What do you think when you see new Military weapons?


PDA






Deathrider1579
October 6, 2006, 03:14 PM
Personally I usually think whatever it is, is probably something we are going to have to fight against some day.

Any of yall think that or do I need to re-tune the tin foil?

-DR

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you think when you see new Military weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wingnutx
October 6, 2006, 03:16 PM
I think, "Dang, I hope they give those to Seabees."

ArmedBear
October 6, 2006, 03:19 PM
I think, "I want one to play with at backyard barbecues!"

Then I think, "Come to think of it, I want a back yard."

I do have a grill.

Gun Wielding Maniac
October 6, 2006, 03:36 PM
I think of the vast gap that is growing between what we are allowed to have and what is actually useful for "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms". Every year that passes since the 1986 ban is another year that we are behind the power curve. In 20 years, RKBA for protection from illegitimate government is going to be all but irrelevant.

Sry0fcr
October 6, 2006, 03:37 PM
I start praying that we get a semi auto version. :neener:

DoubleTapDrew
October 6, 2006, 03:40 PM
I usually think "Dang those are cool, too bad we can't get one unless we do some reworking of the NFA laws". Some of the new ones make me think "That looks heavy with all that garbage hanging off it".
In 20 years, RKBA for protection from illegitimate government is going to be all but irrelevant.
Yeah unless we do something it'll be the equivalent of an army armed with muskets going up against one with AR15s (not to mention tanks and aircraft :eek: )

Geronimo45
October 6, 2006, 03:40 PM
I wonder why they don't listen to the Brady center, and realize that they don't need mags with more than ten rounds.

wingnutx
October 6, 2006, 03:41 PM
Meh, my AR is no different than an M16 set to semi, which is how most of them are fired.

ArmedBear
October 6, 2006, 03:45 PM
Look, we already have no chance against a government armed with fuel-air bombs, bunker buster, cruise missiles, Abrams tanks, and jet aircraft.

The purpose of RKBA is to make outright tyranny very costly to the would-be tyrant, but make no mistake, a lot of us would end up dead, just like Italian Partisans in the '30s and '40s.

We would REALLY need to rework the interpretation of RKBA to change that. Hint: the line "well-regulated militia" is there for a reason.

"Militia" doesn't mean "Timothy McVeigh and friends." It means a real, official, citizen army.

wingnutx
October 6, 2006, 03:54 PM
A good example of it being too costly to stomp on armed citizens would be the Yavapai standoff of 92. (http://www.indiancountrynews.com/fullstory.cfm?ID=253)

Had those Indians notbeen armed, they would have simply arrested them all and made only minor waves. Since they were armed, it would be too major of an incident to force the issue.

Feds lose, Indians win.

Waco happened because the feds did not believe that the BD's would actually fight.

Kharn
October 6, 2006, 03:57 PM
"Job security!"

Kharn

RNB65
October 6, 2006, 03:59 PM
I think of the vast gap that is growing between what we are allowed to have and what is actually useful for "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms". Every year that passes since the 1986 ban is another year that we are behind the power curve. In 20 years, RKBA for protection from illegitimate government is going to be all but irrelevant.

BINGO! That's the argument that is eventually going to lead to the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 200 years ago the guns used by soldiers were the same guns most of them used at home to hunt with. In many cases, they brought their own guns with them when the signed up to serve in their state militia. This is no longer the case and the argument that private ownership of guns is necessary in order to field a militia is pretty much moot at this point.

Deathrider1579
October 6, 2006, 04:02 PM
The purpose of RKBA is to make outright tyranny very costly to the would-be tyrant, but make no mistake, a lot of us would end up dead, just like Italian Partisans in the '30s and '40s.

Granted, totaly granted!

But its getting to the point and it already may be to that point where any actual armed resistance to tyranny would be suicide.

I think it really comes down to this Winston Churchill quote

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

-DR

Thefabulousfink
October 6, 2006, 04:15 PM
I don't think that We are as far behind the "Power Curve" as many of you think. Most partizan movements that last more than a few months end up using the military's weapons anyway.

Also 10 men who have been hunting for 20-30 years with their scoped deer rifles could easily take out a whole squad of 18 year old soldiers with their fancy new phaser-rifles.;)

Declaration Day
October 6, 2006, 04:36 PM
What I think when I see new Military weapons-

"What was wrong with the M14 and M1911?" :neener:

ctdonath
October 6, 2006, 04:49 PM
Deer season annually shows that some 16,000,000 Americans are mostly pretty well equipped to act as snipers, with their self-supplied long-range rifles, cammo, transport, comms, local networks & teams, logistics, etc. Even Bubba with a shotgun is a lethal opponent, knowing the area and determined to kill something.


Tanks, fuel-air bombs, stealth fighters, etc. are all designed to take on a comparably-equipped opponent in an all-out head-on international assault - and do little against armed individuals diffused through the general home population. Precision guided weapons are occasionally used in Iraq to dramatic effect, and there may be a quarter-million US troops there, but that whole operation comes down to a few thousand grunts with rifles going room-by-room - and most of that is not dealing with the indiginous population, but instead rooting out foreign troublemakers.

Our Founding Fathers - a bunch of self-armed farmers - took on the reigning superpower of the day and won, despite the overwhelming firepower of cannons, battleships, etc. on one side. Thing is, those heavy weapons were usually hard to apply against a blended indiginous population. If a major army were trying to neutralize YOU today, they would not be using B2 bombers to drop MOABs on your location, nor would they use battleships - they would mostly just send a team in your general location and hunt you (and your team) down with weapons little better than yours.

stiletto raggio
October 6, 2006, 04:52 PM
I think the strongest defense against organized government tyranny is not the 2nd Amendment but the oath of enlistment of the US military. "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Most of the soldiers I know, ot include my own, would not only refuse to participate in the organized abuse of Americans, but would likely join an armed resistance if one became necessary.

The oath is to the Constitution, not the Army, the President or the Congress. The Second Amendment, as part of that Constitution, is very important, but the best way to win a war against a modern army is never to fight it.

That said, we are increasingly seeing how effective snipers can be against even the best trained, best-equipped army in the world. I cannot imagine ever turning my weapon against a fellow soldier, but so long as there are hunting rifles in the hands of tens of millions of Americans, even an army that had abandoned the Constitution would not like the prospects of prlolonged civil repression.

Deathrider1579
October 6, 2006, 05:00 PM
Yes snipers are killing a bunch of our troops. But what is the kill ratio like 1000 to 1 or something like that?

I am thinking more along the lines of the super smart weapons or those pesky little robot things running around with an M60 or whatever strapped to the top. Dieing killing an enemy soldier is one thing dieing killing a Dell on steroids thatís something else.

-DR

CajunBass
October 6, 2006, 08:28 PM
What do you think when you see new Military weapons?

Gee. There's a new military weapon.

DoubleTapDrew
October 7, 2006, 02:45 AM
Our Founding Fathers - a bunch of self-armed farmers - took on the reigning superpower of the day and won, despite the overwhelming firepower of cannons, battleships, etc. on one side. Thing is, those heavy weapons were usually hard to apply against a blended indiginous population.
Good point. Wasn't a big part of our winning tactics using guerilla warfare?

Most of the soldiers I know, ot include my own, would not only refuse to participate in the organized abuse of Americans, but would likely join an armed resistance if one became necessary.

I sure hope so. It was dissaponting to see folks "following orders" in New Orleans.

I am thinking more along the lines of the super smart weapons or those pesky little robot things running around with an M60 or whatever strapped to the top. Dieing killing an enemy soldier is one thing dieing killing a Dell on steroids thatís something else.

Everytime I see a show on those things I roll my eyes. They are slow, cumbersome, and are always against a static target. You could likely walk up from the side, knock the thing over, and take the M249 off of it if you so desired. For bomb disposal they are neat. In a battle or as actual killer drones, I don't think they'll do much good (not yet at least).

DFW1911
October 7, 2006, 02:48 AM
Well, there goes some more $ once it's "civilian legal."

I love problems like that :D

Take care,
DFW1911

ctdonath
October 9, 2006, 10:27 AM
Yes snipers are killing a bunch of our troops. But what is the kill ratio like 1000 to 1 or something like that?There is a fundamental cultural difference. Our opponents in Iraq (who are not necessarily Iraqis) have a cultural affinity toward bombs and AK47s - a "spray and pray" mindset, with very few having the discipline for "one shot one kill". In contrast, some 16,000,000 or so Americans engage in "sniper practice" at least once a year in varying terrain on live elusive targets, with quality equipment.

I am thinking more along the lines of the super smart weaponsThose are best suited for high-value must-kill targets. At somewhere around $10M per hit (weapon expended plus logistics), use is limited.

or those pesky little robot things running around with an M60 or whatever strapped to the top. Dieing killing an enemy soldier is one thing dieing killing a Dell on steroids thatís something else.A live operator is somewhere. Find him.

OEF_VET
October 9, 2006, 11:09 AM
Normally, I think one of three things:

1) Gee, I want to play with that.

2) Gee, I wish they had that when I was in the Army.

3) What's it do that the current stuff won't do?

MachIVshooter
October 9, 2006, 11:55 AM
Personally I usually think whatever it is, is probably something we are going to have to fight against some day.

It's not the small arms that concern me.

Our Founding Fathers - a bunch of self-armed farmers - took on the reigning superpower of the day and won, despite the overwhelming firepower of cannons, battleships, etc. on one side.

The redcoats didn't have satellite surveillance, thermal imaging and GPS guided explosive ordinance that can penetrate a 20 foot thick concrete bunker 50 feet underground.

Our small arms are peanuts if we ever have to go up against NATO forces. You might get one or two who're out on patrol, but then they'll overwhelm you with armored vehicles and heavy munitions. I don't mean to be the pessimistic one, but even those who have class III machine guns and DD's don't stand a chance today.

spaceCADETzoom
October 9, 2006, 12:16 PM
I don't think you noticed what others have been saying...

AR15s and hunting rifles aren't MEANT to go toe-to-toe with missles and tanks (neither are M249s or M16s in the hands of soldiers, for that matter--are you saying the infantry is irrelevant in modern war?). The guns of a repressed group provide a means to rack up attrition, drive up a costly repression, and ultimately swing opinions against "tyranny." See Iraq. See American resolve. Thats not a comment on the war...that's a comment on the use of privately owned weapons. Seeing Syrians firing AKs blindly is one thing, but seeing Americans shooting at American soldiers and getting killed by said soldiers... That can certainly have a profound effect on what the soccer mom thinks of going door-to-door on no-knock search warrants, etc. Is this always the case? No, spin can paint people terrists, racists, "tinfoil"wearers, etc. But the point stands. You're buying in the gungrabber mantra that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant in the modern world. Thats BS.

Sleeping Dog
October 9, 2006, 12:26 PM
some 16,000,000 or so Americans engage in "sniper practice" at least once a year
Make that 15,999,999. Some of us take rifles to the woods, find a place to ambush deer, sit quietly alert, and then wake up five hours later. It's still a good day hunting. :)

Regards.

Gun Wielding Maniac
October 9, 2006, 01:16 PM
At the beginning of the revolution, American citizens could possess all of the terrible weapons of the soldier.

Private citizens could own cannons, rifles, swords, anything their devious little minds could think up.

Hell, even private battleships were not unheard of. Ever hear of a Privateer?

Its absurd for a bunch of farmers with bolt guns to claim parity to modern forces armed with tanks, artillery, air support, not to mention the numerous layers of support and logistics that go behind all of these things...

I think many people miss the point that the second amendment was meant to be an obstacle to tyranny by means of the factor of fear and cost. When those same farmers have access to all the of the terrible implements of war.. it is another story.

A few farmers with bolt guns can be crushed in any serious engagement, whatever crap has been spread around about resistance to tyranny. They are not an obstacle, they are not a source of fear.

Hell, have you considered that the bolt action rifles you fellows claim will work so well for "sniper" roles will not penetrate the body armor of average soldiers as it presently stands? We're forbidden "armor piercing" ammunition for our own good, of course. I know, I know, head shots... On a running target that is shooting back from an unknown distance. It sounds a hell of a lot easier then it actually is. Whats more, helmet protection is advancing along with everything else.

In 20 years, who knows what technology will bring along. We could have body armor that is completely impenetrable to the weapons we are presently using. They already have liquid spray on body armor... they already have devices that can detect and triangulate the exact location of a gunshot.

Can you imagine what 20 years will bring? We are being held in a state of technological homeostasis by our generous benefactors in government. While we send in our dues to the NRA, we do nothing but sustain the status quo. It is a losing proposition.

AJAX22
October 9, 2006, 02:13 PM
As technology advances, we need to stockpile knowledge and tooling. We may not be allowed to make any of the good stuff. but nothing stops us from having a private machine shop, and a working understanding of the latest weaponry.

xd9fan
October 9, 2006, 05:48 PM
Militia" doesn't mean "Timothy McVeigh and friends." It means a real, official, citizen army.
You are correct sir!!

The anwers are in right in front of us......along.

The federal Govt is just to big. Both parties both make it grow and grow. I dont know if Illegal Imigration will cause states to reeval the logic of having the Feds rule over them or not.Clearly we have collectively dropped Federalism in our current american language.

The States may have to break away from the union to save it. This might be generations away from us. But clearly this trend towards collectivism/centralized planning is growing. The disconnect continues to grow. The Bill of Rights will get more narrowlly defined...by the Govt.(Courts)


Having a true citizen army will IMHO crub this "world cop" crap. The only way I would agree being a member of this true citizen army (like the swiss) is if we have foreign polices.....like the swiss. What I mean by that is, the true citizen army would be for protecting the home land......HERE AT HOME(The best defense is the best offense). and Not to use used and abused by some adminstrations "conflict" over....whatever. I will protect my farm, my liberties...but NOT on an oil field....half the world away.

No_Brakes23
October 9, 2006, 05:50 PM
Any of yall think that or do I need to re-tune the tin foil?

I must be real optimistic paranoid. I think "Gee, I might have to pick that off a dead body, I better know how to use it.":rolleyes:

ctdonath
October 9, 2006, 07:07 PM
It means a real, official, citizen army.The US Congress has decreed & defined an "unorganized militia". Care to address that, particularly the presumed responsibility of members thereof to arm & train themselves? DCM/CMP seems pretty minimal in that regard, esp. as they just ran out of guns to distribute - and those being antiques.

Its absurd for a bunch of farmers with bolt guns to claim parity to modern forces armed with tanks, artillery, air support, not to mention the numerous layers of support and logistics that go behind all of these things...Not absurd, for reasons in your own sentence: all that heavy firepower requires layers of vulnerable logistics to operate.

As one wag put it: tank drivers gotta get out and pee sometime.

SoCalShooter
October 9, 2006, 07:09 PM
I have several reactions.

1. How much is it?
2. Where can I get it?
3. When is it available?
4. How much does the ammo cost?
5. How many zombies can I kill with it?

Thats it.

Gun Wielding Maniac
October 9, 2006, 09:52 PM
Not absurd, for reasons in your own sentence: all that heavy firepower requires layers of vulnerable logistics to operate.

As one wag put it: tank drivers gotta get out and pee sometime.

You think I havent heard this platitude before?

In Iraq we had people who tried that crap. A couple of goons with SVD's thinks they can sneak up on a bradley or an Abrams, whack the TC or driver, and then just roll off all happy go lucky?

You think those tanks are gonna just sit there and wait until somebody can take a cheap shot at the driver or TC? No... those beasts are going to be rolling around... blowing up your buddies or maybe rolling over your house.

We have this invention called themals... If the gunner or TC is doing their job, he'll be looking through them. You can pick up a person's body heat not matter how well camoflaged he is.

All of that is missing the point: The 2nd amendment is meant to be a protection by intimidation power as well as actual fighting parity. Because we possess weapons which would make any tyrannical attempt to oppress the people prohibitively costly, such a thing would never occur, is the idea.

A few dudes with sniper rifles are a nuisance when looking at the big picture. They do not hold territory. They do not fight pitched battles. They cannot, in other words, take or hold ground at their own choosing...

That is no way to win a war.

ctdonath
October 9, 2006, 11:16 PM
I wasn't talking a few. I was talking a significant percentage of the population.
I wasn't talking casualty-free victory by the locals. Heavy losses are a given.
I wasn't talking heavy equipment being entirely useless. A major army figures your position, you're toast.

I didn't miss the point.Because we possess weapons which would make any tyrannical attempt to oppress the people prohibitively costlyYou got the point.

DoubleTapDrew
October 10, 2006, 01:17 AM
If the unthinkable like that happened, yes any organized group in a specified location could be wiped out. The fact that the revolutionaries are interlaced with the rest of the population poses the problem. The .gov wouldn't start bombing or nuking major cities to get the revolutionaries. Heck they won't even do that in Iraq.
I'd hope our troops and commanders would have a serious problem with fighting their own families and neighbors and tell the gov't to shove their roundup order where the sun don't shine. What are the big wigs going to do? Fire you? Come down and personally kick your posterior? I don't think so.

xd9fan
October 10, 2006, 11:37 AM
I think the growing disconnect btwn "the people" and "the state" grows......


Theres a quiet awe at the power of these weapon systems, hearing just what they could do. Theres also a quiet moment wondering how free people can control such beasts if they where ever turned on us.
and tinfoil is just not my style.........

Joe Demko
October 10, 2006, 11:46 AM
FTR, the US did not defeat the British in the War of Independence using guerilla tactics. General Washington and his subordinates trained the Continental Army in the accepted military tactics of the day. He took a ragtag collection of militias and made them into a functioning army. Oh, and there was also this other country called France that offered assistance in various ways.

Justin
October 10, 2006, 12:18 PM
This one's just all over the place.

Too much skylarking.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you think when you see new Military weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!