Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting ,Gen. McChrystal is against the public having AR 15s and its variants.
He seems to believe a military type weapon should be left to the military.
Now what is the difference between a M16 and a AR 15, some models of the M 16 have the capability of auto fire others have a three round burst capability.
The majority of them fire the Nato 5.56mm round.
So the answer is easy, want to use a assault rifle join the military.
What the retired general is saying, in effect, is that civilians should not have hunting rifles either, as the 5.56NATO/.223Rem which he calls "devastating" is actually a very weak cartridge compared with common hunting cartridges like 30-06 Springfield or.308 Winchester, which can be fired from semi-auto rifles like Browning BAR or for that matter the M1 Garand. If 223 is too much for civilians to be trusted with because it's too "devastating," god help us all.
Where I live .223 is illegal to hunt deer with as the impact energy is insufficient.
In other words, McChrystal demonstrates that being a military officer does not automatically make anyone an expert on firearms, and certainly not an expert on which ones should be accessible to civilians. I could also make some comments on the military being allowed to influence public policy, but I seem to have misplaced my tin foil hat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.