What do you think when you see new Military weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deathrider1579

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
198
Personally I usually think whatever it is, is probably something we are going to have to fight against some day.

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

-DR
 
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.
 
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.
 
I usually think "Dang those are cool, too bad we can't get one unless we do some reworking of the NFA laws". Some of the new ones make me think "That looks heavy with all that garbage hanging off it".
In 20 years, RKBA for protection from illegitimate government is going to be all but irrelevant.
Click to expand...
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: )
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Granted, totaly granted!

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

I think it really comes down to this Winston Churchill quote

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

-DR
 
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.;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

-DR
 
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.
Click to expand...
Good point. Wasn't a big part of our winning tactics using guerilla warfare?

Most of the soldiers I know, ot include my own, would not only refuse to participate in the organized abuse of Americans, but would likely join an armed resistance if one became necessary.
Click to expand...
I sure hope so. It was dissaponting to see folks "following orders" in New Orleans.

I am thinking more along the lines of the super smart weapons or those pesky little robot things running around with an M60 or whatever strapped to the top. Dieing killing an enemy soldier is one thing dieing killing a Dell on steroids that’s something else.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Yes snipers are killing a bunch of our troops. But what is the kill ratio like 1000 to 1 or something like that?
Click to expand...
There is a fundamental cultural difference. Our opponents in Iraq (who are not necessarily Iraqis) have a cultural affinity toward bombs and AK47s - a "spray and pray" mindset, with very few having the discipline for "one shot one kill". In contrast, some 16,000,000 or so Americans engage in "sniper practice" at least once a year in varying terrain on live elusive targets, with quality equipment.

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

or those pesky little robot things running around with an M60 or whatever strapped to the top. Dieing killing an enemy soldier is one thing dieing killing a Dell on steroids that’s something else.
Click to expand...
A live operator is somewhere. Find him.
 
Normally, I think one of three things:

1) Gee, I want to play with that.

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

3) What's it do that the current stuff won't do?
 
Personally I usually think whatever it is, is probably something we are going to have to fight against some day.
Click to expand...

It's not the small arms that concern me.

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

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

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

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