Gov't gives thugs AR's, but not US Citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PDA






Smurfslayer
July 29, 2005, 10:08 AM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=86698

He explained that during the 1990s, Congress relented to pressure from former envoy Dennis Ross and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to give the rifles directly to the PA. "Under a veto threat, the Congress relented... Now, imagine how we felt a year later when we saw those -- when we saw Palestinian policemen using those M-16s to shoot Israelis

SS: Ok, put aside the whole Israel/Palestine issue for a second... Anybody else have a problem with our Gov't GIVING to an AVOWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION fully automatic assault rifles which WE - the UNITED STATES Citzens are prohibited from having ??????????????????????

:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Gov't gives thugs AR's, but not US Citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
July 29, 2005, 10:23 AM
Makes perfect sense in Washington....I gotta scrimp and save for an SKS, buit they'll give true assault rifles to murdering terrorists. Yep, plain perfect political sense....

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 10:31 AM
It does not matter if we can own M-16s or not.

What is bad is that they gave them to the PA which gave them to terrorists groups! :fire:

Thanks Klintoon!

HighVelocity
July 29, 2005, 10:39 AM
What is bad is that they gave them to the PA which gave them to terrorists groups

You left out the part about who paid for them. :cuss:

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 10:41 AM
:eek:

Guatemalan tax payers?

I know.

US taxpayers. :mad:

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 10:52 AM
What is bad is that they gave them to the PA which gave them to terrorists groups!
I'd say that's pretty small potatoes compared to the poison gas we gave to Saddam Hussein.

Double Naught Spy
July 29, 2005, 12:52 PM
Don't forget all the shoulder-fired rockets we supplied to bin Laden, many that were not used against Russia, but did get used against the US.

The gov't has no problem with giving guns to others. They know what will happen. If they give them to us, then they risk us using them against the gov't.

It really is a no-brainer.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 12:54 PM
Ummm no Stingers were used against US troops as far as we know.

:scrutiny:

CAnnoneer
July 29, 2005, 01:20 PM
Except probably the recent special ops chopper in Afganistan...

And the politicians showed there faces on TV and said unto us:
"Wethinks the terrorists are UPARMING."

No, you uparmed them against the soviets. Russian soldiers laugh bitterly in their stony graves in Afganistan :cool:

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 01:25 PM
The stingers we gave them are way past their expected shelf life. It was more likely a ex-Soviet or Pakistani MANPAD, or maybe even a lucky shot with an RPG-7.

jefnvk
July 29, 2005, 01:47 PM
If they give them to us, then they risk us using them against the gov't.

Ummm...

They are being used against the gov't right now.

Rebar
July 29, 2005, 01:49 PM
What did you expect from the Clinton administration, which gave pardons to convicted terrorists?

RevDisk
July 29, 2005, 01:59 PM
The stingers we gave them are way past their expected shelf life.

You mean the special battery with a limited shelf life? That was copied, reverse engineered and is now for sale on the black market?


SS: Ok, put aside the whole Israel/Palestine issue for a second... Anybody else have a problem with our Gov't GIVING to an AVOWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION fully automatic assault rifles which WE - the UNITED STATES Citzens are prohibited from having ??????????????????????

You think a few measely AR's compare whatsoever to Israeli illegally selling our technology to the Communist Chinese? Notice the Chinese Army have helicopters that look AWFULLY similiar to the Black Hawks? Just a drip in the bucket.

Me, it's no surprise. Hell, I saw a tank pulled out of a mountain side that we gave to Tito back in the day. How about Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union? Should I bother to touch on Iran-Contra under Reagan? The US VERY much looked the other way when it came to funding the IRA.

The only surprising thing is that you are surprised. Such things have been happening for a VERY long time in much greater quantity than a handful of M16's.

buzz_knox
July 29, 2005, 02:35 PM
Ummm no Stingers were used against US troops as far as we know.

Yup. All reports of helos downed by ground launched missiles were due to RPGs.

Luchtaine
July 29, 2005, 02:56 PM
Well apparently the technique is to use an RPG thats fuse is set at a certain distance. They just have to explode close to a helicopter.

buzz_knox
July 29, 2005, 02:57 PM
Yup. A technique we taught them in Afghanistan and they taught the Somalis in '93. You cut the self-destruct fuze on an RPG warhead so it detonates at a point closer than 900m.

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 03:35 PM
You mean the special battery with a limited shelf life? That was copied, reverse engineered and is now for sale on the black market?Do you have a source for this?

If al Qaeda has working Stingers, why did they use nearly antique SA-7s against that Israeli airplane in Kenya?

Cesiumsponge
July 29, 2005, 03:43 PM
Anybody else have a problem with our Gov't GIVING to an AVOWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION fully automatic assault rifles which WE - the UNITED STATES Citzens are prohibited from having ??????????????????????

Duh, who do you think the government trusts more? Guys with an accent or their own people :neener:

Crosshair
July 29, 2005, 04:03 PM
Kurush

If al Qaeda has working Stingers, why did they use nearly antique SA-7s against that Israeli airplane in Kenya?

You use what you have at the time. Besides, the RPG-7 is technically obsolete, but our troops take a beating from them quite often. Plus they probably have more SA-7s than Stingers, since SA-7s are cheaper and easier to buy.

Kharn
July 29, 2005, 06:31 PM
You mean the special battery with a limited shelf life? That was copied, reverse engineered and is now for sale on the black market? Solid rocket motors have a limited shelf life, after a number of years they begin to develop cracks. Due to the way a solid rocket motor works, cracks cause it to kaboom on launch, killing the shooter rather than the target.

Any rocket we sold to the Mujahidean in the 1980s is long past its shelf life, and even then, the Taliban wasnt in Afghanistan at the time, they moved in after the Soviet withdraw and were fighting the Muja continously until we showed up in 2001 and started kicking them around.

Kharn

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 08:24 PM
You use what you have at the time. Besides, the RPG-7 is technically obsolete, but our troops take a beating from them quite often. Plus they probably have more SA-7s than Stingers, since SA-7s are cheaper and easier to buy.The RPG-7 is a simple and effective weapon system and will probably continue to be used for decades. The SA-7 on the other hand is junk. If AQ had operable Stingers they would have used them; even if they somehow are still operable they won't be for much longer, so there's no sense in hoarding them.

Jeff White
July 29, 2005, 08:30 PM
RevDisk said;
You mean the special battery with a limited shelf life? That was copied, reverse engineered and is now for sale on the black market?

You're kidding right? All weapons of this type are maintenance intensive. There are a lot of other components that require regular preventative maintenance. You're dealing with batteries, microelectronics, IR seekers, IFF circuitry....This isn't small arms ammo that if stored at a contstant temperature will keep for decades.

If you really want to be pissed, you should check into the good training the state department contracted for the PA.

Jeff

RRTX
July 29, 2005, 09:07 PM
Stingers most definately have a limited life, after 16 years they are no longer considered useable for combat. I was a Avenger/MANPADS gunner in the Army, most of the ones we used in training were ones past their shelf life and they did all sorts of weird things when fired, mostly the seeker heads and flight motors failing. They are also considered unsafe for firing from the shoulder at that point. The early Stinger basics that we gave to the Taliban to fight the Soviets are no match for the anti-heat seeker technology on current US military aircraft anyway.

makanut
July 30, 2005, 05:22 PM
It makes perfect sense in Washington to give full auto ARs to the PA, while at the same time U.S. citizens get "gun control." :scrutiny:

All righty then, Agent Schmuckatelli. I wonder where all of this anti-government sentiment comes from? :rolleyes: Apparently, those inside the beltway intellectuals don't have s**t for brains. At least I'm smart enough not to fall for the old assault weapons to terrorists trick.

RevDisk
July 30, 2005, 07:38 PM
You're kidding right? All weapons of this type are maintenance intensive. There are a lot of other components that require regular preventative maintenance. You're dealing with batteries, microelectronics, IR seekers, IFF circuitry....This isn't small arms ammo that if stored at a contstant temperature will keep for decades.

If you really want to be pissed, you should check into the good training the state department contracted for the PA.

No, I am not kidding. Yes, I am aware that many of the components have a limited lifespan and need regular PMCS. The battery was the component that was specifically designed to be a control item with a specifically limited lifespan. This might have changed, but last time I dealt with Stingers, that's what I was told.

rick_reno
July 30, 2005, 09:30 PM
Anybody else have a problem with our Gov't GIVING to an AVOWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION fully automatic assault rifles which WE - the UNITED STATES Citzens are prohibited from having ??????????????????????

You're not prohibited from having a fully automatic assault rifle. They're available - find one, pay your tax and you can own one.

RevDisk
July 30, 2005, 11:02 PM
You're not prohibited from having a fully automatic assault rifle. They're available - find one, pay your tax and you can own one.

Bit of a cop out, don't you think? There are somewhere around 150-170k full autos on the NFA registry. Not sure how many fall in what catagory of weapon. Just for the sake of argument, let's say there are 50k assault rifles on the registry. That means a maximum of 50,000 people can own these weapons. No more, and guarenteed to be far less.

NFA transferable autos are still allowed because ex facto laws are illegal. Or should be. Congress seems to ignore that more than they should. (Once is more than they should.)


I personably believe they are allowed as a release valve. Hence an entire catagory is not banned, just "properly regulated". :barf:

Folks with influence and cash can still buy 'em, they're just not practical for the average Joe who buys firearms with their limited budget.

By the letter of the law, you're right. Practical wise, not really. Paying ten or twenty times the real cost of the weapon is not a legal ban, but it sure as heck is a de facto ban.

rick_reno
August 1, 2005, 03:21 AM
Bit of a cop out, don't you think?

Not at all. The poster said we were prohibited from owning fully automatic assault rifles, I was simply pointing out that is not true. It's still not true, regardless of how you try to spin it.

If it's factual - please post citations in the law that support it.

buzz_knox
August 1, 2005, 09:19 AM
If you want to be really factual, some citizens are prohibited from owning them by individual state law, or because the local officials won't sign the requisite letters.

javafiend
August 1, 2005, 05:18 PM
Ok, put aside the whole Israel/Palestine issue for a second... Anybody else have a problem with our Gov't GIVING to an AVOWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION fully automatic assault rifles

Yes, I do, but fedgov has done this many many times......

RavenVT100
August 1, 2005, 05:30 PM
I personably believe they are allowed as a release valve. Hence an entire catagory is not banned, just "properly regulated".

Folks with influence and cash can still buy 'em, they're just not practical for the average Joe who buys firearms with their limited budget.

Let's go further here and put it in its proper context, shall we?

It's not the "average joe" they're worried about buying weapons. It's poor people and racial minorities. Always has been, always will be. The Democratic Party has simply become the best at running slick advertising campaigns to make it be about crime, and the "proles" are generally the group they fear most, and therefore desire to have the most control over.

It's not rich white guys they're worried about. That's why FA is still affordable to that demographic.

GunGoBoom
August 1, 2005, 05:41 PM
Yes, I concur. I also have a big problem with this, especially in light of the unreasonable infringement of the RKBA upon us (via the 86 no-new-machine-gun ban; notsomuch on the licensing scheme).

Sistema1927
August 1, 2005, 05:44 PM
Some things never change. Wasn't it Joseph Stalin who said something to the effect that we would sell him the rope that he would hang us with?

Sindawe
August 1, 2005, 05:55 PM
Some things never change. Wasn't it Joseph Stalin who said something to the effect that we would sell him the rope that he would hang us with? That was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. Stalin had a comment about one death being a tragedy, a million deaths being a statistic, IIRC.

Byron Quick
August 1, 2005, 10:05 PM
Stingers most definately have a limited life, after 16 years they are no longer considered useable for combat. I was a Avenger/MANPADS gunner in the Army, most of the ones we used in training were ones past their shelf life and they did all sorts of weird things when fired, mostly the seeker heads and flight motors failing. They are also considered unsafe for firing from the shoulder at that point. The early Stinger basics that we gave to the Taliban to fight the Soviets are no match for the anti-heat seeker technology on current US military aircraft anyway.

Don't try to confuse folks with facts; it makes their heads hurt.


Trying to claim that present laws do not ban the ownership of fully automatic assault weapons is technically true. Claiming that statements that the law is a ban is 'spin' is awfully ironic. The true spin is that law that increase the price of some weapons 2000% is not a defacto ban...even though upper middle class and wealthy people can still afford them. (Hint: look up the percentage of the population that can reasonably be expected to have the financial ability to afford such a purchase. I think that law and policy that makes a particular item too costly for 90% of the population to purchase is a de facto ban even if not technically a ban de jure.)


I don't have a problem with the government trying to further it foreign policy arims with weapon supply. That's a carrot. But the government needs to use a stick, too. PA policemen kill Israelis with them and suddenly a cruise missile flies into a PA police station. The next day; the State Department suggests to the PA that controlling their policemen would go far in helping the US in controlling flights of their Tomahawks. Oh yeah, to be sure of getting a good return on investment; hit a large police station at shift change. Remember, President Bush doesn't want to use a 2 million dollar missile on a tent. I agree.

Some things never change. Wasn't it Joseph Stalin who said something to the effect that we would sell him the rope that he would hang us with?

It was Lenin. What's the point? Based on subsequent events, it's safe to state that Lenin and his Bolsheviks failed to correctly analyze the forces of history. That statement simply illustrates another example of their failure of analysis and critical thinking.

Sistema1927
August 2, 2005, 01:30 AM
It was Lenin. What's the point?

The point being that we don't value our security enough to be wise in our dealings. Whether it is valuing our trade with oppressive regimes more than our security, or providing weapons to the PA, the end result is the same.

Free trade is great just so long as it doesn't provide our enemies with the tools to destroy us.

Byron Quick
August 2, 2005, 02:01 AM
Free trade is great just so long as it doesn't provide our enemies with the tools to destroy us.

OK. Might want to try to find a different quotation to illustrate your premise. In light of the dissolution of the USSR and the utter failure of communism worldwide, that one isn't up to the job of supporting your stance. It would better support the premise that it's ok to sell anything to idiots that they can pay for...they'll still be idiots.

Provide the PA with all kinds of small arms and then go about the business of teaching them the cost of misusing them. Wind up with more responsible people in charge. Survivors. Don't try to prevent folks from being your enemy. Identify them as an enemy and find a way to make them a friend. If that proves to be impossible...kill them.

Smurfslayer
August 2, 2005, 09:36 AM
Rick_reno was right... I should've clarified that they're giving new produciton automatic weapons to terrorists... We can't have them (yes, we can have pre May '86 transferrables).

I couldn't care less what happens to the P.A. I do care that if those thugs are being GIVEN automatic rifles, where's mine? :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Gov't gives thugs AR's, but not US Citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!