Assault Weapon's Ban
UZi
Eight inches of C4 between the legs. Join Date: 2003-02-20 Member: 13767Members
Eight inches of C4 between the legs. Join Date: 2003-02-20 Member: 13767Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The word game that it is.</div> Taken from the BATF, <a href='http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/guncoact.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/guncoact.pdf</a>, it is about halfway through the pdf document:
The term "semiautomatic <b>assault</b> weapon" means -
Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii)Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
<b><span style='color:red'>Automatic Weapons</span></b>
The 1994 Ban doesn’t address fully automatic weapons, it is there to ban only semiautomatic guns that fall into this select category. The firearm must be semiautomatic and have a detachable magazine with the ability to hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition. This is why most semiauto hunting rifles are exempted, due to their small magazine capacity. Specifically the "Assault Weapons Ban" deals only with the production of new ”semiautomatic assault weapons”. Those manufactured before 9/14/1994 are still in circulation and can still be purchased legally and retain their collapsible stocks, threaded barrels and other features. Those made after 9/14/1994 can only have 1 of these feature (more on this below). This is how firearms began to be known as "pre-ban" or "post-ban." <a href='http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/semi.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/semi.htm</a>
Here's an interesting tidbit for you. Since the 1969 Gun Control Act which is the major gun control legislation in this country before Brady, it has been possible to legally own a machine gun. In fact I have a friend that legally owns a full aut Uzi.
In order to do this you have to have a Federal background check, be finger printed, get a note from the head local law enfocement agent in your area, or of a judge that you are no threat in possessing such a firearm, then you have to apply for a US Treasury Stamp (last I heard that was $200) and you could buy a machine gun (machine gun extra of course). But that's not it, you were requried to have a high quality gun safe that only you had the key or combination to (not even your wife, but that might be a good thing). If you were going to transport the weapon you had to notify the BATF in writing with a complete itenery (supposedly even to go to the range).
OK now through all that, would you care to take a guess as to how many crimes have been committed with legally purchased and owned machine guns since 1969? Let's put it this way, you can find more bicycles stolen by boyscotts while helping little old ladies across the street while being watched by their scout master and the local Sheriff that you will find crimes committed by legally owned machine guns. But to hear the gun control crowd, they represent the sum of all street crime, gang related shootings and so on and so forth.
Most of the drug and gang machine guns are illegally imported, or modified. The entire law is foolish and moot. In fact almost all gun laws are stupid, because they don't address criminals. They address common, hard working, honest citizens, in the liberals attempt to disarm this country.(they could get their hands on them anyway)
It's my personal belief that gun control is rediculous and we fail to realize what the 2nd amendment really stands for. (not deer hunting!) It was created as a check-balance on our government (the milita was suppost to be the 4th branch of the government) That only leaves the issue of gun ownership in private law abideing citizens hands.
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons constitute the smallest majority in all crimes involveing a gun. And this law only wishes to attack law abiding people
Several of my Law enforcement friends (Including BATF officials) think this law is going to far. Even Sarah Brady (www.bradycampaign.org) was noted saying the laws were too strict.
When the forefathers created the Constitution the first thing they put on it was the freedom of speech, after it the freedom to bear arms for a damn good reason.
The term "semiautomatic <b>assault</b> weapon" means -
Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii)Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
<b><span style='color:red'>Automatic Weapons</span></b>
The 1994 Ban doesn’t address fully automatic weapons, it is there to ban only semiautomatic guns that fall into this select category. The firearm must be semiautomatic and have a detachable magazine with the ability to hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition. This is why most semiauto hunting rifles are exempted, due to their small magazine capacity. Specifically the "Assault Weapons Ban" deals only with the production of new ”semiautomatic assault weapons”. Those manufactured before 9/14/1994 are still in circulation and can still be purchased legally and retain their collapsible stocks, threaded barrels and other features. Those made after 9/14/1994 can only have 1 of these feature (more on this below). This is how firearms began to be known as "pre-ban" or "post-ban." <a href='http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/semi.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/semi.htm</a>
Here's an interesting tidbit for you. Since the 1969 Gun Control Act which is the major gun control legislation in this country before Brady, it has been possible to legally own a machine gun. In fact I have a friend that legally owns a full aut Uzi.
In order to do this you have to have a Federal background check, be finger printed, get a note from the head local law enfocement agent in your area, or of a judge that you are no threat in possessing such a firearm, then you have to apply for a US Treasury Stamp (last I heard that was $200) and you could buy a machine gun (machine gun extra of course). But that's not it, you were requried to have a high quality gun safe that only you had the key or combination to (not even your wife, but that might be a good thing). If you were going to transport the weapon you had to notify the BATF in writing with a complete itenery (supposedly even to go to the range).
OK now through all that, would you care to take a guess as to how many crimes have been committed with legally purchased and owned machine guns since 1969? Let's put it this way, you can find more bicycles stolen by boyscotts while helping little old ladies across the street while being watched by their scout master and the local Sheriff that you will find crimes committed by legally owned machine guns. But to hear the gun control crowd, they represent the sum of all street crime, gang related shootings and so on and so forth.
Most of the drug and gang machine guns are illegally imported, or modified. The entire law is foolish and moot. In fact almost all gun laws are stupid, because they don't address criminals. They address common, hard working, honest citizens, in the liberals attempt to disarm this country.(they could get their hands on them anyway)
It's my personal belief that gun control is rediculous and we fail to realize what the 2nd amendment really stands for. (not deer hunting!) It was created as a check-balance on our government (the milita was suppost to be the 4th branch of the government) That only leaves the issue of gun ownership in private law abideing citizens hands.
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons constitute the smallest majority in all crimes involveing a gun. And this law only wishes to attack law abiding people
Several of my Law enforcement friends (Including BATF officials) think this law is going to far. Even Sarah Brady (www.bradycampaign.org) was noted saying the laws were too strict.
When the forefathers created the Constitution the first thing they put on it was the freedom of speech, after it the freedom to bear arms for a damn good reason.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<img src='http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/24886My_AK-47_Re-Finished__Moly-Resin__12-28-03__-2-_001.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
I cant buy the PSG1 or the MSG90, because they are "assault weapons"
I can no longer buy anything that’s .50 in LA county
I cant buy more than one firearm per month (I was planning on starting an army, but now I cant)
And the weapons safety test I need to pass before purchasing a handgun now only covers 30 days. How convenient, I have to pay $15 for the test and $15 for the background check every single time I want to buy a handgun.
Seriously, I see no reason to unban them, what's their use other than to form a milist.
Hell yeah, they are in the minority of firearms crimes, BECAUSE they are illegal, just goes to show that the pro-guns argument that criminals will get guns anyway doesnt hold a candle.
Seriously, I see no reason to unban them, what's their use other than to form a milist.
Hell yeah, they are in the minority of firearms crimes, BECAUSE they are illegal, just goes to show that the pro-guns argument that criminals will get guns anyway doesnt hold a candle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they weren't even a problem pre-ban. Assault weapons always have been and and always (will be) the smallest majority. So your logic is invaild.
I have every right to form a milita. Just as much right as I do to have the freedom of speech.
To be honest BATF officials have had no no decrease in gun related death due to the Assault Weapon ban since the law was put into place.
This is because anyone who buys these weapons has filled a Form 4473 (which goes to local law enforcement agency) In order to fill this. (verying from state to state) you must have no criminal record (clean slate no felonies or whatever verying from state to state) Form 4473 is in essance is gun registration. If for example I gave my assault rifle shown above to someone to commit a crime and they recovered my gun. I goto jail. Thus this ban only affects law abiding citizens. But say for example I said my gun was stolen (reported) then that person <b>SHOULD</b> be charged with theft but thats not always the case.
Tell me this? Why aren't the courts prosecuteing people who violate the law? Whats the point in createing more laws if they aren't even going to enforce them? hint:Most crimes are commited with unregistered firearms.
Criminals can easily attain illegal guns. Don't try to kid yourself.
Funny, When this law was passed it did absolutely NOTHING to prevent crime. This all it does is make the law abideing citizen a whipping boy for criminal activity.
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Oh, and just a little FYI on the whole Tommy Jefferson quote: Unless I missed a crucial line, this law only effects certain weapons which are classified as "assault" weapons. I wouldn't be too concerned. We have regulations on just about everything else, and we're still equally as "free" as anybody else on earth.
If Thomas Jefferson was here today he would order both republicans and democratic party to to disband (or be shot) Don't even think for a moment that they expected the constitution to be warped as much as its been.
<b>Can the assult weapons ban be attributed to a recent decline in crime?</b>
To answer this question.
No. Nearly 0% before the ban, nearly 0% after.
If Thomas Jefferson was here today he would order both republicans and democratic party to to disband (or be shot) Don't even think for a moment that they expected the constitution to be warped as much as its been.
<b>Can the assult weapons ban be attributed to a recent decline in crime?</b>
To answer this question.
No. Nearly 0% before the ban, nearly 0% after. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so your arguement is that the unconstitutional laws on our second amendment don't do jack diddly crap.
Why didn't you just say so.
In that case, I must agree with you, because law abiding citzens are no more likely to commit a crime with, or without a gun, only people who think guns are 'evil' and only good for 'killing' say guns are bad for the general populace to have. Meanwhile, while idoits like the ones just mention take over our congress and put in place anti-gun laws, criminals laugh their butts off, walk into a home, mow down some dude and his family, take his money and then fund some politician who 'hates the awful violent guns which are bad and notty' so he can continue to have an easy time picking on undefended families.
Not only is what I said true to some extent in the US, but in countries where there are no guns allowed period it's much worse.
Take Great Britian for example, after guns were banned crime rates went through the roof. Even though the criminals themselves don't use guns, they don't need it the have knifes and other weapons, the point is that if the law abiding citzen had a gun or two he could have scared/killed off the intruder.
But Krulk, just remember to keep voting republican else you will continue to see the same and senseless buctery of our constitution.
But with careful look at say, his medicare bill, it took him 3 years to figure it out when democrats take what? 30 mins to come up with a socialized health care bill?!? Bush knew that Canada's styled health care was redundent and not well planned out (I have 7 US doctors and nurses willing to back this claim up) Why should the pharmacutical companies work for free? You know why drugs cost so much in America? because they have to discout for loss in Canada. Drugs they develop can take upwards to 100 millions a pop to develop (with testing) with new drugs almost reaching 1 billion a peice!
But since they have to sell them to Canada at a discount they are forced to charge us for the loss
Looking carefully this should not only allow for people to attain drugs but may <b>DECREASE THE PRICE</b> of pharmacutical drugs.
I will be voting for Bush because Im much happier with Arab people dancing in the street and capitalism amoke then some idiot like Al Gore and Mafia Joe Liberman in charge.
But in retrospect Both Democrat and Republicans are centerists. But recently the Democratic party has moved futher to the left making them almost unelectable Zell Miller (read his book).
The bottem line is <b>GUNS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT</b> in America, The government has no right to hinder them no more then they have the right to hinder free speech! First its the guns then its the video games. [sarcasm]Because they do have guns in them!![/sarcasm]. Already in Washington State you cannot buy an Mature rated game if your under 18. Whats next...is the government gonna censor the news because it might spark tensions against our government?
We as American are rebels against Western Europe we left them in the dust for a good reason if this wasn't the case we would be saluteing a British flag.(no pun intented to our British friends <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true, but were you gonna buy an .AE50 anyhow? I thikn its a good thing that they are doing this, keeps the guns off the streets.
However the M82A1 (50-cal sniper rifle) is more readily avaible than a pistol in most states. Something is very wrong here. The M82A1 is used by the US army. It is semi-automatic, has armor-piercing rounds, and can be bought by the average Joe Schmo who passed the firearms test. WTH?? It just makes me wonder. What's to stop a terrorist from buying an M82A1 and taking down helicopters and airplanes? The armor-peircing round would tear through the aircraft's fuselage like tissue. Someone <i>please</i> tell me that they think something is wrong.
You can read some more on this at:
<a href='http://www.vpc.org/press/0301bird.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.vpc.org/press/0301bird.htm</a>
The laws are intentionally pretty vauge it seems, and there are people with so much time on their hands that they can name specific instances.
For instance, flash hiders are illegal in the united states. Regardless of the reason, they don't want you to have them. However, I have an SKS with a grenade launcher/flash hider in one. But that's legal because the weapon is C&R. Does that not defeat the purpose of banning flash hiders in the first place, when you can still easily attain them? This is like trying to get rid of the fleas on your dog- if you pick 2 off, it's not going to accomplish your goal. You can't do it half assed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However the M82A1 (50-cal sniper rifle) is more readily avaible than a pistol in most states.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't be alarmist. Besides the fact that you're wrong, why is it so unacceptable for civilians to own a .50 rifle?
<i>No crime to date has been commited with a 12.7 x 99 weapon (.50 caliber)</i> that I know of. Heck, the article doesn't list any either- because there aren't any cases. Can you say the same about pistols? But, since it's not suitable for hunting (overkill) the government has decided that the ONLY thing you can do with it is get into trouble. So they want to do us a favor and just ban them all together. Heh.... the fact of the matter is, most of the people who purchase them enjoy long range shooting. Being extremely expensive, you won't find a .50 owner that is willing to commit a crime with it and risk having it taken away and prison time. I point to the hundreds of people who DO own .50 rifles and have owned them for years. You haven't heard of them because they aren't commiting crimes. It's not your place to say "well, it looks like someone could commit a crime with it, so lets go ahead and restrict it pre-emptively". These rifles are NOT easier to buy than handguns simply because of the cost difference. A handgun can be found by any gang banger, but few have 2-8,000 to spend on a .50 rifle. "Available at your local gun shop?" Please! Hardly. Most are special ordered and a gunshop may qualify as an FFL therefore they can go through the gunshop, but you're hardly going to walk into your neighborhood gun/pawn and find a .50 rifle (unless it's a muzzle loader!).
And trust me, you won't be taking down aircraft in flight with a .50 rifle. A helicopter hovaring MAYBE, and probably not. Depends on whether or not you've watched SWAT <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
That article is alarmist, and it takes advantage of people gullible enough to be afraid when they're told to.
There is no justification to ban .50 rifles so far. Period.
If you can afford one, you're going to baby it- this is why there are 6,000 registered machine guns (full auto weapons) in tennessee alone, yet reported crimes with machine guns are not rampant. In fact there are only a few cases where people use machine guns in crimes, and it's usually splattered all over the news. On the other hand, the majority of gun crimes aren't commited with automatic weapons. We all know gun crime is still a big deal in the united states, so what really did the assault weapons ban accomplish? A congresswoman made it her quest to re-instate the assault weapons ban, and have it even harsher, before it sunsets. Her reasoning is the gun crime in the united states, and she points out several instances.
Only these instances she points out were not commited with what they consider "assault weapons"- reinstating the ban would have the same effect that the ban had- none. The crimes she referred to occured after the assault weapons ban was in place. It had nothing to do with it. While the AWB makes it harder for people to attain "assault weapons", it doesn't make it impossible. Their reasoning is that it deters crime with them, and I've yet to see any study showing the success of this.
Heck, you can commit crimes with tanks (it's been done!) yet owning a tank is perfectly legal. They stop BULLETS, they're designed to! They have no recreational purpose other than having fun driving in rough terrain (which isn't fast or all that thrilling, we have ATV's that can do it faster) and perhaps re-inactments. Are they a threat to national security because you COULD commit a crime with them? Should they all be banned? No, IMO they shouldn't. The work and cost involved to buy and keep them running is so great that it's very rare to see anyone willing to break the law with them.
I'm not getting into a debate over gun control and whether we should or should not have them- we had a whole topic on that. My point I guess is that many of the laws, including the assault weapons ban, are sometimes contradictory.
Some gun owners will defy the law, and this is very counter-productive. Many agree that the laws are too harsh, however they comply with them. If you do not, then it gives the government an excuse to place even more laws on top of that- which didn't help their cause any!
Edit: Something is telling my intoxicated senses that this has already happened.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is true, but were you gonna buy an .AE50 anyhow? I thikn its a good thing that they are doing this, keeps the guns off the streets.
However the M82A1 (50-cal sniper rifle) is more readily avaible than a pistol in most states. Something is very wrong here. The M82A1 is used by the US army. It is semi-automatic, has armor-piercing rounds, and can be bought by the average Joe Schmo who passed the firearms test. WTH?? It just makes me wonder. What's to stop a terrorist from buying an M82A1 and taking down helicopters and airplanes? The armor-peircing round would tear through the aircraft's fuselage like tissue. Someone <i>please</i> tell me that they think something is wrong.
You can read some more on this at:
<a href='http://www.vpc.org/press/0301bird.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.vpc.org/press/0301bird.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The .50 Caliber weapon was created BY civilians during WWII.
Also NO DEATHS HAVE OCCURED WITH THE USE OF A .50 RIFLE.
These rifles attain a great accuracy and are perfect for long distance shooting.
Well, no crime has been commited in the US with them so far <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Quite a few combatants have died in combat from them though
and of those deaths 100% of them were due to friendly fire.
Actually, no, the .50 is a nice anti-personnel tool. Most hummers have them, the commander has one on the Abrams, and it's been used in every war we've been in since WWII
I own the History Channel Documentory <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
However, if you are aiming for a disarming of the nation, then this legislation is a good stepping stone, or the start of the slippery slope.
I support the idea of disarming a nation that has such serious social issues like the US, so I'd support this legislation and oppose any attempt to change it - unless it moves on to ban more guns.
I know you were kidding bosnian, about the revolution, but it would be interesting to see if the Americans would revolt. Would they kill their fellow countrymen to keep their hunting rifles and pistol?
Disarming a nation is the first step to opression.
Ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Fidel ect.
hell even Ghandi got **** when Britian disarmed India.
Also as the saying goes. "From my cold dead hands." applies directly to me.
Its kinda like copyright infringment... They might make the law but its nearly unenforcable. I don't think anybody could disarm Americans. There are too many far-right republicans (like Forlorn!) sounding the alarm whenever the tiniest bit of legislation like this goes through.
I'm not a big left winger or anything, but I do lean a bit to the left. I do see that such legislation is "opening the door" to more imposing legislation, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks to <i>shoot</i> that kind of stuff down before it even makes it past a commitee.
You can hardly compare Bush to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Fidel etc. Minus the millions of dollars family fortune and the family political legacy, I'd call Bush an "average American." He isn't exactly on par with the great dictators of the last century <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am disturbed with the political shifts of the past few years. Republicans used to stand for state and individual rights and they seem to be shifting away from that with laws like the Patriot Act, and recent legislation that puts alot of power in the hands of Washington.
Technically, World War I. The M2 is a slight variation on the Browning M1917 .50 caliber machine gun. It's the oldest operational machine gun in the world, being as it has been in continuous use for 87 years.
/off-topic over <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: Ok they did <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Sorry for my ignorance, was just too excited of the thought of nailing you for a mistake <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ehhh, yes, there were millions of US WW1 participants. The major US battles in Europe included the Marne, the Somme, the Meuse-Argonne, and of course one of hte legendary Marine battles, Belleau Wood.
True, technically, but it wasn't produced till after WWI (1921 IIRC) and so it's first major action was WWII <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
True, technically, but it wasn't produced till after WWI (1921 IIRC) and so it's first major action was WWII <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure where you got that info, but it was produced and used in 1917-18, to the tune of about 50,000 units. And considering that the US Marines alone fought with this weapon in Nicaraugua, Haiti, and China between 1919 and 1941, the WW2 scenario is incorrect regardless (if you want to be picky and say the M1917 and the M2 are not the same weapon, which is debatable).