MinnMooney
Member
I think that left seat pilot in post #9 is wearing my favorite pistol - the SA-XD .45ACP
whats your favorite battle weapon?
- Thread starter bamabluesman
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman, I've taken quite a few history classes in high school and college. I have an interest in military history outside of school which I feel has added more to my education than the classroom though both have been worth while investments of my time.
We won all the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war stateside. It was in this country and not in Vietnam that we lost the war. The American people weren't for the war, so we pulled out.
In Afghanistan, with the aggressor being the former Soviet Union, their "Vietnam" was largely lost because the USSR was collapsing in on itself.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, with the aggressor being the United States, like Vietnam, we won every battle (and still do). When an Iraqi or insurgent picks up a rifle and points it in our direction, he gets his butt handed to him by an American rifleman, tank gunner, pilot, and so forth.
The Japanese during World War II used similar guerilla tactics as the Viet Cong, Afghanis, Iraqis, and insurgents; however, with great losses of American servicemen they did not prevail against the superior technology and greater power of the United States.
You could argue that the guerilla tactics by the Viet Cong against the United States and the Afghanis against the former Soviet Union hastened the collapse of the USSR and the pull out of American forces from Vietnam. In that sense, the guerilla fighters were successful against a superior force.
In a second American revolution, we would be fighting against our own military, which is the most technologically advanced military ever devised by man. We would need far more than a handful of civilians with battle rifles against such a foe.
Night vision, as one example, is a start. Our military controls the night and never allows our enemy to rest easy. An ability to communicate without government surveillance would be step number 2. Tinfoil hats don't work so well.
TexasRifleman argued that it's conceivable that some individuals in the corrupt government forces would refuse to obey unlawful orders justified by their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It's also conceivable that a corrupt government and the states would ratify several amendments that redefine the Constitution. Take the 16th Amendment for example,
They opened up a can of worms with that one. At one time the majority of the tax came from tariffs on imported goods (sounds like a good idea to me!). Now we tax everyone and everything and every income from cradle or grave.
As another tidbit of history, The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887 and The Populist Party "demanded a graduated income tax" in their 1892 platform. Interesting facts aren't they?
In this scenario, government forces who took an oath to defend the Constitution would be doing just that and could not refuse the order to obliterate the future revolutionaries.
Everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The largely universal interpretation is that it protects an individual right to own firearms; However, there's no doubt that even with ownership of firearms, it would be damn near impossible for civilians to defeat a standing army as large and powerful as the United States military. 10 points to the one who points out the Federalist paper that argues against a standing army.
The 2nd Amendment, by my interpretation, is a window or crystal ball into the status or level of liberty in the United States. The greater the government trusts the American people with firearms the greater our liberty. Likewise, the less the government trusts us with firearms, the less our liberty.
Gun control is almost always a series of measures or steps in a platform of "reform." A platform of reform including gun control includes a lot of other measures of lessening liberty such as increased taxation, increased government control of education, and so forth.
Abridged edition:
By my interpretation, the 2nd Amendment and ownership of battle rifles or other firearms offer not a practical defense against a tyrannical government, but rather, a symbolic and moral scale with which to judge if we're still a free nation.
We won all the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war stateside. It was in this country and not in Vietnam that we lost the war. The American people weren't for the war, so we pulled out.
In Afghanistan, with the aggressor being the former Soviet Union, their "Vietnam" was largely lost because the USSR was collapsing in on itself.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, with the aggressor being the United States, like Vietnam, we won every battle (and still do). When an Iraqi or insurgent picks up a rifle and points it in our direction, he gets his butt handed to him by an American rifleman, tank gunner, pilot, and so forth.
The Japanese during World War II used similar guerilla tactics as the Viet Cong, Afghanis, Iraqis, and insurgents; however, with great losses of American servicemen they did not prevail against the superior technology and greater power of the United States.
You could argue that the guerilla tactics by the Viet Cong against the United States and the Afghanis against the former Soviet Union hastened the collapse of the USSR and the pull out of American forces from Vietnam. In that sense, the guerilla fighters were successful against a superior force.
In a second American revolution, we would be fighting against our own military, which is the most technologically advanced military ever devised by man. We would need far more than a handful of civilians with battle rifles against such a foe.
Night vision, as one example, is a start. Our military controls the night and never allows our enemy to rest easy. An ability to communicate without government surveillance would be step number 2. Tinfoil hats don't work so well.
TexasRifleman argued that it's conceivable that some individuals in the corrupt government forces would refuse to obey unlawful orders justified by their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It's also conceivable that a corrupt government and the states would ratify several amendments that redefine the Constitution. Take the 16th Amendment for example,
They opened up a can of worms with that one. At one time the majority of the tax came from tariffs on imported goods (sounds like a good idea to me!). Now we tax everyone and everything and every income from cradle or grave.
As another tidbit of history, The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887 and The Populist Party "demanded a graduated income tax" in their 1892 platform. Interesting facts aren't they?
In this scenario, government forces who took an oath to defend the Constitution would be doing just that and could not refuse the order to obliterate the future revolutionaries.
Everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The largely universal interpretation is that it protects an individual right to own firearms; However, there's no doubt that even with ownership of firearms, it would be damn near impossible for civilians to defeat a standing army as large and powerful as the United States military. 10 points to the one who points out the Federalist paper that argues against a standing army.
The 2nd Amendment, by my interpretation, is a window or crystal ball into the status or level of liberty in the United States. The greater the government trusts the American people with firearms the greater our liberty. Likewise, the less the government trusts us with firearms, the less our liberty.
Gun control is almost always a series of measures or steps in a platform of "reform." A platform of reform including gun control includes a lot of other measures of lessening liberty such as increased taxation, increased government control of education, and so forth.
Abridged edition:
By my interpretation, the 2nd Amendment and ownership of battle rifles or other firearms offer not a practical defense against a tyrannical government, but rather, a symbolic and moral scale with which to judge if we're still a free nation.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I think you can see from the arguments made for the Heller case that even some of the Supremes disagree with you, but you're welcome to take your symbolism as far as it will carry you.
I for one prefer to think of the amendment as having more meat to it.
I believe the Second to be a poor judge of actual freedoms anyway. Look at what we are subjected to today under the Patriot Act in the name of "security". Even if the Supremes rule in our favor with Heller we'll not be any more "free".
We indeed could take on our military but not due to technology. It would be by sheer numbers.
First off, the government shooting against it's own people is bound to stir a few patriots to our side.
Second, with all of their technology, they still cannot read minds. How would they know who to fire upon until the patriots reveal themselves? The military would wear uniforms, but the people would just look like everyday civilians. It's impossible for the military quickly distinguish who is who, and that is an extremely large tactical advantage.
30% of Americans own guns, more or less. That's about 100 million. In the best of cases, let's say 60 million rallied together to fight the couple of million American forces. Looking at the numbers, who do you think would win? Tanks and helicopters are a force multiplier, but unless every soldier had one, the Americans would easily win. The government knows that, and therefore every measure will be taken to discourage and disarm the people until a call to arms would be made.
A soldier's main tool is his rifle, not helicopters, tanks, planes, etc. As long as the people have access to them, they can be soldiers too.
First off, the government shooting against it's own people is bound to stir a few patriots to our side.
Second, with all of their technology, they still cannot read minds. How would they know who to fire upon until the patriots reveal themselves? The military would wear uniforms, but the people would just look like everyday civilians. It's impossible for the military quickly distinguish who is who, and that is an extremely large tactical advantage.
30% of Americans own guns, more or less. That's about 100 million. In the best of cases, let's say 60 million rallied together to fight the couple of million American forces. Looking at the numbers, who do you think would win? Tanks and helicopters are a force multiplier, but unless every soldier had one, the Americans would easily win. The government knows that, and therefore every measure will be taken to discourage and disarm the people until a call to arms would be made.
A soldier's main tool is his rifle, not helicopters, tanks, planes, etc. As long as the people have access to them, they can be soldiers too.
kBob
Member
I like battle weapons like one of the ones I used to work with, the Pershing 1A. It got "used" 24/7 but never had to be fired in anger.
Even when I was a young 11B Light Weapons Infantryman I longed for an M-1 or M-14 like I trained with as a kid over the AR platform ( My first -16 was marked XM-16E1 BTW and I currently own an HBAR) Thanks to the CMP now that I am old and decrepit I again have an M-1.
So much for battle weapons. How does one rid oneself of trolls?
-Bob Hollingsworth
Even when I was a young 11B Light Weapons Infantryman I longed for an M-1 or M-14 like I trained with as a kid over the AR platform ( My first -16 was marked XM-16E1 BTW and I currently own an HBAR) Thanks to the CMP now that I am old and decrepit I again have an M-1.
So much for battle weapons. How does one rid oneself of trolls?
-Bob Hollingsworth
hkenvy91
Member
hands down , the m1
I am going to do your well written and well thought out post a great injustice and try to sum it up in a line or two:
This unfortunately could happen in the future. If I'm not mistaken you are saying it would be a better course of action to make sure this doesn't happen than to all run out and buy battle rifles to stay free. I completely agree, I would much rather be sending letters to my senator than sending bullets at troops. (But I like to be prepared too.)
This means that all else failed and is a last resort. Just because we would be severely underpowered doesn't mean we should give up. What you described as the second American Revolution sounds a lot like the first. We were mostly outgunned and overpowered but we're free now! One man fighting for his freedom is like 100 fighting for a paycheck. (Not literally of course, but doesn't it sound dramatic and inspiring.)
I don't imagine the American people would have a great deal of support for a corrupt government that is fighting its own people either. If that is why we lost in Vietnam it would be easy to see how the military could lose fighting the second American Revolution.
Call me an optimist... but to me, the 2nd Amendment is much more than a symbol.
I sincerely hope that this...
Respectfully,
lions
This unfortunately could happen in the future. If I'm not mistaken you are saying it would be a better course of action to make sure this doesn't happen than to all run out and buy battle rifles to stay free. I completely agree, I would much rather be sending letters to my senator than sending bullets at troops. (But I like to be prepared too.)
This means that all else failed and is a last resort. Just because we would be severely underpowered doesn't mean we should give up. What you described as the second American Revolution sounds a lot like the first. We were mostly outgunned and overpowered but we're free now! One man fighting for his freedom is like 100 fighting for a paycheck. (Not literally of course, but doesn't it sound dramatic and inspiring.)
I don't imagine the American people would have a great deal of support for a corrupt government that is fighting its own people either. If that is why we lost in Vietnam it would be easy to see how the military could lose fighting the second American Revolution.
Call me an optimist... but to me, the 2nd Amendment is much more than a symbol.
I sincerely hope that this...
... is the only thing that ever happens out of these posts.
Respectfully,
lions
oneshooter
Member
This is my favorite battle weapon. For 32 years she defended our shores, 10ea. 14" naval rifles, 12" of armour, when launched in 1914 she was the most potent battle weapon in the world. With her sister ships she fought in two world wars. Now she is alone, the last of her kind.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=80062&stc=1&d=1213757634
USS Texas BB35
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=80062&stc=1&d=1213757634
USS Texas BB35
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Attachments
Houston Tom
Member
morning star. not the most effective now days but you said weapon.
Johnnybgood
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 206
Chuck Norris!
Check, mate, game? Your planes are going to run out of gas far far far before my nuclear sub does. And if you think your going to get a nuclear carrier and launch F/A-18's with anti-submarine missiles Ill have your ship sunk before the first plane launches off the deck. Not to mention Ill dive as deep as I can and be extremely hard to pick up on sonar with super quiet nuclear reactor for fuel
lions, I appreciate your edification.
Your "sending letters to my senator [rather] than sending bullets at troops" is the best strategy. Using the Internet and supporting independent news sources outside of the mainstream media is another step in the right direction. The blogging movement has made great inroads to taking back the media from self interest groups.
I'm in agreement with you that we should not give up. Even if it's a last stand, no man or woman should accept a life without freedom or liberty. History has many examples of ordinary citizens fighting against hopeless odds. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising by Jews against the Nazis is one example that comes to mind. In recent times, the Flight 93 passengers on 9/11 is another example. God bless them all.
Picard brings up the "sheer numbers" of gun owners that would rally together to fight against corrupt government forces. Today we have a large number of gun owners, but a corrupt government controls the education system. The children of America will be the future revolutionaries. Will they learn from an early age that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms or will they learn that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with the National Guard? Unfortunately, when I was in high school, I was taught the latter interpretation and not the former.
TexasRifleman, please reread this statement I made earlier:
As I said before, by my interpretation, the 2nd Amendment is a window or crystal ball into the status or level of liberty in the United States.
As you know, if the government, namely the Supreme Court, interprets the 2nd Amendment to protect a collective right (i.e. the National Guard), rather than an individual right (me and you), and restricts ownership of firearms, then the 2nd Amendment looses it's original meaning.
A firearm is a symbol of self reliance. For the government to interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to own that symbol is a reassurance of who's in charge. For the government to interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect the government's (i.e. the National Guard) right to own that symbol is an assurance of the government being in charge rather than the people.
You mentioned the Patriot Act. The chief advocate of the Patriot Act is George W. Bush, a man who has repeatedly said he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban should Congress pass the bill. It's clear that President Bush does not interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to own firearms.
Another man on this same issue is Ron Paul. While I'm not a "Paulite," Dr. Paul is right on a number of issues including security, taxation, education, and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Dr. Paul as a Congressman voted no to reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
Another man on this same issue is Barack Obama. Obama as a Senator voted yes to reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Even more disturbing is that this man is for a large expansion of government power with a government run heath care system and increased taxation. On the issue of gun control, Obama advocates a ban on handguns and semiautomatic firearms. I think it's safe to say Obama's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment isn't the same as Dr. Paul's.
I could go on and on, but I see a frequent connection between a government official's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and his or her stance on a number of other important issues.
To summarize my many posts in this thread, I believe the greatest battle weapon to be the hearts and minds of the American people. That the American people continue to believe in God, liberty, self reliance, and hard work rather than the misplaced belief of government in place of those beliefs and values.
The M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever devised because of the men who carried it. Men who believed in God, liberty, self reliance, and hard work.
Your "sending letters to my senator [rather] than sending bullets at troops" is the best strategy. Using the Internet and supporting independent news sources outside of the mainstream media is another step in the right direction. The blogging movement has made great inroads to taking back the media from self interest groups.
I'm in agreement with you that we should not give up. Even if it's a last stand, no man or woman should accept a life without freedom or liberty. History has many examples of ordinary citizens fighting against hopeless odds. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising by Jews against the Nazis is one example that comes to mind. In recent times, the Flight 93 passengers on 9/11 is another example. God bless them all.
Picard brings up the "sheer numbers" of gun owners that would rally together to fight against corrupt government forces. Today we have a large number of gun owners, but a corrupt government controls the education system. The children of America will be the future revolutionaries. Will they learn from an early age that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms or will they learn that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with the National Guard? Unfortunately, when I was in high school, I was taught the latter interpretation and not the former.
TexasRifleman, please reread this statement I made earlier:
As I said before, by my interpretation, the 2nd Amendment is a window or crystal ball into the status or level of liberty in the United States.
As you know, if the government, namely the Supreme Court, interprets the 2nd Amendment to protect a collective right (i.e. the National Guard), rather than an individual right (me and you), and restricts ownership of firearms, then the 2nd Amendment looses it's original meaning.
A firearm is a symbol of self reliance. For the government to interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to own that symbol is a reassurance of who's in charge. For the government to interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect the government's (i.e. the National Guard) right to own that symbol is an assurance of the government being in charge rather than the people.
You mentioned the Patriot Act. The chief advocate of the Patriot Act is George W. Bush, a man who has repeatedly said he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban should Congress pass the bill. It's clear that President Bush does not interpret the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to own firearms.
Another man on this same issue is Ron Paul. While I'm not a "Paulite," Dr. Paul is right on a number of issues including security, taxation, education, and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Dr. Paul as a Congressman voted no to reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
Another man on this same issue is Barack Obama. Obama as a Senator voted yes to reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Even more disturbing is that this man is for a large expansion of government power with a government run heath care system and increased taxation. On the issue of gun control, Obama advocates a ban on handguns and semiautomatic firearms. I think it's safe to say Obama's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment isn't the same as Dr. Paul's.
I could go on and on, but I see a frequent connection between a government official's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and his or her stance on a number of other important issues.
To summarize my many posts in this thread, I believe the greatest battle weapon to be the hearts and minds of the American people. That the American people continue to believe in God, liberty, self reliance, and hard work rather than the misplaced belief of government in place of those beliefs and values.
The M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever devised because of the men who carried it. Men who believed in God, liberty, self reliance, and hard work.
Last edited:
For those discussing who actually uses these weapons for battle, that hardly seems a requisite to have a favorite one. I could like the history, the look, the performance of a rifle. It being my favorite doesn't mean I have to take it into war or ever even fire a shot in anger.
I like the M1 for example although I have never even fired one let alone used it in a battle. Why do I like it so much? The history and knowing that my father used one in the military. Someday I'll probably buy one.
Which is my favorite? I'm not sure I have a favorite.
ReadyontheRight
Member
IMHO - A scenario where an individual US citizen would use a "battle weapon" in defense would more likely be in a breakdown in society rather than some insurrection against our government.
Imagine an interruption of the power grid and communication systems from a limited nuclear strike, a big natural disaster or a foreign takeover of a few key US cities.
You and your neighbors would need to band together. You would depend on firepower. I'd like to have as many battle rifles with experienced owners as possible in my community.
Imagine an interruption of the power grid and communication systems from a limited nuclear strike, a big natural disaster or a foreign takeover of a few key US cities.
You and your neighbors would need to band together. You would depend on firepower. I'd like to have as many battle rifles with experienced owners as possible in my community.
JeepGeeek
member
I'm a big fan of the M16 family of weapons. If we have to go getting all "mine's bigger", then I guess the SASS in 7.62NATO.
Tossup between the 24/7OSS and a 1911, both in 45ACP, for a sidearm
Tossup between the 24/7OSS and a 1911, both in 45ACP, for a sidearm
FullEffect1911
Member
I was going to say that it seemed you were advocated at first (prior to this quote) that our greatest weapon was curling up into a ball and taking what was coming our way. However, now I see what you were getting at. I agree most completely with the quoted statement. This measure of "preventative maintenance" of our life, liberty and happiness is by far the most effective weapon we have against our gov't. So kudos to you for your recognizing the importance of education and vigilance of the American people and your continued debate about how important it is to not reach a point of needed to let lead fly.
Conversely if zombies ever do attack I'll take my scoped full length barrel AR15 with me and plenty of ammo.
Last edited:
LtShortcut
Member
Mossberg 500A W/ pistol grip
- Status
