1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What do you think when you see new Military weapons?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Deathrider1579, Oct 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deathrider1579

    Deathrider1579 Well-Known Member

    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?

  2. wingnutx

    wingnutx Well-Known Member

    I think, "Dang, I hope they give those to Seabees."
  3. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. Gun Wielding Maniac

    Gun Wielding Maniac Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. Sry0fcr

    Sry0fcr Well-Known Member

    I start praying that we get a semi auto version. :neener:
  6. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Well-Known Member

    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".
    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: )
  7. Geronimo45

    Geronimo45 Well-Known Member

    I wonder why they don't listen to the Brady center, and realize that they don't need mags with more than ten rounds.
  8. wingnutx

    wingnutx Well-Known Member

    Meh, my AR is no different than an M16 set to semi, which is how most of them are fired.
  9. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. wingnutx

    wingnutx Well-Known Member

    A good example of it being too costly to stomp on armed citizens would be the Yavapai standoff of 92.

    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.
  11. Kharn

    Kharn Well-Known Member

    "Job security!"

  12. RNB65

    RNB65 Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. Deathrider1579

    Deathrider1579 Well-Known Member

    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

  14. Thefabulousfink

    Thefabulousfink Well-Known Member

    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.;)
  15. Declaration Day

    Declaration Day Well-Known Member

    What I think when I see new Military weapons-

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

    ctdonath Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. stiletto raggio

    stiletto raggio Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Deathrider1579

    Deathrider1579 Well-Known Member

    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 that’s something else.

  19. CajunBass

    CajunBass Well-Known Member

    Gee. There's a new military weapon.
  20. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Well-Known Member

    Good point. Wasn't a big part of our winning tactics using guerilla warfare?

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

    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).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page