Owning foreign war guns...


PDA






Eb1
February 27, 2009, 06:33 AM
If you are an American, do you feel strange to own a gun that probably killed your Countrymen? I am talking about Mausers/Jap guns, etc?

Personally I don't think I could own one of these guns. I own Lee Enfields, but I could not own a WWII Mauser. Great gun, but to me I just couldn't bring myself to keep a firearm that could have killed an American.

If you enjoyed reading about "Owning foreign war guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jcwit
February 27, 2009, 06:45 AM
Do you own any cars?

PTK
February 27, 2009, 06:47 AM
I've held, fired, and VERY much considered purchasing an original bring back MG-42 - no way it wasn't used. Doesn't bug me one bit.

sernv99
February 27, 2009, 06:50 AM
nope, no second thoughts about owning a foreign gun that may have killed an American. You wanna know why? Because it was the person behind the trigger that killed the American, not the gun.

akolleth
February 27, 2009, 07:16 AM
2 thoughts here--

1-- Each and every soldier, whether fighting for the right cause or not, is still a human life. What makes an American life so much more valuable to you than any other soldiers life? You say you have an Enfield, well that very well may have been used to kill a German, an Italian, an Indian, who knows. Where do you draw the line?

2-- More importantly, you cannot start moralizing a tool. A firearm is just that, a tool. The person behind the tool is who did the killing, not the firearm itself.

ZombiesAhead
February 27, 2009, 07:40 AM
It is just a tool, as posted above. When police seize a drug dealer's vehicle/possessions to use for law enforcement, they don't consider the harm it may have caused in the past.

stubbicatt
February 27, 2009, 07:41 AM
I have a Mosin Nagant dated in the early 30's. The stock fore end wood is split on both sides, with arsenal repairs. I reckon the bayonet torqued the barrel and split the wood at that location. I reckon the bayonet was thrust into someone first.

I understand your reluctance to have a weapon that killed an American, but I figger all men die the same, American, Japanese, German, etc.

An acquaintance has a Garand that he opened up the butt plate and hunk of human scalp fell out. Guess some guy got butt-stroked. Sort of gory I guess.

Deus Machina
February 27, 2009, 08:22 AM
Once more: it's just a tool.

Your 1911 or Mossburg 500 could very well have been used to taken an American's life, too.

If you don't want to own one, that's your thing. I, for one, wouldn't judge against you for it.

But unless you believe in some sort of material karma, just revere the men that gun may have been used against, offer up a prayer to them that their sacrifice put it into your hands as the trophy from a defeated enemy, and promise that it will never harm another of our countrymen.

We need a 'salute' smilie.

n00b
February 27, 2009, 08:38 AM
2 Things come to mind:

#1. Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People.

#2. Most solids are just fighting for their country. Right or Wrong they where just taking orders.

I have seen many Documentories about soliders/pilots from opposing sides meeting after wars end and becoming friends. If a solider can ingore what was done for ones country then one can collect weapons from those wars and country.

BCCL
February 27, 2009, 08:56 AM
As someone that owns a "jap" rifle, that was brought back by my late Uncle from WWII, no it doesn't bother me a bit, any more than it bothered him and he was actually shot at by Japanese soldiers, and possibly this very gun.

If it didn't bother him, why should it bother me....it was the tool used, not the man using it.

Should we not use a German made wrench to fix our cars?

Mp7
February 27, 2009, 08:57 AM
if you acquire a used spoon - it might have been involved in cooking before.

Fact is: there were wars, people killed, people got killed.
Itīs about learning from history.

And IMHO just the word "American" or "German" or "Japanese"
as a reason for ...um... emotional-outbreaks is ridiculous.
All the fallen were men. A lot of them probably people you
would not even like... some brave, some cowardish, some with,
some without honor....
they all are part of history.
Thatīs all. The rest is mystified
sorry... propaganda.

If i hold an antique arm, itīs even more interesting if it
has participated in the actual story of its time.

It stays an innocent and potentially dangerous tool.

(would love to ccw granpas war-weapon...... wait, that was a heavy mortar :) )

The Deer Hunter
February 27, 2009, 09:04 AM
1-- Each and every soldier, whether fighting for the right cause or not, is still a human life. What makes an American life so much more valuable to you than any other soldiers life? You say you have an Enfield, well that very well may have been used to kill a German, an Italian, an Indian, who knows. Where do you draw the line?

Because he is from the USA, and we went to war with the axis powers. but I value a fellow coutryman's life more than a citizen from another country. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot place another soldier's life that we were fighting more than our own.

2-- More importantly, you cannot start moralizing a tool. A firearm is just that, a tool. The person behind the tool is who did the killing, not the firearm itself.

That really bothers me. Sure, a rifle is a tool, but it's not as arbitrary as a hammer. I know the rifle didn't pull it's own trigger, but it was used to kill people. And the fact that it did kill people does give it a different sense. I'm not saying it should change your opinion on whether or not to use one, but you simply cannot just categorize a rifle as a "tool".

Anyways, It would not bother me at all to have a rifle that may have killed US
soldiers.

elktrout
February 27, 2009, 09:23 AM
In a pinch, both sides' soldiers picked up weapons that belonged to enemy soldiers they had killed. So, an American could have been using a German weapon and vice versa.

What about the WWII planes that collectors have in their possession?

The posts above regarding "tools" are the key to understanding the issue and moving beyond the emotion of the thought. But, if you cannot get past your reservation, then you owe it to your conscience not to own a weapon that may have belonged to an enemy.

mcdonl
February 27, 2009, 09:29 AM
I love my 1895 French Made Mosin Nagant, and my Russian Nagant pistol.

I also love the M1 Garand I am buying.

It is all part of the worlds military history.

Besides, look at it this way. American soldiers often took weapons and other items from thier enemies as a statement of victory.

I find it rewarding that I have a piece of the Soviet Unions arsenal sitting in my basement in Maine, and that it was sold on the Internet for $100.... Try that deal with an American Made firearm... (Come to think of it... WE made a lot of Mosin's too.....)

Leroy

Onmilo
February 27, 2009, 09:38 AM
If you are American and it really wierds you out owning a K-98 Mauser, buy a 91/30 Mosin bolt rifle.
Chances are it was used to kill the Mauser shooter.

I, for one, have never had a desire to own Nazi firearms or memorabilia, but it doesn't freak me out that a Nazi used firearm in some collectors possession may have been used to kill an allied soldier because I would also be wierded out that my GEW 88 bolt rifle may have been used to kill a doughboy,,,

eye5600
February 27, 2009, 10:01 AM
You can take heart from the statistics showing most soldiers never kill anyone. IIRC, in WWII, there a couple hundred thousand shots fired for every fatality.

ar10
February 27, 2009, 10:58 AM
I have a Lignouse 2A .25cal taken from a Nazi officer at Malthasan(sp) POW camp. I know full well what it was used for but it's the gun I keep, not what it was used for.

Eb1
February 27, 2009, 11:01 AM
As mentioned. It is my doing not to own one. I was just wondering if the thought had crossed any other persons mind.

Regardless if it is "just a tool" or not. It was a tool designed by the enemy to be used for killing Americans, and I think that this in itself is what pushes me away from wanting to own one.

Yes, I own cars. A Ford and a Chevy. What does that have to do with a Mauser Rifle? What does my 1996 or 2001 cars have to do with 1930's and 1940's rifles?

I don't judge anyone for owning a WWII German or Jap rifle. I am not one to judge, but I can share my opinion.

I can tell you this. I really enjoy when I go to the range to shoot my WWII rifles, and someone next to me is shooting German guns. I do take a sense of pride when this happens, but that is just personal, and I am not judging the other person for their decision.

ny32182
February 27, 2009, 11:10 AM
As stated, it is a tool. I plan to do a milsurp collection one day and would like to have one of each.

And the statistics will also show that the chances that any individual rifle caused a fatality are low indeed.

Walkalong
February 27, 2009, 11:17 AM
Do you own any cars?I like that one.

No, I did not shoot anyone with it, and it was not the gun that shot anyone, it was the person weilding it. The same thing that escapes the liberal gun grabbers still.

_JT_
February 27, 2009, 11:21 AM
I have a Mosin Nagant, obviously we never officially had any battles. When i first purchased it back in January, my buddy and i took it out on the farm we hunt at. Setup and shot at trees with a natural mound backstop. We fired off from the back of a Mule 4x4. When i was done firing my second grouping, my buddy noticed blood all over my hand, first thinking i cut myself somehow, the realizing it was on the stock. We werent sure if the Cosmo kept some WWII battle scars in the wooden stock like morons.

We then realized i had stuck my hand in leftover deer parts in the mule climbing on the back of it.

Back to the original question, i really wouldnt be bothered by holding a gun, its history. My grandfather has a Civil War rifle that was a confederate weapon that was left in Gettysburgh following the battle. I'd love to get it preserved, right now its just sitting in the basement hanging up.

TexasRifleman
February 27, 2009, 11:26 AM
but I could not own a WWII Mauser. Great gun, but to me I just couldn't bring myself to keep a firearm that could have killed an American.

I think of it a little differently I guess.

We won, that rifle is a symbol of our victory. It may have killed brave Americans but that rifle was taken from the enemy in his defeat.

That rifle is proof that our enemy was defeated, and a memorial to the men that made it possible.

osamaslice
February 27, 2009, 11:33 AM
What about a 1943 bnz Mauser rifle later bought by Israel? They seemed to be alright with the idea, so far as I know.
Also, "guns designed to kill Americans" would be, in my mind, incorrect. For every American killed in World War Two, approximately twenty five Soviet soldiers died. That's not even including Soviet civilians. "Americentrism" isn't always right.
But utility is most important, and when I see a fine firearm, I do not admire it based on who wielded it.

mr.trooper
February 27, 2009, 11:37 AM
It only matters if you think the "American cause" is always in the right (its not) or if you think that American lives are worth more than those of other men (they are not).

"Americentrism" is a good word.

Gunnerpalace
February 27, 2009, 11:39 AM
It may have killed brave Americans but that rifle was taken from the enemy in his defeat

This there was a awful lot of bring backs and it was a goal for a lot of GI's to get lugers.

mbt2001
February 27, 2009, 12:11 PM
The Man He Killed - Thomas Hardy

Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.

I shot him dead because—
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although

He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like—just as I—
Was out of work—had sold his traps—
No other reason why.

Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.

;) Thought you might enjoy the insight.

Storm
February 27, 2009, 12:19 PM
Overall it doesn't bother me. I must admit that the concentration camp Mitchell's Mausers bothered me a bit, but less about the rifle itself but more about who would go out of their way to own such a thing. But, I suppose it's just another way to "never forget".

Daizee
February 27, 2009, 01:16 PM
I think that "the rifle is just a tool" is short-sighted. A lot of the replies smack of making excuses.

A war artifact carries heavy symbolism with it, and to deny that is dishonest, especially since so many are bought and sold specifically for their symbolic value. It may not mean anything to you personally, but it's not "just a tool" in the world. It carries context with it, even if you personally don't choose to look at that context. That context is not intrinsic to the object itself, but associated with it by societal history. If you're alone on a desert island and don't care about WW-II, then whatever. But if you're partaking of civilization, you can't entirely divorce the symbolism from the weapon.

If you have a reason for wanting to own that symbolism or carry that piece of memorabilia, then great - own that reason. Don't make excuses for it.

Weapons as war trophies are certainly interesting. However, I think a lot of recent war rifle owners are pretty far removed from the original trophy-takers.

If a 22 year-old kid runs out and fawns over his new WW-II German Mauser, I have to ask why he is so fascinated with Nazi guns. Whether or not I like the answer is secondary to him actually having a true, considered response. He's free to like what he does, but for pete's sake, know why.

My personal feeling, about my own collection (not yours): I might own one such rifle some day, but it'll be after I've got a number of good solid American rifles first, and probably a Garand or M14 too. If the only good rifles were enemy rifles I might feel differently, and I'd be straight about that reason.

Also, the glorification of Nazi artifacts bugs me. The stuff gets elevated to a status that I find very disquieting to see. A captured Mauser or Luger here and there is interesting to me, but the rest I'd rather see it ground in the dirt instead of being elevated to high collector status. It makes worry that I should always be looking over my shoulder in my own country. I'd prefer to have to do that as little as possible.

"Do you own a car?" is a decent analogy.
My take on it: I might buy a German car one day 'cause they make great cars. I WON'T buy a WW-II era German car because it carries too much of the symbolism of the time with it. I wouldn't want to drive around in that cloud or force other people to deal with that cloud as I drive around in public. Does it really make a difference if it's a new BMW vs. a WW-II vintage BMW? I think so, and it does make a difference to me. My parents, on the other hand, would feel differently, and they come to that reaction legitimately.

In fact, here's an example:
German-made factory production spring-powered air rifles are arguably the best. We own two, a sporter and a match rifle. They are recent production, and I'm not bothered a bit. They carry much more olympic context than anything else.

Much of the rest of our hardware was manufactured within 200 miles of where we live, but then again that's New England for ya. ;-)

-Daizee

theotherwaldo
February 27, 2009, 01:19 PM
I have no problem with the collection or use of any hand weapon. Weapons are just tools. They do nothing on their own.

I have no problem with collecting or using trophies taken from defeated enemies, no matter the atrocities committed by those enemies.

I do have a problem with people carrying those weapons and items as a banner, carrying on the original acts and beliefs of heinous enemies.

It's not the weapon, it's what you make it mean to yourself and to those around you.

TimRB
February 27, 2009, 01:21 PM
We're shooting their guns. They're not shooting ours.

Tim

Lonestar.45
February 27, 2009, 01:23 PM
I wouldn't let it bother me. Besides, you have no way of knowing if it killed Americans, was dropped once and surrendered, or never even made it's way out of the factory before the war was over and it was captured. American GI's sure didn't have a problem keeping them as war trophies. Why should you?

leadcounsel
February 27, 2009, 01:28 PM
I often think - "if only this rifle could talk and share its' tales..."

The truth is you have no idea about where the rifle has been or what the user(s) did.

Maybe the rifle was dropped by the 'enemy' and captured and used by a 'friendly' temporarily to save his fellow Soldiers. Or maybe it was used to execute unarmed women and children. You just never know.

Death is part of life...

As others said, we own cars made by our one-time enemies. And the same is true with all sorts of modern goods from computers to tennis shoes to products tested on animals... death is death is death... In a way, I'm honored to own ANY weapons that were used in conflict because presumably their user was brave enough to fight for his country or beliefs - and the weapon is filled with history - rather than a weapon that is simply stamped out and sent to a gun store to be bought and put into someones' safe and rarely shot.

But what I do know is that they are filled with history and if you don't want 'em, sell 'em to me...

Rembrandt
February 27, 2009, 02:03 PM
A form of Anthropomorphism....attributing human characteristics or emotions to non-human objects.

Noban
February 27, 2009, 02:12 PM
A gun is an inanimate object. Period. Any deviation from that premise and you give credence to the hysterical lefties who say guns are evil.

If you just can't get your arms around this, allow me to lessen your anxiety about that Mauser. You have it because the son of a bitch who used it is taking a dirt nap in Russia.

RP88
February 27, 2009, 02:21 PM
if a gun was used to kill someone, then chances are that very fact is a strong indicator that the gun is most likely functional. If it bothers you, then never, ever buy a used gun. You have no idea who could have had it and if/how they used it.

WardenWolf
February 27, 2009, 02:21 PM
I own 3 war guns: an M1 Carbine, a 1943 Mosin Nagant, and an Arisaka 99 produced around 1941. The Arisaka, I'm positive, was used for some less-than-humane things.

I mentioned the Arisaka was produced in 1941. What I did not yet mention was where and when it entered my family's possession: Okinawa, 1945. This gun went through the entire Pacific war, and ended up on an island where the Japanese were effectively making their last stand. If any gun was used to commit atrocities, that one was.

Does it bother me? No. It's something I occasionally think about, though. I know what the Japanese did, how they treated native people on the islands they conquered, and even POW's. For that rifle to be in service that long, it had to have seen a lot. I'll never know all the things that rifle saw, and perhaps it's for the better. But no, it doesn't bother me. It's a good rifle. I have to admire the quality and features of these early Type 99's, and laugh when I realize Japanese soldiers, who averaged about 5 foot flat, were using a rifle that is considered large even for us today. Nonetheless, it was a good design, just one that was completely outclassed by the semi-automatics we wielded.

FreuderLocks
February 27, 2009, 02:22 PM
No I don't feel weird about it, especially since I plan to be a Historian. It's always pretty cool when someone is talking about 'that cool russian gun' in the video game or 'i saw this.....on TV but I cant figure out what it was" to pull out your Mosin or Mauser and say, 'This one'?
Aside from the cool factor, I like the historical aspect of the things. I don't personally care who it killed, though I may be concerned as to why. The historical aspect of these weapons far outweighs any 'weird feelings' I may get from them, instead it heightens the excitement and interest of even being in their presence.
-FL

Daizee
February 27, 2009, 02:40 PM
A gun is an inanimate object. Period.

Of course it is.
*people* animate it. "people kill people, guns don't kill people."

That's why in the context of a society that brings meaning or historical memory to these things, you have to be aware of what that context IS. It DOES exist - in the collective minds of the people who see/use/experience it. To deny that we are part of and influenced by historical memory is to deny the possibility of understanding *why* the gun grabbers are so hysterical. The symbolism IS real - there isn't just one mythology, but behavior IS influenced by it, be it right, wrong, accurate, or inaccurate.

You can reduce grabber paranoia if you can address their concerns, and you can't do that without acknowledging and understanding them. Acknowledging and understanding them is not at all the same as giving ground. Know your enemy.

That same historical memory fuels the entire 2nd ammendment recovery "movement". A large part of the culture war on this issue is about who's mental construct is more "right". It's fairly clear to me that the Pro 2A memory is vastly more accurate than that of the opposition. But you'll never convince them of it without understanding *why* they're so fearful. That fear typically doesn't happen on an individual basis.

My point being, the history and symbolism that these war rifles "carry", is actually carried by people, not the object itself. However, that's irrelevant when considering the effect it has on your own or other people's reaction to these objects. The effect is the same.

I'll try to illustrate my point:
A friend gives me a gift, meaning well: "I've brought you this nice knife. It happens to be the one that killed your grandfather."

Some people might like that as a gift.
I would consider it terribly insensitive, particularly the presentation. I don't want to have such an object, and would be offended that a friend would know me so little as to think so. And since there are OTHER knives of quality he could have chosen, why THIS one? Clearly it's the people who bring the meaning to the object rather than the object itself, but the effect on the people is the same. That has to be acknowledged before you can get past it.

-Daizee

TimRB
February 27, 2009, 03:25 PM
It might be worth noting at this point that Israel owned and used thousands of German K98 rifles for years. They rechambered them in 7.62X51 because that was a NATO standard round.

My hunch is that virtually all those rifles were used in combat during WWII, so I guess it's safe to say that the IDF has a strong sense of irony, if not justice.

Tim

Jaws
February 27, 2009, 03:44 PM
The first aircraft shot down by the Israeli Airforce was shot down by Bf-109 version. That should give you something to think about.

If you consider that is ok to own a rifle that kiled a human being, but is not ok to own a rifle that killed an American, then you value nation above humanity.
This is the reason we are still killing eachother like primates.:( we value ideologies above human life.:(

ar10
February 27, 2009, 03:53 PM
I think that "the rifle is just a tool" is short-sighted. A lot of the replies smack of making excuses.

Then never buy or own the following:
M1, M1A, M16, M14, 303, all handguns, and so on as far back as you want to go. And forget about flintlocks, swords, knives, bow's, arrows, black powder cannons, I'm sure there's many more. Oh and by the way, don't get any fireworks either, those were used by the Chinese extensively as a killing tool.
What ever history or providence associated with any weapon is the "who" not the instrument itself. It's part of human history.

briansmithwins
February 27, 2009, 04:32 PM
It's just a piece of steel and wood.

You might as well decide to never drive on the Interstate because Hitler invented the Autobahn.

BSW

2RCO
February 27, 2009, 04:53 PM
In the case of Bringback Mausers and Arisakas they might have killed an American yes.. But their last Foreign user was most likely deactivated by the Vet that brought them home. That makes them War Trophies for our side if you wanna look at it antoher way.

Guns are just tools!

gripper
February 27, 2009, 04:59 PM
I'm half Irish,and I would have LOVED to have scored one of those Irish Lee Enfield No.4's that were coming in a few years back...hell;if they were RIC/RUC rifles;they could conceivably have been used to prune the maternal branch of my family tree( my Uncle brough tmy MOm over here when she was a baby in the '30s...he (like my Dad) cemented his citizenship by serving in WW2.and getting an Arisaka ,K98k,or a P38 would not bug me either.
I am ex Army,and owning/shooting Cobloc gear poes me with no moral crisis....I guess we all have our own comfort level RE what we can or cannot accept.

trekgod3
February 27, 2009, 05:02 PM
If you are an American, do you feel strange to own a gun that probably killed your Countrymen? I am talking about Mausers/Jap guns, etc?

The range I shoot at does not allow SKS or AK's for that very reason. At least, that's their "official" story. The story I got from an employee was that some yahoo shot a power line with his AK and the electric company would only fix it if the range banned AK's.

RevolvingCylinder
February 27, 2009, 05:12 PM
1-- Each and every soldier, whether fighting for the right cause or not, is still a human life. What makes an American life so much more valuable to you than any other soldiers life? You say you have an Enfield, well that very well may have been used to kill a German, an Italian, an Indian, who knows. Where do you draw the line?
Only patriots understand. People that are the instruments of evil need to surrender or die in order for good to survive. It's the way things are, have been, and will continue to be. "Following orders" is not an excuse. Evil is evil and those that commit it are responsible for their actions. It's tolerating evil that enables and breeds it.

What does it matter what country you buy your rifle from when our Congress continues to sell a large stake of our economy to China and Russia? I agree that a rifle is just a rifle. It's not rational to treat it like an enemy to our nation or that it's possessed by an evil spirit.

Eb1
February 27, 2009, 05:13 PM
I think there are some good examples that better describe my feelings about why "I" could not own an era piece from these countries. I might have cheapened my posts by not using as many words to describe as to why I feel this way.

If I were to have fought in the war, and received a "battle trophy", maybe that would be different, but I didn't and don't.

I really like the comment about having to watch over our shoulder in our own country. That was really spot on.

skeet king
February 27, 2009, 05:16 PM
I would actually pay more for a bring back

Daizee
February 27, 2009, 05:44 PM
Then never buy or own the following:
M1, M1A, M16, M14, 303, all handguns, and so on as far back as you want to go.

That's a false dichotomy. You're saying all of human history is equally relevant to a single individual at the moment of now. I would argue that the further back into history you go, the less weight/character/damage is carried by the culture with respect to specific events, assuming those events have been fully concluded. WW-II is my parents' and grandparents' experience. That's pretty fresh.

You might as well decide to never drive on the Interstate because Hitler invented the Autobahn.

This argument sufferes from a severe lack of granularity.
The question is about allied vs. enemy weapons. If Hitler paved my street I might live on a different one.

What does it matter what country you buy your rifle from when our Congress continues to sell a large stake of our economy to China and Russia? I agree that a rifle is just a rifle. It's not rational to treat it like an enemy to our nation or that it's possessed by an evil spirit.

Actually maybe that's a good reason TO care about where you buy your rifle. Of course the things aren't posessed. That would be the feelings of a paranoic. It can still leave a bad taste in the mouth. Assuming that all negative reactions to weapons are due to misplaced anthropomorphism is oversimplistic.

[quote]It's just a piece of steel and wood.[quote]

And churches are just wood and stone, yet people get REALLY upset when theirs burns down - because it MEANS something to them. Something more than just the various parts.

-Daizee

nwilliams
February 27, 2009, 06:20 PM
nope

Don't you remember? Guns don't kill people, people kill people!;)

Sam1911
February 27, 2009, 06:36 PM
The range I shoot at does not allow SKS or AK's for that very reason. At least, that's their "official" story. The story I got from an employee was that some yahoo shot a power line with his AK and the electric company would only fix it if the range banned AK's.

And that would then be MY "official" reason for refusing to use their facilities. A monumentally ignorant set of choices from all angles.

But I must say, WOW, what an awesome job of forensic detective work that power company must have done to determine even what CALIBER of bullet damaged their lines, let alone what CARTRIDGE fired that bullet, and HOLY COW, they even managed to extrapolate what KIND OF GUN was used fire the cartridge! They must be very, VERY smart people over there at the power company. Yup. Sure are! Right GENIUSES, all of them! And then they used their legal might to pressure a shooting range to ban THAT SPECIFIC MODEL (ok, so two models) of rifle? Because no other kind would be capable of doing the same... :fire: :rolleyes: :p Don't believe all the [poop] you're told. You just stumbled into a bunch of (I believe the slang term is "Fudds") who don't like "'dem high-cap-a-sit-eee auto-matical killin' machines," so they won't let you shoot one at their range.

Back to the question at hand:

A rifle or gun is more than a tool. It is a solution to a problem. The problem is common to all folks wishing to arm themselves (how to deliver a bullet with a certain amount of energy and with an acceptable degree of accuracy) but how each group managed to solve that problem -- and update and refine and develop new solutions as time passed -- has produced a wide variety of wonderful mechanical systems which combine function and art. The weapons of our allies and our (once and someday perhaps, future) enemies are interesting and valuable INHERENTLY because of the imagination, ingenuity, and elegance with which their inventors managed to solve the problem at hand. The quality and capabilities of one gun might make it more interesting than another (e.g.: Springfield > Mosin-Nagant) but they are all worthy.

To a greatly reduced degree, the historical connections that a weapon might make it MORE interesting and worthy of attention, but NEVER less so.

Someone used this gun to kill someone else? Is it still bloody? Did it rust up? Is it damaged? If not, then the old use is completely irrelevant.

Emotional quibbles about "this gun was used to kill Americans, Canadians, Aborigines, aliens, or the Easter Bunny" are just a half-a$$ed kind of superstition.

IMNSHO.

-Sam

jws527
February 27, 2009, 06:37 PM
There are good men of all races, nationalities and creeds, and bad men just the same...and what is good for some may not be so for others.

Frankly, nationalistic tribalism has led humanity down the path of war far more often than it would be appropriate to recount. I, for one, won't partake. Do I have any reservations about owning or shooting the weapons employed by foreign armies, potentially against my own countrymen? No. "American" is merely an identity, not an assumption of value.

Daizee
February 27, 2009, 07:00 PM
I have this friend.
Once he got SO drunk (and went for a run) that he fell down, got sick, ended up with his head stuck between my toilet bowl and the wall, and crapped himself.

We cleaned him up, put him to bed, and gave him a shirt of mine to wear. I still have that shirt. It's clean now, and this was years ago.
When I put it on, is it wrong of me to experience this moment of pause when I remember the shirt's history? I wear it anyway. But I remember.

Of COURSE it's just a shirt.
Some people are more sentimental than others. It's certainly an error to confuse sentiment with objectivity - THAT's the key to the 2A fight, but humans are a combination of both. Both aspects inform decisions and personal optima. Sentiment in large quantity often determines policy, hence our form of US gov't that's supposed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Would you scrap your grandfather's rifle because it's "just steel and wood" and you don't shoot it anyway? I doubt it. If you would, you're probably in the minority.

If it's just wood and lawn and bones, why is Arlington National Cemetery meaningful? How about the beaches of Omaha? They're just plots of land.... It's just a rifle...

The point I'm trying to make by example is that people experience the effect of history, which is triggered by physical objects, sights, smells, etc. We're pretty much wired up that way for recall. You can't separate the object that triggers recall and the memory or ideas that come with it WHEN in the context of other people. Not permanently. You might be able to say to a group: "Now set aside, for the moment, your feelings about this old rifle. Let's examine it on it's mechanical merits." Ok, fine. But ignoring the fact that there is history coloring the experience of that rifle in people's minds is just counter-productive.

If the rifle means nothing to you, I've got no problem with that. But don't be surprised when someone else feels differently. Telling them "your feelings are wrong" isn't gonna change their mind. Your goal might be better served by "ooh, then you'll really like THIS rifle," and put something more appropriate *to them* in *their* hands.


-Daizee

Eb1
February 27, 2009, 07:16 PM
No. "American" is merely an identity, not an assumption of value.

And this is exactly why this country is in the shape it is in now.

Pilot
February 27, 2009, 08:06 PM
The tools of war and even the opposing soldiers are not to blame for wars. Its the countries political leadership that is to blame. Hate them for what they do, not the soldier or gun he is using to fight for his country.

The Mauswer 98 was copied and became the U.S. Springfield 1903 rifle. Should we not own those either due to their Mauser design?

Ignition Override
February 27, 2009, 08:13 PM
In a magazine I read that the early Israeli Air Force might have had a few German-built Messerschmidt 109 fighters.

Sam1911
February 27, 2009, 08:15 PM
Would you scrap your grandfather's rifle because it's "just steel and wood" and you don't shoot it anyway? I doubt it. If you would, you're probably in the minority.

Would you scrap it because he, or someone else, shot someone with it? OF COURSE NOT!

-Sam

lionking
February 27, 2009, 09:04 PM
You are being too emotional in regards to a weapon that was possibly used against a American,or Brit or Canadian or Aussie for that matter.But if you feel so compelled to blame the gun (don't anti's do that?) get yourself a Russian capture K98,if the fact that it was used against communists doesn't bother you as much.

I dunno,I'm not trying to harp on you,I can understand your patriotism,and maybe I can understand someone not wanting a gun that actually killed their child or family member by accident for a example,but the Allies fought against idealism and tyranny in WW2 not against Walther or Mauser.

gripper
February 27, 2009, 09:15 PM
Years ago, I had a chance to get K98,with both the Deutch Waffenamt and the Israeli inspection stamps on it....it had been arsenal conerted to .308/7.62NATO ( probably concurrent with the IDF adotpion of an FAL variant)...great condition,nice bore and $125OTD...kicj myself in the @ss on a dialy basis for not being able to get THAT one;believe me.

Daizee
February 27, 2009, 11:26 PM
You are being too emotional in regards to a weapon that was possibly used against a American,or Brit or Canadian or Aussie for that matter.But if you feel so compelled to blame the gun (don't anti's do that?) get yourself a Russian capture K98,if the fact that it was used against communists doesn't bother you as much.

I don't know if this is directed towards my posts or not, but I'll take it. ;-)

I don't "blame the gun". I recognize that the gun has symbolic value. If that symbolic value bothers me, I'll get a different gun, since I have the choice. I don't HAVE to have a Mauser (though I almost bought a fixer-upper once), and neither do you HAVE to have an AR or Garand instead. Believe you me, if I did not have the luxury of choice I wouldn't be nearly so picky. But this entire thread is predicated on the fact that we DO have the luxury of being picky. Since owning a German war rifle does not carry useful symbology for me, no thanks. And my reasons are fairly clear.

But... I don't want a Russian Capture K98.
I don't feel the need to find an excuse to own a German war rifle. That was kind of my point from my first post.

If the choice were between one that shot at Soviets and one that shot at Americans, maybe I'd pick one over the other for that reason. As long as I'm not doing something boneheaded like picking the one that doesn't work merely because it was pointed in one direction vs. the other, I'm entirely entitled (not to be called an dope). Function and utility overrides emotional content. But since all of that function and utility, for me, can be found in rifles without all that baggage (or with more stylish bags - remember the baggage is actually mine/yours, handed down from family and society at large), I'll choose them instead. It might be because when shooting such a gun I can envision myself shooting against a historical enemy with more comfort than when shooting a rifle from the opposing side. *shrug*

Saying "It's just metal and wood" reduces "it" to merely the physical thing. In fact "it" is a "foreign war gun". That's the context and the baggage. That's the "it", not just "this rifle here in front of me".

Cheers,

-Daizee

lefteyedom
February 28, 2009, 12:07 AM
THE CALL
(France, August first,1914)
Far and near, high and clear,
Hark to the call of War!
Over the gorse and the golden dells
Ringing and swinging of clamorous bell
Praying and saying of wild Farewells:
War! War! War!
...
High and low, all must go:
Hark to the shout of War!
Leave to the women the harvest yield;
Gird ye, men, for the sinister field;
A saber instead of a scythe to wield:
War! Red War!
...
Rich and poor, lord and boor,
Hark to the blast of War!
Tinker and tailor and millionaire,
Actor in triumph and priest in prayer,
Comrades now in the hell out there,
Sweep to the fire of War!
...
Prince and page, sot and sage,
Hark to the roar of war!
Poet, professor and circus clown,
Chimney-sweeper and fop o' the town,
Into the pot and be melted down:
Into the pot of War!
...
Women all, hear call,
The pitiless call of War!
Look your last on your dearest ones,
Brothers and husbands, fathers, sons:
Swift they go to the ravenous guns,
The gluttonous guns of War.
...

Everywhere thrill the air
The maniac bells of War.
There will be little of sleeping to-night;
There will be wailing and weeping tonight:
Death's red sickle is reaping to-night:
WAR! WAR! WAR!

Robert Service

lionking
February 28, 2009, 12:30 AM
was replying to the OP Daize,not you.

England has been at war with American's,is Enfield a dirty name?Today's enemy could be tommorrow's friend and visa versa.The very symbolic rifle of the red's during the cold war is now very common in the the hands of American's and is now as much as a American militia rifle as the AR15 is.

Israeli's who have one of the worst memories of WW2 Germany used captured German weapon's as the arms to defend their new nation.They may hate the Nazi symbol but they used German weapons none the less.

If anything instead of viewing a weapon as a symbol of what killed your countryman the fact that you can buy and own captured Mauser's and Arisaka's not to mention Commy weapon's now should be seen as a spoil of war and that we won so rejoice in that.

Eb1
February 28, 2009, 12:43 AM
The Enfield wasn't in use during wars between England and the US.

I can also view anything I want however I want. Some posters on here get it. It isn't the gun per say. It is the symbolism and history that comes with the gun.

You guys can do what you want. I just said it wasn't for me, and you are not going to convince me by making thin comments like "guns don't kill people", "do you have a car?", "it's a tool".

The rifle was created by Nazi's to shoot at Americans and its Allies. It doesn't represent anything to me other than the enemy of freedom.

lionking
February 28, 2009, 12:50 AM
Yes you are free to own or view them as you see fit.Garands were used to shoot down unarmed American protesters in the 60's,I blame the politicians and military commanders for that not the Garand.Then again the Garand help defeat the Axis......

Eb1
February 28, 2009, 01:05 AM
Unarmed protesters causing ill will to society and looting should be dealt with accordingly. So you could say the Garands were actually protecting American Citizens as well. To each their own.

mickeydim468
February 28, 2009, 05:36 AM
You know, I started to read these posts earlier today and decided not to post, but as the day went on, I felt the need to post something here, as what I have to say may be, or may not be relevant, but I have the right as an American, to post here, since men like my father, fought to free this land from those who have stifled this type of speech.

My father brought back a German dagger which he killed a German officer with. He never came out and said so in a point blank fashion, but he eluded to it and then rapidly changed the subject. This was not a highly treasured memento, it was something in which he would barely speak about. He never displayed the dagger in a shiny box with velvet lining or hung on his wall in his office. He kept it in his sock drawer, along with his ribbons and a few other mementos.

When he spoke of the war it was not stories of killing many countless men, to the contrary, it was stories of him and his crew stealing food from the poor old German ladies, because he and his crew were tired of K rations. You see my dad was a tank commander and he never had to harm any of these people and never took more than a meals worth of food from any single farm, but when he was caught by his CO and had to empty the tank of all of its bounty, even he and his crew were hard pressed to figure out how they got all of that food in there and still managed to fit four men inside to boot.

These stories, the funny stories, were what he chose to share. He was never proud that he had to kill man to man at least on one occasion. He was happy to have made it home alive. So I asked myself this question today... Would I ever want to own a firearm that was at some point, aimed at my father? Never in a million years! And that is my final answer.

When a close friend told me to look for a mauser 98 action for cheap and he would make me a custom gun, I never really looked for one. I have seen some of my friends handy work and he is world renowned in the building of custom guns, yet I decided to just get what I could afford and do my best to make a good gun. I chose an Enfield and a M1917.

I wondered why I had been steering away from the mouser's and others that were German and Japanese weapons, and today I found my answer.

Now, I ask you... If there was a possibility that your father had one of these pointed at him, would you still want it? I am only 41 years old. So age is of no matter. My daughter is 6. Would she want a gun that could have killed her grandpa? I am sure her answer would be NO WAY!

Are guns tools? Yes! Are all tools created equally? I think not! The German war machine was created out of evil, and all of its parts were evil, including the rifles they wielded.

There is something about a weapon, that was used to kill so many people so senselessly, that I can have no part of it. I have no desire to ever own one, and I never will! The thought of owning one makes me sick to my stomach even pondering it. May all Nazi Germans rot in hell for their atrocities against humanity!

That is what my dad was fighting to stop, and that makes me proud to be an American, and my father's son!

Mikey!

ZEN.45
February 28, 2009, 07:51 AM
Some people consider a Mauser K98 as a symbol of the evil done by Nazis.
Some people consider all firearms as a symbol of evil.

I disagree with both. Their perception of a symbol ain't mine, and they shouldn't try to convince me to 'see' a symbol their way.

CajunBass
February 28, 2009, 09:23 AM
I have a couple of Chinese made T-53's (a Chinese version of the Mosin Nagant 44). They were made in 1956 according to the stamp on the receiver. I have often wondered if they made the trip down the Ho Chi Minh Trail at some point, and were used to fight and probably kill, "yankee dogs."

Maybe they were. If they could talk, I'd like to hear the stories they could tell. They'd probably tell how the man or woman who carried them into battle was either a dedicated communist, a partiot who simply considered himself to be defending his home from a foreign invader, or perhaps just a kid from some village who got grabbed and told "go fight." They'd probably tell of being tired, hungry and scared half to death.

Not much different really than soldiers from anywhere, any war, any time.

Right now, those rifles are leaning in a corner gathering dust. If there are any ghosts attached to them, they're quiet ones. They don't cause any problems for me or my wife. They might as well be fence posts. (Which is what they looked like they'd been used for when I got them.) They're just a couple of old rifles.

Eb1
February 28, 2009, 10:24 AM
and they shouldn't try to convince me to 'see' a symbol their way.

And who is doing this?

Daizee
February 28, 2009, 10:52 AM
Lionking,

Israeli's who have one of the worst memories of WW2 Germany used captured German weapon's as the arms to defend their new nation.They may hate the Nazi symbol but they used German weapons none the less.

*Preceisely* what I meant what I said we had the luxury of choice.
They didn't. Speculating about what they might have armed themselves with instead is pointless navel-gazing.

And of course I'm happy we won WW-II. I'm just not much into trophies for the reasons stated. That leaves more for you, and keeps the prices down. More power to ya. I'd never suggest that such items should be prohibited by law. I may "prefer" if they are held in less regard, but I'll defend your right to buy them regardless.


-Daizee

MaterDei
February 28, 2009, 10:58 AM
[QUOTE]Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People./QUOTE]

+1

_JT_
February 28, 2009, 11:47 AM
http://www.nostarclothing.com/t-shirts/catalog/images/main/mw_guns.gif

Sam1911
March 1, 2009, 12:26 AM
Now, I ask you... If there was a possibility that your father had one of these pointed at him, would you still want it?
Without question I would! I had mentioned that there was the possibility of a particular gun having a history that would make it more interesting and this would just about top that list! Not that the gun itself killed grandpa, but that it was used (by someone) to do so. Who would turn down the chance to own such a thing? Now you've got a quality piece of artistry/machinery that ALSO has incredibly significant family history! Wow!

Are guns tools? Yes! Are all tools created equally? I think not! The German war machine was created out of evil, and all of its parts were evil, including the rifles they wielded.

And the tanks, planes, ships, and cars they drove. Evil! And the Nazi houses they lived in, and the Nazi food they ate! Evil, I tell you! Would you eat the same food as a German soldier might have eaten and then passed gas at your father?

Absolute hysterical superstition. And repeating/spreading such statements damages the very basis of our strongest arguments against gun control.

-Sam

Ohio Gun Guy
March 1, 2009, 12:46 AM
I look them as a piece of history. :scrutiny:

However, if you could prove to me that on of my guns was a concentration camp gun or the like, I would probably donate it to a museum along with the documentation. That way it could do some good or be one more piece of evidence for the doubters.

alexanderplatz
March 1, 2009, 01:14 AM
I too think of them as a piece of history. I would especially love to own any WWII weapon with a known provenance, mainly because it was such a huge event in world history. It may not be as ancient to us as, say, the Trojan War, but in the big picture it is just as important. So to me owning something that could be traced directly to the Battle of the Bulge or Iwo Jima is fascinating to me. Owning the piece is not at all about endorsing the side that originally carried it. Having said that, I have even more pleasure in owning a WWII era M1 Garand than I could owning a WWII era Mauser. i.e. the Patriotic aspect is in addition to the historic aspect.

yokel
March 1, 2009, 01:54 AM
I choose to look upon the glorious K98 as the work of design genius Peter Paul Mauser(1938-1914).

All the rest--by turns goofy, sentimental, asinine, senseless, mawkish, and absurd.

mickeydim468
March 1, 2009, 04:31 AM
Absolute hysterical superstition. And repeating/spreading such statements damages the very basis of our strongest arguments against gun control.

Sam,

I completely disagree. I never said I thought you shouldn't own one. The fact that I "CHOOSE" not to own one myself in no way is an attempt to govern your choice. I just tried to explain why "I" would never own one, and offered the assumption that if you were in my shoes, maybe you would feel the same way!

Shoot your Mousers and enjoy them. I won't. Daizee and I, I think, are about on the same page, with the OP. No where in our posts have we said that we think you should not have the right to own these guns. We have given you that. Please give us the same courtesy. We have had a different life experience than you have and our choices in our arms reflect that. My life experience has brought me to this conclusion and yours has not. So be it.

Having said that I would like to address the assumption that I may not hold similar views on owning guns.

I believe that any person who is a citizen of this country should be allowed the right to bear arms! I have not mentioned make or model, single shot or automatic, I said arms(this includes bullets). I also never saw anything about registering guns or ammo either so that's out too! This topic is not about that. I would hope that this forum has a majority of members, who hold this belief, and that firearm ownership is our right! And that we should stand up and fight for that right to whatever extent is necessary to protect that right.

I will take it one step further... I believe we should be allowed to own, whatever weapon we can afford to keep, and supply with ordinance, so that we may offer up a proper fight, if we do in fact, have to come to blows with our government. If they get F22 raptors we should be allowed to have them too, if we can afford them. Period! This is truly what the second amendment is all about! Being able to protect our citizens from a corrupt government, if all other means of changing the government fails, through negotiations, and the democratic process. If you want to KEEP your guns, then get more active and spread the word to everyone you know to get out and vote. Teach people about gun ownership and the 2A and finally vote out those who are anti gun or anti 2A. It's that simple.

I hope I made myself very clear this time!

Mikey!

Ignition Override
March 1, 2009, 04:50 AM
Easy you guys....these are just electronic words.
Nobody knows our faces or names, with few exceptions. And to the original question-no. I would enjoy a P-38 handgun from WW2, but would not want to spend a large chunk, then keep it mostly stored, in order to avoid more blemishes. And many of these handguns/rifles were only carried around behind the front. We will never know about all but a few of them. These questions and ideas are not directed at anybody, but they are just something to contemplate.

It is finally ironic to read that instead of 'Commie gun' this or 'Commie gun' that, there is a question raised about those used by the Third Reich. Also ironic that similar topics on the Internet don't ever mention rifles in Austrian or Hungarian hands during WW 1, in which a vast number of US and other allied soldiers died, not just on the other side, or in the hands of Italians in WW2. Remember Mussolini and the Axis?

I have a friend from Essen (home of Krupp AG which provided so many of their weapons), Germany, whose father fought with the SS in Finland in WW2. Ralf was born long after the war and along with the fact that I would never reproach anybody about what a relative did in that war, he never reproached me about how many tens of thousands of their civilians-including huge numbers of women and children-died as a result of our carpet bombing strategy to cripple their industrial output and logistics. And this was not just in Germany (also railway yards, factories in occupied cities in Nederlands, Belgium, France...). Just by reading OUR history books, it is not difficult to realize that we were looked at as the cruel, totally heartless aggressors by schoolchildren and housewives in Hamburg, Essen, Stuttgart and all of their other cities (plus Klagenfurt, Wiener Neustadt, Vienna, Austria, Bologna Italy, to name a few). Our slow, ungainly bomb and high-octane gas laden bombers, among vast numbers of others, were flown by the bravest young men into deadly flak and fighters. Most were only about 19-21. Very difficult for pilots then to even clip on their chutes and make it to a hatch with a plane pulling 2+ positive or negative, partly transverse 'G' forces, which always change. Worse than any nightmare we can imagine.

But should we have asked each crewmember back in the 50s whether he might have killed civilians with those terrible flying machines (the primary flight controls, bomb release levers, fuel selectors, volt/freq./loadmeter indicators, fuel mixture, prop control levers, hydraulic pump switches/reservoirs were guilty) right before we destroyed each aircraft and rifle/handgun used by our Army and Marines? Somebody had to end the reign of terror (in the eyes of the US and allies). Or ask some US, Canadian/British crews about the fiery, diabolical horrors caused in Hamburg, Dresden and numerous Japanese cities? The B-17 was one of many machines produced by Boeing, Consolidated, Martin, De Havilland, Heinkel, Junkers, Messerschmidt, Nakajima and others. One of those could and probably did kill more people (mostly civilians) on one specific mission to a railway yard, than one rifle ever killed. And this was in the day time raids with only scattered cloud cover over the villages and schools by the arms factories and railway yards of Augsburg (Bavaria), Strasbourg (France), Prague (Czecho-) etc.

Therefore, it seems unreasonable to actually connect a bit of precision machinery with the decision to hurt/kill a US, British, Can., Aussie, Belgian, French soldier, French Resistance, Jewish civilians, liberal German civilians etc. But the thoughts have occurred to me over the years.:o
I've only skimmed over this thread, but Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and others of their elitist academic ilk would love to use certain ideas created from this topic such as guns with war-like looks being inherently evil (although not intended that way by the OP) in the US Senate. But our "fearless leaders" are a bit busy enjoying their 'honeymoon', spending loads of extra funds on pet projects, and hoping to stop a plausible, looming economic depression, at least for right now, as their "flight" is now on another "career sortie (mission)" between the Initial Point and the Primary Target of being re-elected.

mickeydim468
March 1, 2009, 05:02 AM
I've only skimmed over this thread, but Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and others of their elitist academic ilk would love to use certain ideas from this topic (although not intended that way by the OP) in the US Senate-but they are a bit busy hoping to stop a plausible, looming economic depression, at least for right now.


My comments were not intended in that way either... I just got a little emotional on this one I guess! Sob! :barf:

I guess I have read too many posts on the net in general about how COOL WWII was and how over-glorified some of those posts have been, not on this thread but in general and I sort of ranted... My apologies to all!

Mikey!

Ignition Override
March 1, 2009, 05:40 AM
No sweat fellow shooter(s). Call my long speech horse****, Kuhscheisse, wrong, mierda de toro (spanish for stinky stuff from zee boohhl). Makes no difference if somebody needs to say it.
Life is too short. I'm a late-bloomer with guns at age 53 and learn from all of you guys (and a few gals?).

Mickey: As we Americans sometimes hear, we always want to see history cut and dried, far oversimplified in black and white, i.e. "Those are the 'bad guys', those are the 'good guys', Period".
We are seldom told, except in books and on the History Channel, that the main French Resistance consisted of French Communist cells. Awkward but True.
We find the many shades of gray too complex. And in the famous Skoda weapons plant in WW2 Czecho-they were forced to build bombs etc for das Reich, but they sabotoged a few random ignitors in 88 mm shells etc here and there, just to save a few Allied lives. Modern complexity is too much.

mickeydim468
March 1, 2009, 06:20 AM
I'm a late-bloomer with guns at age 53 and learn from all of you guys (and a few gals?).

I too am a late bloomer. I am 41. I am still learning too! I have owned a rifle since I was 16, but I bought my first gun only a month or so ago. So, I am learning too.


Mikey!

mickeydim468
March 1, 2009, 06:43 AM
Ignition,

You see part of my problem was that I was born to an older man of 45 that only lived until I was age 16. I was really never told any of the adult tales of the war, I was only told the watered down kid friendly tales. I guess the leave it to beaver lifestyle of teaching me, that my parents did, left me very idealistic. If one is good, then the other must be bad. I hold my dad in a higher reverence than he probably deserves, yet, I can't help it because that is the only dad I had, and I never got to know him as a man. Maybe my views of things would have been different had I known him while in my manhood years. Because I believe my dad was good then the other side must be bad. That is the way I was brought up! That coupled with the history that was taught during the 70's and early 80's in schools portrayed this very sentiment. It is only now that I have grown up that I have started to learn more history. I am new to the learning curve of the history as well. I have been busy trying to raise a family and provide them the necessities in life and it has only been recently, that this became an easier task for me. I finally have more time to research history and read books and do the things that up until now, was unable to do, due to time restraints. Who knows, I may even change my mind, but I don't know!

Mikey!

Ignition Override
March 1, 2009, 06:47 AM
Mickey: My comment about Americans' desire to hear the grossly over-simplified history was meant for any readers, because we forget about this tendency and our history classes can be short, fragmented and incomplete. Our country is almost as isolated as Australia and this has kept us fairly safe.
At two different times I stayed two nights with a German family in their village in '77 and '81. We once walked over to the grandparents' courtyard (former farm) on the village edge, and Martina (born in about '60) told me matter-of-factly how an Am. bomber had wandered off course from over nearby Karlsruhe and luckily when a bomb fell by the house of her 'Grosseltern', everybody was down in a shelter or elsewhere. It is already like old history to them. It was also strange to see the names of about thirty men from the village who were listed as 'gefallen' in WW1 and 2. Found this stone plaque on my own-and this in just one fairly small Dorf (village), like in the Dutch 'dorp' or English 'thorpe'.

Anyway, maybe shot the old .22 once in twenty two (plus) years, and made first real gun purchase in Oct. '07.
After being married about 14 years, you should have seen the look on my wife's face as I then bought several carbines and lots of ammo.

My condolences for your loss, esp. at such a young age.

mickeydim468
March 1, 2009, 07:12 AM
I have never been able to travel to Europe. Maybe I would have different views. I appreciate that you have shared yours views with me, and your experiences. You have taught me a lot in just a few short posts. I may never make it to Europe, one never knows, but I can still learn.


My wife's jaw all but hit the floor when she heard me say that I had found a gun I wanted to buy and did she want to come along to go get it? I think her Jaw still hurts.

I had not shot my .22lr since I was a kid right after my mom gave me dad's rifle when he died. My wife had some issues with guns with her relatives, while she was growing up, for one reason or another, so she was not very pro-gun, even though she knows gun safety and has even built her own Kentucky long rifle black powder .45 when she was a kid with her mom's help. So, when I mentioned buying a rifle, she was ok, but hesitant.

She did go with me and we did buy the gun, an Enfield .303 No. 4 MK2 made in 1952. and she likes it. She even went out with me the first time I shot it. She didn't get out of the car but she went just the same.

I have since taken her to a gun show in a nearby town and we brought our 14yr old son along and he found my 1917 Remington on some guys table. The whole time I was looking at the Remington, my wife was at another table haggling with the old feller who was selling .303 stripper clips with 5 rounds. She haggled him down to $1.00 for the package and she bought the lot! Must have been 6 boxes of ammo with clips for $15.00 bucks. Women!

She found a gun cabinet at our local gun shop and I picked it up today and tomorrow, she is sending me and my son to the gun club with instructions to not only join the club but sign up for a safety class for me and my son and if they offer an NRA membership, buy one! So, yeah, it's looking good from this angle! She is just mad my older son can't go tomorrow because he has homework.

:confused::what: I don't know what to think!

Mikey!

rogertc1
March 1, 2009, 07:59 AM
Even though I am a Vietnam Vet I have a bunch of SKS's and AK's. I have no problem sleeming at night.

ar10
March 1, 2009, 10:36 AM
Even though I am a Vietnam Vet I have a bunch of SKS's and AK's. I have no problem sleeming at night.

Me neither.

Funderb
March 1, 2009, 10:49 AM
That really bothers me. Sure, a rifle is a tool, but it's not as arbitrary as a hammer. I know the rifle didn't pull it's own trigger, but it was used to kill people. And the fact that it did kill people does give it a different sense. I'm not saying it should change your opinion on whether or not to use one, but you simply cannot just categorize a rifle as a "tool".



This kind of talk is losing us the debate over the legality of firearms.

lionking
March 1, 2009, 10:52 AM
If one of my guns were to accidently kill someone specially a family member or friend I might not want that particular gun anymore because it would be a constant reminder of what happened,I wouldn't blame the gun but it would be a reminder none the less.

But as far as a firearm carried by a once enemy or enemy that may have killed a countryman or ally or civilian I have no problem owning because I don't know how that particular firearm was used,for all I know it may have been used by the resistance.Some of these firearms were made even before war broke out or assembled by parts after the war.

We have former enemy countries like Czech,Poland,Hungary who have Communist Migs,Hinds and AK's who are member of NATO now.

ar10
March 1, 2009, 01:27 PM
That really bothers me. Sure, a rifle is a tool, but it's not as arbitrary as a hammer. I know the rifle didn't pull it's own trigger, but it was used to kill people. And the fact that it did kill people does give it a different sense. I'm not saying it should change your opinion on whether or not to use one, but you simply cannot just categorize a rifle as a "tool".

You contradicted yourself. a rifle is a tool then you state you simply cannot just categorize a rifle as a "tool".

But so were hammers. Historically hammers have probably killed more people than rifles.

GD
March 1, 2009, 02:05 PM
If you are squemish about using guns that killed Americans, well, I think Americans are currently being killed by persons using all sorts of American arms. Criminals in this country don't generally care what type of firearm they use on Americans.
I collect Finnish firearms and accesories. I enjoy the history of the Winter War during WW2. Considering the heavy fighting that the Finns did, I have no doubt that many of my firearms were used to kill lots of people. Many of those people were good people who were inducted into the Soviet Army. If you are going to be upset with anything, be upset with the people that started that awful war. My firearms are fun to shoot but they also remind me of war is all about - killing and destroying sometimes, some precious people. They also remind me that they are also used to stop evil people.

22lr
March 1, 2009, 02:11 PM
I have a problem with it, the AK and 98k are guns that became symbols of evil and as such I dont have one. I do have a Yugo M48 but that's as close to a 98 as im going. I do like the Russian capture 98ks though because 1)it was used to kill Commies 2) it was used to kill Nazis, A win win.

Hammers have killed a lot of people, true. Gun have killed mega millions if not billions, so they win the killing debate. However it is the person not the gun, but gun become a symbol of the person. Ya the 98k is highly collectible and I have no problem with that its just I personally don't think id buy one (unless it was a Russian capture).

Just as the M-16, M-1 and M-14 are symbols of freedom and the good guys, the AKs and 98k are symbols of mass murder and oppression and the bad guys.

Dr.Rob
March 1, 2009, 06:07 PM
To each thier own, I wish I knew my Mauser made Luger's history, sadly I got it 3rd hand with no papers. My 98k was made at BRNO in 1945 and likely never saw service and was sold as surplus via mail order in the late 40's early 50's. I know one thing, they shoot really well.

Jaws
March 1, 2009, 06:20 PM
Just as the M-16, M-1 and M-14 are symbols of freedom and the good guys, the AKs and 98k are symbols of mass murder and oppression and the bad guys.

This is so convenient. We are the humans, the good guys, whoever we fight for one reason or another are all evil "gooks" , "terorists", "comies", "japs", "nazis", "red skins", or "imperialist pigs", or "infidels" and on and on. They are all sub human, their tools evil, all their doing is evil and is ok to kill them.:barf:

Why we always try to depersonize the other guys in order to kill them?

Are we really so imature that we have to justify to ourself that the other guys are not human and is ok to kill them, is ok to own guns that killed them?

The true is that none of us is perfect. None of us is absolutely good or absolutely bad. There's no nation on this planet that didn't do it's share of bad things.
In history and life, there's no such a thing as black and white. Just a whole lot of shades of grey.

lionking
March 1, 2009, 06:44 PM
As much as I love America and it's principles America has blood stained hands also,politicians and some military folk have commited certain unwarrented bloodshed in America's history also.No country,civilization,government,race,or religion are free from guilt at some point and time.And nothing guarantee's that it couldn't happen in the future.So to say the M16,M14,Garand or whatever American weapon are the "good guns" is kinda wrapping yourself too tight with the flag I think.While the Garand was used for good in WW2,the M16 against the coldwar tommorrow American soldiers might be ordered to mow down American's with a M16 given twisted circumstance.

Yes Germany and Japan commited horrible acts in WW2 and the allies were of just cause and were the good guys,but a weapon design is not a symbol,a flag,a doctrine and the deeds done are the symbols.If....... and that is a big if,America were ever to truely breakdown into chaos and civil war the AK and AR owned by many American's in today's society no doubt would be involved in it,the only thing that would determine whether there was evil or not would be by judging the people or person,not the gun, who used them and for what cause.

lionking
March 1, 2009, 07:13 PM
My dad met my mom while he was stationed in Germany in the 50's (I'm adopted).My German grandfather was infantry radio operator KIA in Greece,my American grandfather navy.From what my mother told me my grandfather went because he had to,he was not a Nazi supporter.

My mother and grandmother were gentle docile people who endured homelessness,and hardship caught in circumstance of events.When I was a child I had a battleground play set and one time I showed my mother a soldier lying dead included in the play set and I laughed,she was brought to tears,not because it was a toy of a dead Nzi but because it was her father.I feel bad about it to this day,she forgave me after making me realize that was my grandfather I was laughing at.Interestingly that battleground set didn't come with toy dead American soldiers.

ar10
March 1, 2009, 08:32 PM
Immigrants of the colonies were actually terrorists to the British in the 1700's. Of course we immigrants were mass killers to the Indians in North America.
Back to the topic. No gun has ever independently killed anyone. And whether you like it or not explosive powder came on the scene less than 2000 yrs ago so gun powder is a drop in the bucket compared to Greeks, Goths, Romans, and so on have the lions share of mass killings.

vector248
March 1, 2009, 09:28 PM
this is a semantic post. buy what you like. i don't see people buying Cadilliac's instead of BMW's or Mercedes because BMW and Mercedes built aircraft engines in WW2. unlike the American car industry, the American gun industry builds products that people actually want, and dream about owning. i suppose i am going to piss off a lot of people with this post. no offence intended just my opinion.

telomerase
March 1, 2009, 09:29 PM
Are you squeamish about owning dollars? Lots of your dollars passed through the hands of various dictators, killing millions of civilians (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.html).

Inanimate objects don't have moral content.. they're as good or bad as the user.

theotherwaldo
March 2, 2009, 12:02 AM
I think that we need to differentiate.

Owning a gun that was used to kill is one thing.

Owning it because it was used to kill is another thing entirely.

Bezoar
March 2, 2009, 12:37 AM
look at the companies making high end affordable rifles now. most are in germany. who makes winchester rifles now? a company in japan.

those are considered good guns to get for some reason. yet those who say destroy the foreign made war rifles fore they shot us, say nothing about those rifles or that our gun companies are moving overseas now?

nothing wrong with a solid made rifle in a good caliber.

soldiers are quirky. some are more fanatical then others. however we get our own fanatics in the military. hell some certain units require that level of fanatiscm to create a cohesive unit.

you cant put politics between you and a good rifle.

Big Bill
March 2, 2009, 02:44 AM
That's why I own a Mosin Nagant 91/30.

ShootTheM14
March 2, 2009, 04:54 AM
I don't have a problem owning war era rifles which might have been used to kill soldiers, even Allied troops. I have many ex military rifles and many civilian rifles. I do sometimes wonder what stories some these rifles would tell. I have a 1925 Hex receiver ex Cossack 91/30 that has seen lots of action, I purchased it because it had no import marks and had a surprising strong bore. This rifle was a Vietnam bring back. I found a chunk of human flesh and blood on the rifle when I cleaned it. Was it the blood of the soldier who carried the rifle or an American? I hope it was from a Viet Cong but who knows? I also have a Yugo capture Mauser I got for $109 dollars. It also has a very strong bore. I sometimes wonder what happened to the German who carried it and who the Yugoslavians used it against afterward. I wish all my war era rifles could tell me their stories but I don't sit around worry if they killed any good guys. As I see it they are my guns now.

mickeydim468
March 2, 2009, 01:02 PM
yet those who say destroy the foreign made war rifles fore they shot us

I haven't seen one post here saying anything of this sort. Read the posts and see for yourself.

GBExpat
March 2, 2009, 04:13 PM
If you are an American, do you feel strange to own a gun that probably killed your Countrymen? ...

No ... that would be silly.

MT GUNNY
March 2, 2009, 04:18 PM
My WASR 10 is a reminder to me Of the Men and Women who gave there Lives for me to have it!!

cat9x
March 3, 2009, 12:30 PM
it's the person that killed not the gun, you the OP as a pro gun supporter should already know this...

SlamFire1
March 3, 2009, 12:34 PM
It did not bother the American Troops who brought back from the battlefield swords, knives, guns as souvenirs, and it does not bother me.

Eb1
March 3, 2009, 12:40 PM
You can take this there if you want, but it is totally off topic. Being that I am pro-gun and an American citizen of legal age, I am free to feel any way I wish for what ever reason I wish.

Any American citizen should know that.

JWJacobVT
March 3, 2009, 01:49 PM
Just a point. Enfields were used by both sides in the civil war. But so were Springfields, Colts, Remington, Sharps, Henry and etc. Does this mean I shouldn't own these????
A firearm is a firearm, not good or bad, it doesn't go bang by itself. Period. If Eb1 chooses not to own foreign war guns that is fine,but it is also ok that I do or plan to own foreign war guns. Why because as a retired veteran, I gave over half my life so that WE could have these rights. The BILL of RIGHTS.

Funderb
March 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
Eb1, you said your opinion is your own, and you wouldn't try to influence others choices with it, but shortly after reading this thread i found this:
from thread:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=431219
A guy was posting pics of his new arisaka...
Eb1:
it probably killed an american at some time.


what the crap is that?

Eb1
March 3, 2009, 03:03 PM
My opinion, and if you look at the time. I posted that before I started this thread.

benEzra
March 3, 2009, 03:11 PM
I have a problem with it, the AK and 98k are guns that became symbols of evil and as such I dont have one.
There are probably less than 200 actual AK-47's in this country.

U.S.-market civilian AK's are not and have never been used for oppression. To me, they are a symbol of freedom, and I value mine as such.

61chalk
March 3, 2009, 06:02 PM
I remember having this same thought when buying a SKS several years ago....an have enjoyed reading many of these posts...so what is the right answer? The right answer is what each of us decides. If you decide its ok, thats the right answer for you. If you don't want to own it, you shouldn't, thats the right answer for you...no sin either way.

Smith
March 3, 2009, 09:25 PM
The "The rifle was only a tool; its owner did the killing." argument is a bit weak IMO. Would anybody who has presented that argument feel comfortable owning a knife that was used to murder one of your family members? After all, it was just a tool, right?

That being said, I would not have a problem with owning Axis surplus rifles (although I do not currently own any). I would not, however, condemn anybody for feeling uncomfortable about it.

higene
March 7, 2009, 04:16 PM
Being chronologically gifted, I have a lot of experience with this phenomenon. When I was 12 I bought a 03a3 for $20 and had it mailed to my house. Back in the day no self respecting American would be caught dead or alive with a foreign gun. Not long ago I found a Custom Mauser 98 in 257 Roberts Ackley improved in the military gun rack next to a bunch of 03 Springfields. The 03's ranged from $350 for a sheet metal parts, chopped, and ugly drug to the range piece of junk I wouldn't be seen carrying- to $1,200 for an original stock gun which was identical to the one I paid $20 for. I bought the Mauser. It's a phenomenal gun.

I capitalize on prejudice.

I finally overcame my prejudice and bought a CZ 452. I consider it the best all around 22 I own and I have owned a lot of them.

I also own a Poison Maggot. The guy who originally owned that one got shot to death and that is the only reason I keep it around.

So --- do I have prejudices related to country of origin. You bet. And I use them to my advantage.

Higene

:cuss:

deejai
March 8, 2009, 04:37 AM
If GIs coming back home with bring back Mausers and Arisakas dont feel bad about owning curio guns, than why do we? Weren't mausers made popular commercially because of GIs coming home?

Trebor
March 8, 2009, 07:32 AM
I agree that that old military firearms do carry some of the symbolism from their former owners.

For me, my German K-98's represent the failed country that we defeated. It's a symbol of our victory over Nazism.

My East German Makarov, that I bought surplus for $100, is another artifact from a failed country. To me, it's a symbol of the victory of Western Capitalism over Communism that happened in *my* lifetime.

I remember the Berlin Wall. It was up before I was born and I never thought I'd see it come down in my lifetime. The fall of the Berlin Wall, and what it represented, was one of the defining moments in my lifetime.

I don't have a literal piece of the wall. I do have that East German Makarov, which, like the wall itself, was a tool of the oppressors.

My ownership of that pistol gives me great satisfaction. The wall came down, the west won the spoils, and that pistol is a symbol of our victory to me.

If other's feel different, I can respect that, but I don't feel that I have to agree with them (or they with me).

BCCL
March 8, 2009, 11:11 AM
Just a question for those that don't think it's OK to own guns from foreign countries that might have been used in combat against Americans.

Do you ever purchase ANY CCI/Speer ammunition or reloading components, considering their historic ties to the Nazis?

Art Eatman
March 8, 2009, 02:55 PM
My father went ashore on D-Day, so I figure he learned a little something about foreign military guns. He brought stuff back.

He told me of GIs taking Mauser 98s and torching off the barrels and removing the stocks, so they could bring back the actions. My gunsmith uncle begged my father to bring back as many Mauser actions as possible.

War souvenirs are a tradition which spans millenia. Look at it this way: They generally belong to the winners. They're generally a symbol of, "Hey, we won!"

That Arisaka may have killed a GI, but who has it now?

husker
March 8, 2009, 03:06 PM
my dream gun collection, would be to put all the hand guns and rifles of WWII 1 of each, in my safe, i have 2 down and many many more to go= gi issue 45, 30 carbine, next=garand

Sagetown
March 8, 2009, 03:18 PM
Posted by: Eb1 _ If you are an American, do you feel strange to own a gun that probably killed your Countrymen? I am talking about Mausers/Jap guns, etc?

Eb1 I don't feel strange about it at all. However; I remember 2 instances in DaNang, VietNam when our guy brought in truck loads of battle remanents.

One was a Pick-up load of AK-47's piled so high in the bed of the truck that they were sliding off. My buddy grabbed one and kept it till he returned stateside and had it shipped home. Me, at that time I absolutely was not interested, nor were most of the GI's that were there that day.

The second was a similar load of U.S. Marine helmets. We lost so many guys that day. It was very disinheartening to witness that Pick-Up load of Helmets. But for some reason, I picked out one of our hero's helmets, and wore it for the rest of my tour.

Sage

DeathByCactus
March 8, 2009, 06:11 PM
The only weapon I have a problem with is the AK-47 for some reason. I can't tell you why, I don't know why... I just feel uncomfortable around that weapon. I guess I just have this symbolized picture in my head of a 8 year old slaughtering families or ... I don't know. I understand fully that weapons don't kill people, people do. It's just a weird feeling I have about the AK. I just view it as a weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists (due to availability however), whereas I see the AR as a weapon that fights it. Good V Evil if you will. I know there are good people who do good things for their country/people that use the AK. I just will never be able to own an AK. In short it's a stigma I have, I fully understand that there are over 100 sides to this argument and I am not going into it because I just don't like the AK47.

However, I tend to use the AK47 in many video games primarily... strange eh? If it's virtual (like CS:S) I don't care, if it's real then I care.

My brother has a WWII Nazi SS collectors firearm (he is a war history buff and is currently active military), an actual military weapon that was never used. It is the real deal. I have fired it, but I really have no intention of ever using it again.

gripper
March 8, 2009, 06:37 PM
And I have a vision of the AR/M16 series failing to feed,ejector double feeding at an inopportune moment....whereas the AK(despite being crude in comparison)just chugs right along.
Perceptions DO affect me though ;I will grant you that-I simply cannot see myself EVER using ANY firearm in .25ACP-for sme reason I just associate it with low rent wannabe thugs and people who want something they can fire in the from the back seat of a car into the drivers head without going deaf.

61chalk
March 8, 2009, 07:11 PM
Still believing there is no clear answer to this except for each individual to decide for themselves...I thought of this question I hope the OP doesn't mind an hope not to make anyone upset,
I have a question, for myself, an perhaps some would like to think about this....sure some vets took guns, an some didn't...but what if we knew the story of the weapon, that had killed the American, sure its a tool in wartime, sure its the person an not the gun....now lets say that this weapon was the tool, that had killed your dad....?....or your best friend......you find out, an its placed in your hands...not someone else's dad that you didn't know...yours...what if you had it...?
Would it be cool to have? Would you put it beside his picture an medals? Would you take a hammer an destroy it....remember, this was your dad...would it make a difference? I can't help but think that it would for me......

flyboy1788
March 8, 2009, 07:47 PM
I own an arisaka type 38 with 4 distinct tally marks in the buttstock that were put there a long long time ago. It is a very beat up rifle, but it is an original with the chrysanthemum and has not been rearsenaled or anything. The way I look at it is this: although that particular japanese soldier may have been shooting at my grandpa and other americans(presumably killing 4 of them), he was fighting for his country as my grandpa was fighting for ours. He just hapened to be born in japan and my grandpa was born in america. He was doing what he had to do, that is all. To me it is a unique and interesting piece of history and I do not feel wierd about owning it.

CZguy
March 8, 2009, 07:53 PM
Still believing there is no clear answer to this except for each individual to decide for themselves...I thought of this question I hope the OP doesn't mind an hope not to make anyone upset,
I have a question, for myself, an perhaps some would like to think about this....sure some vets took guns, an some didn't...but what if we knew the story of the weapon, that had killed the American, sure its a tool in wartime, sure its the person an not the gun....now lets say that this weapon was the tool, that had killed your dad....?....or your best friend......you find out, an its placed in your hands...not someone else's dad that you didn't know...yours...what if you had it...?
Would it be cool to have? Would you put it beside his picture an medals? Would you take a hammer an destroy it....remember, this was your dad...would it make a difference? I can't help but think that it would for me......

So, I guess you don't believe that a gun is just a tool.

Let's say that you had the gun that killed someone close to you. As you hold it, do you think that the gun aimed, and fired itself. Do you really look at it and think to yourself. "I hold you responsible". Maybe some people do but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone is of course free to think what they will, but how far can one go with this line of reasoning? When I hit my thumb with a hammer, is it really the hammers fault. (and if it was, how long had it been planning it. :D)

Ignition Override
March 9, 2009, 01:55 AM
Until this topic began days ago, the only general negative comments I've read about any guns concern the AK, or SKS, maybe MNs.

As stated in my long group of paragraphs, people always say "Commie guns", but maybe it was because we (middle-aged guys) grew up always hearing about the Cold War on tv and the extremely close calls ( jets began to taxi out in Volk Field, WI, to bomb Cuba, due to a black bear on the perimeter fence, etc) in the Cuban Missile Crisis, unknown to most people.

DeathByCactus: It is difficult to imagine how often we have seen the AK held in criminals' and terrorists' hands on tv shows, and used in Showtime/HBO/USA Channel etc movies. Its influence on us can be subconscious, or even as conscious propaganda, but many hunters and at least one gun range owner also feel that no US citizen needs an AK, or should use it on their range. Hollywood has not really shown the SKS much.
Maybe it is the stigma which began with Korea, Vietnam, Laos (troops were there, not just 'Air America', 'Bird Air', 'Evergreen' etc), but people assume that even when semi-auto, they seem them as more dangerous/evil than a Mini 30?
I told a family member that with a good high-cap mag, my Mini 30 is just as deadly as any AK (he flew over 20 years in many ANG/AFRES aircraft, even the C-124 with cargo to Saigon).

Frankly, I was not involved with guns until Oct '07, totally ignorant about actual gun issues and saw no need for the AK, not being around any gun people etc (for 24 years owned just a .22 but used it twice). Mini 14, 30, SKS, MN 44s and Savage .22. Would like to own an AK one day, partly to spite the Leftists.

You guys comments' all reflect interesting perspectives.

d2wing
March 9, 2009, 03:42 PM
I have some commie guns, but like Japanese cars, they give me a feeling, just like leavin a whorehouse.

Gewehr98
March 9, 2009, 03:54 PM
If you are an American, do you feel strange to own a gun that probably killed your Countrymen? I am talking about Mausers/Jap guns, etc?

Personally I don't think I could own one of these guns. I own Lee Enfields, but I could not own a WWII Mauser. Great gun, but to me I just couldn't bring myself to keep a firearm that could have killed an American.

I have a Trapdoor Springfield, and there's a good chance it was used to massacre American Indians at some point during its existence.

Used by Americans - to kill Americans. Go figure.

It's a tool, period. Don't anthropomorphize it. :scrutiny:

Loggerlee
March 9, 2009, 05:37 PM
It's a machine,it has no say in how it's used.
My mauser will defend my family as happily as it murdered others.

Eb1
March 9, 2009, 09:41 PM
Everyone of you have put sentimental value on a "machine" before. I guarantee it.

Gewehr98
March 9, 2009, 10:19 PM
Everyone of you have put sentimental value on a "machine" before. I guarantee it.

Some of us a lot more than others, obviously.

You find a Mauser, Arisaka, Luger, Walther, Carcano, G/K-43, Steyr, VZ-24, Kalashnikov, Simonov, Tokarev, Makarov, Mosin-Nagant or the like that rubs you wrong, send it my way. Those evil guns will keep good company with their compatriots in my gun safes.

Your conscience will thank you, and I'll be glad to relieve you of such a horrible burden.

Eb1
March 9, 2009, 11:33 PM
Some of us, heh....


Don't put words in my mouth. i.e. evil guns

Also I was mostly referring to automobiles. Also machines. Are they not? What else? I mean.. Why put sentimental value on anything. Right?

nathan
March 9, 2009, 11:36 PM
Let see, AK , sks, mauser, mosin. US made are 1911, garand and garand.

CZguy
March 10, 2009, 12:16 AM
Everyone of you have put sentimental value on a "machine" before. I guarantee it.

So, how do I collect on this guarantee?

Eb1
March 10, 2009, 12:30 AM
Quote:
Everyone of you have put sentimental value on a "machine" before. I guarantee it.So, how do I collect on this guarantee?



you have never had a gift?

CZguy
March 10, 2009, 01:58 AM
you have never had a gift?

:confused::confused::confused:

Howser87
March 10, 2009, 02:32 AM
I love the irony of this question. There are three reasons I will never think twice about owning a German/Japanese/etc gun that may have shot an American.

1. Any gun owned by an American has the potential to defend this country from threats foreign and domestic. That said, imagine the irony of a Mauser being used to defend our country should it ever come down to a citizen defense situation.

2. The gun was forged from a piece of metal and carved from a tree, according to the designs laid down by a man. Whoever used those three things put them together and then shot the gun at an American did the killing, not the gun itself. Do Japanese people use nuclear power?

3. If we still held a grudge against Germans we wouldn't be able to drive an Audi, BMW, or VW. If we held a grudge against japan then we wouldn't be able to eat sushi, play 80% of video games, use a computer, or watch some of our movies (Including ironically "The Grudge").

Leave the past in the past. Time to move on and appreciate these guns for what they are, works of art and tools.

Art Eatman
March 10, 2009, 02:07 PM
Good summary, Howser. Enuf.

If you enjoyed reading about "Owning foreign war guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!