently disapprove of him if he used his public position to come out against any form of gun control?

  8. I don’t like his opinion. I believe it to be ill-considered, knee-jerk, ignorant, and smacking of treating the law abiding as potential criminals. I also think it makes short shrift of the Constitution he swore to support and defend. Whether you consider that personal criticism or not, that is up to you. In addition, he expressed his opinion very publicly, knowing that a pro-gun control stance would be maximized by his public figure status.

    Do you think if he was expressing an opinion against Obama’s political views on gun control that we would have heard a peep from any major network?

    And I am still waiting to hear from Marty Dempsey regarding a retired military officer expressing a political opinion. So far, crickets.

  9. McChrystal is the type of Soldier who would have done well……at Kent state.
    He will have no problem ordering American’s to die under his ideology shift to destroy the rights of said American’s.
    Did not swear to up hold the Constitution apparently. Voted most likely to belong to the Obama personality cult.

Comments are closed.