Let the assault begin

Dave said:
Riiiiight

Assault rifles will be the deciding factor if the people rise up against the government because they are so useful against aircraft and armored vehicles.

Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

Defeatist attitudes like yours are what loses wars.

Please read THIS because you obviously know nothing of urban warfare and capture of materiel.

The Afghanis were blowing the best the Russians had to throw at them out of the air with conventional weapons long before the U.S. shipped them Stinger missiles.

Apparently, the government did a study about 25-30 years ago on what the result of a full-scale armed uprising in the United States would be. The result was that for the first 15-18 months the revolutionaries would get their asses kicked soundly -- with the fall of the government occurring in the next 8-12 months.
 
Professur said:
The point was, any weapon .... is a weapon. It's far better to be underarmed than disarmed.

In WWII, the allies dropped one shot pistols into france, with the instructions to use it to shot a Nazi, and then take his weapon and ammo. As for fighting american forces on US soil ... hell, they can hardly get them to fight in Iraq. I have serious doubts as to their effectiveness against citizens. The police and National guard, on the other hand ... have been well trained against the US public.
Click to expand...

That would be the FP-45 Liberator pistol which came with ten rounds of .45 cal ACP ammo and a stick to push out the spent round. It was designed for point blank firing and the barrel wasn't even rifled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

You also might find this to be an interesting read http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/hgsave.html
 
That's the one, although there were others too. If the french public had remembered their own revolution, they'd have kept themselves better armed. But then, one of the first things the new French republic (and every other revolutionary gov't) did was to convince the populace (who's strength powered the revolution in the first place) that all was well and they no longer needed to be armed anymore.

As a rule, when gov'ts fear people with weapons ... it's with good reason. Washington and his ilk didn't fear them. Indeed, they went so far as to make keeping the public as well armed as the army a keystone of the new country.
 
BTW, the plans for the Liberator are available on the web. All that's needed to make on is a sheet metal brake, a bead roller, a power drill, and a steady hand.
 
Not here, but I've got the plans for that and another (perhaps several) weapon on my hard drive at work.

Not that I'd ever want to fire one, but given the choice between that or being empty handed, ... there really isn't much choice, is there?
 
jimpeel said:
Defeatist attitudes like yours are what loses wars.
Click to expand...

Not defeatist. Realistic.
We would turn into a nation of terrorists if it came down to it. A stalemate at best.

By your own argument, assault rifles don't need to be legal. If armed conflict in the States breaks out, just sneak up on a soldier, kill him/her and take their gun. As your article mentions, there are plenty of ex-military that are hunters, plus all the handguns lying around.
Assault rifles have no business being in the publics hand.
 
Since when was the "War on Terror" ever a winable one? Manageble perhaps, and if we are vigilant and do it right we can minimize and marginalize terrorism, but it will likely always exist in different forms all over the world. Win to me implies unconditonal surrender and there are so many radical groups that will never surrender.
 
Dave said:
Not defeatist. Realistic.
We would turn into a nation of terrorists if it came down to it. A stalemate at best.

By your own argument, assault rifles don't need to be legal. If armed conflict in the States breaks out, just sneak up on a soldier, kill him/her and take their gun. As your article mentions, there are plenty of ex-military that are hunters, plus all the handguns lying around.
Assault rifles have no business being in the publics hand.
Click to expand...

realistic??? seems like you're attached to an inflexible position that says assault rifles are bad in anyone's hands but the cops/military, period. sounds ideological, not "realistic."

so, wait, why exactly are they bad? have they killed more people in nonmilitary situations than other types of guns? than bolts of lightning???

i'd really like to see some numbers here, because i need convincing. because the last time i saw some numbers, the proportion of killings by evil black rifles was damned near nothing. (strangely enough, the people that obtain them legally tend to be fairly responsible people. not that i'd know... :blank:)
 
Way to twist things around.
Kudos.
Realistic about the possibility of armed revolt by citizens actually working against a modern armed force.

As far as assault rifles in private hands, I stand by my position. They are military hardware and should remain strictly as such.

I am now stepping off this merry-go-round because I know the way these threads go.
 
You do know that 'assault rifle' is a political term, not a military one, doncha? In militaria, there's no such thing as an 'assault rifle'. It's a made up term to make a certain genre of weapons, usually automatic carbines (which is a real term) more scary to the public. After all, assault in a city is a bad thing.
 
I digress on what people may or may not have. Legal or otherwise.
We don't know how the army would act totally either.
I don't want to find out.
 
Assault weapon is the political term.

Wiki said:
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]
Click to expand...
 
Actually, the US army isn't legally allowed to go to war on US soil. Only the National guard can. That's why there's been a large movement in politics concerning treaties to have Canadian and Mexican troops posted to the US in case of civil unrest, and vice versa.
 
Dave said:
Way to twist things around.
Kudos.
Realistic about the possibility of armed revolt by citizens actually working against a modern armed force.

As far as assault rifles in private hands, I stand by my position. They are military hardware and should remain strictly as such.

I am now stepping off this merry-go-round because I know the way these threads go.
Click to expand...

hmmm. iraqi insurgents did pretty well against US forces with not much more than some AK47s, RPGs, and IEDs. no howitzers there. no airplanes neither. nothing to see here...

i'm not asking for a lot. i'm not going all jimpeel on you here. just asking you to provide some facts and logic other than "military, that's what they are" and the "armed revolt" thing which has been shown by several folks here to be a non-starter.

so why are they bad? what's wrong with having them in nonmilitary hands? what harms can you enumerate? what's the big objection here?

if you can't back your shit up, that's fine, but don't get grumpy if others recognize what you're saying for what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top