I'm talking about the M2, not the 1917, even if they are closely related.
It was officially dubbed the Model 1921 machine gun (the one you're referring to that was based on the 1917) and in 1932 it was modernized again and dubbed the M2.
Besides, I've never heard of a .50 browning 1917. Those were .30 caliber as far as I know. I think the Model 1921 is what you mean, which was essentially a 1917 rechambered for .50 if I remember right.
We're getting very OT. It's more than closely related, it's about 99% the same weapon. Modernization does not make it a new weapon - the M16 has been upgraded and modernized for almost 50 years, but it's still basically an M16 just like when Stoner created it. Changing the name is pretty much irrelevant.
<!--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-->The major US battles in Europe included the Marne, the Somme, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you're not referring to the 1914 Battle of the Marne, or the 1916 Battle of the Somme... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just a head-up for the guy who asked about WWI, the US joined WWI in 1917 after the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany caused large scale losses of American merchant shipping.
And just as a note, I'm not touching this topic with a 10 metre pole.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Jan 3 2004, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jan 3 2004, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->The major US battles in Europe included the Marne, the Somme, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you're not referring to the 1914 Battle of the Marne, or the 1916 Battle of the Somme... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please lord, tell me you are kidding, Mr. military history major... <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> The nature of a stalemate war means that there were multiple battles with the same geographical locations.
<!--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-->On July 15th the Germans launched yet another large scale attack in what is called the 2nd battle of the Marne. They suceeded in crossing the river, but after suffering heavy losses were thrown back, thanks in a large part to the fighting ability of the American men of the 26th, 28th,and 42nd Division.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->On August 8th the 33rd and 80th Divisions, along with the British, attacked and crushed all German opposition in the Somme area. The Attack went across the "no-man's" land behind British tanks. This was the beginning of the end for the German army on the Western front.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love it when I get to correct Ryo. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You forgot to add John Howard. He banned all semi auto rifles in Australia in 93 or 94 I cant remember. And just this year he banned practically any handguns. Any sort of automatic rifle has been banned since time long forgotten.
Australian population = teh disarmed. So tell me - why isnt ASIO invading my home? Why isnt it tapping my phone lines and interrogating my friends to see if I have said anything against the Politburo ... er.. Canberra?
You notice that in all the examples you listed - only one really started as a democracy? (unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba) And when Germany went from democracy to a neo despotism, a large percentage of the population supported it.
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 01:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Australian population = teh disarmed. So tell me - why isnt ASIO invading my home? Why isnt it tapping my phone lines and interrogating my friends to see if I have said anything against the Politburo ... er.. Canberra? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they are disorganized and suffer from internal corruption, plus, the armies of the west will herald a call to arms against the agressors.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Jan 3 2004, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Jan 3 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guns were intended to be protection against government corruption. If the government takes away our guns, then it must mean it's corrupt. No choice but to replace it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sign me up
<!--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-->Please lord, tell me you are kidding, Mr. military history major... The nature of a stalemate war means that there were multiple battles with the same geographical locations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence my little smiley. I was just having a poke to you Monse <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cuba remained effectively under despotic rule even after the US invaded in 1898. Ironically Castro wanted to introduce American-style democracy to the island but when the US turned him down he had to turn to Russia for help, and they naturally wanted Che Guevara's vision of a socialist Cuba.
<!--QuoteBegin--Boy who lost his wings+Jan 4 2004, 05:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ Jan 4 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because they are disorganized and suffer from internal corruption, plus, the armies of the west will herald a call to arms against the agressors. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wings you made my night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The only thing that stands between our intelligence agencies/government taking our freedom away happens to be disorganisation, and the armies of the west.
Back me up here Ryo - or have you abandoned "head vs wall" competitions arguing firearms with our American brothers?
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 05:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 05:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Boy who lost his wings+Jan 4 2004, 05:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ Jan 4 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because they are disorganized and suffer from internal corruption, plus, the armies of the west will herald a call to arms against the agressors. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wings you made my night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The only thing that stands between our intelligence agencies/government taking our freedom away happens to be disorganisation, and the armies of the west. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mmm, I'm not sure if thats a compliment or if you are just being sarcastic.
It's very late. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Very very light sarcasm. I just looked at that statement, and it completely floored me. I have no answer to that. I dont even know where to start. Its like a 600kg sphere of solid chocolate. I want to eat it, I know how to eat it, but I cant seem to figure out how to take the first bite.
I'm not even sure if its on topic either, but here goes.
I'm going to assume you are American. Please correct me if you are not.
Do you believe that the only thing standing in the way of the CIA invading your home and repressing liberties in America is because of your firearms? Do you believe that the CIA stands poised and ready so that in the event most firearms in America are banned they can race in and start the oppression? From your statement, you gave me the impression that without our firearms, ASIO would have started to destroy our democracy, but it was hindered by corruption.
To me, that is tragic paranoia. The people of ASIO are not powermad psycho's. They do their job, pay their taxes, send their kids to school, retire and move into a retirement home, not plan the 4th Reich. And why would they plan the 4th Reich anyway? To pull that off they are going to need some serious political backing. Politicians care about one thing, themselves. No way in hell are they going to risk everything for a political revolution. And if they are, they are going to have to get a lot of their other political buddies in on it.
And then they are going to need the support of the Army. Whats the chances of the Australian army turning on the Australian public - their friends and family? Pretty freakin poor.
Massive risks, massive effort, for a highly unlikely bid at absolute power. And thats barely scratching the surface of whats wrong with the "population disarmed - govt automatically goes evil" paranoia.
<!--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-->Back me up here Ryo - or have you abandoned "head vs wall" competitions arguing firearms with our American brothers? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've just lost the will to argue about this topic with Americans. Anyone else I'm willing to debate with, but Americans just bring up the 2nd Amendment and go on and on about how they have the right to form militias and overthrow their government. As far as I'm concerned, let them keep having their thousands of gun-related deaths each year and the illusion that their guns actually keep their government in check. They're more than welcome to all that and I'll sit here nice and happy in gun-free Australia not worrying the slightest about gangs of criminals entering my home or John Howard decideing he'd really love to be King John 1st.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Doesnt change the fact that being treatened with a gun have far worse impact than just being forced, bascially you can tell the females just to bend over and not do a damn thing or she will get shot. Also here in Denmark guns are banned, and sometimes a the rape victim manages to kick herself free. This is more than just an intense "shame" feeling you get associated with a rape, this is trauma.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
Well I personally believe that guns cause the shame...rather the rape itself can be quite shameful to a woman.
The gun is no more different then a weilded knife or hell even the mans greater strength.
But In the case of America, More rapes are deterred then caused with the use of a firearm.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue.
Still I can't figure out why people can't just use pepper spray? It's smaller to keep and easier to use than a gun and no one dies. Someone tries to rape a woman, she sprays the man and he will crawl there in pain for the next 10mins untill cops come and pick him up.
Believe me, in close combat situation it's better for everyone to use pepper spray or stunner or whatnot. No need for gun.
<!--QuoteBegin--TheInfragableKrunk+Jan 4 2004, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheInfragableKrunk @ Jan 4 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But In the case of America, More rapes are deterred then caused with the use of a firearm.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets see proof of these numbers other than "a friend of a friend of a friend told me."
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 02:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 02:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You notice that in all the examples you listed - only one really started as a democracy? (unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba) And when Germany went from democracy to a neo despotism, a large percentage of the population supported it.
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Soviets also started as a democracy. It was a decade before they had descended into dictatorship. The Germans also were a democracy at first, until they descended into a dictatorship over the course of years as Hitler consolidated his power after being legally elected. So out of the 'very rarely' list, only one was not a democracy to start: Mao's cult of personality pseudo-communist dictatorship. None of which had wide-sclae popular support so much as uneducated head in the sand apathy. I am going to buy everyone here some history books, as I grow weary of the ignorance of history.
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 4 2004, 02:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 4 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 02:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 02:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You notice that in all the examples you listed - only one really started as a democracy? (unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba) And when Germany went from democracy to a neo despotism, a large percentage of the population supported it.
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Soviets also started as a democracy. It was a decade before they had descended into dictatorship. The Germans also were a democracy at first, until they descended into a dictatorship over the course of years as Hitler consolidated his power after being legally elected. So out of the 'very rarely' list, only one was not a democracy to start: Mao's cult of personality pseudo-communist dictatorship. None of which had wide-sclae popular support so much as uneducated head in the sand apathy. I am going to buy everyone here some history books, as I grow weary of the ignorance of history.
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Try as you work they won't believe you.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
<!--QuoteBegin--cri.tical+Jan 4 2004, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cri.tical @ Jan 4 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--TheInfragableKrunk+Jan 4 2004, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheInfragableKrunk @ Jan 4 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But In the case of America, More rapes are deterred then caused with the use of a firearm.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets see proof of these numbers other than "a friend of a friend of a friend told me." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Call the BATF Hotline. 1-202-927-8330
or E-Mail: ATFMail@atf.gov
Since whatever I tell you your gonna call it bias. So it seems to me in no point in lecturing you.
As much as I hate to invoke it, the purpose of the second ammendment is to create another avenue for citizens to arm and defend against a corrupted government or an invading foreign power. You cannot wage modern warfare with a pile of pistols. Any legislation that inhibits our ability to wage war, should it be required, mitigates the second ammendment. We cannot have both the second ammendment and laws banning any weapons or tools (foldable stocks, silencers, extended magazines). So, we must choose which to be rid of.
First off, let me state that the chances of ever passing an ammendment canceling out our right to bare arms is extremely unlikely to happen. Regardless of any arguements for or against it, 2/3 of Americans (I think I have that right) are not going to lose any freedom peacefully, even if they never made use of it. Riots would not be unexpected. That's just how we are.
Now, on to the gun laws themselves: I beleive the ideal of "fair use" applies here, just as anywhere else. If you can think of a legitamate use for something, you should have the right to own it (but illegal actions taken with that item are still punished by law). Upholding the ideals of the second ammendment, demolishing an animal by using an AR while hunting, or even just collecting them as a part of history are all valid uses, even if they cannot be considered immediately useful. Therefore, banning the weapons should not take place.
What about crimes commited with them? Other than the fact that making something illegal doesn't prevent criminals from acquiring and using it (even assuming it did, it's not like they couldn't stab you or something), we still need to discourage its use while still allowing legitamate uses. The only way that I can concieve of accomplishing both at the same time is to greatly increase the punishment awarded for the crime if a firearm is a factor, with more powerful firearms leading to heavier sentancing. A criminal who is caught robbing the QuickEMart with an AK is screwed, but Joe Average is still free to have some fun at the range.
In other countries, I would still hope that the ineffectiveness of gun bans will eventually come to light, and your governments find a method of crime control that will actually get them somewhere (ideally without stepping on the citizens).
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 5 2004, 05:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 5 2004, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Soviets also started as a democracy. It was a decade before they had descended into dictatorship. The Germans also were a democracy at first, until they descended into a dictatorship over the course of years as Hitler consolidated his power after being legally elected. So out of the 'very rarely' list, only one was not a democracy to start: Mao's cult of personality pseudo-communist dictatorship. None of which had wide-sclae popular support so much as uneducated head in the sand apathy. I am going to buy everyone here some history books, as I grow weary of the ignorance of history.
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess my main problem with your rebutall is the fact that I was talking about established democracies. To quote myself, Established democracies very rarely dissolve into despotisms.The Soviets, unless I really do need that history book of yours, had just overthrown the Czar's during WW1 in a bloody revolution. Now I am surprised to find out that for the first 10 years they had a democracy, thats all new to me, but thats hardly what I would call established.
I dont believe that everything my government does is in my best interest, which is why I vote for the politicians I believe will have my best interests at heart. But the day I go out and purchase a firearm to protect me from said government is the day my healthy skepticism and distrust of the government has descended into paranoia.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Our Democracy was bent on the constitution...Jefferson ment for the protectors of the constitution (should all else fail) be the 4th branch of government.
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 4 2004, 06:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 4 2004, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess my main problem with your rebutall is the fact that I was talking about established democracies. To quote myself, Established democracies very rarely dissolve into despotisms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you are saying the English government, a very established democracy, was not despotic in its dealings with the American colonies? How about with their African colonies? Chinese? Middle Eastern? What about their fine fair dealings with Ireland and Scotland? How about all the other long-running European Democracies which managed to colonize and rule most of the world with an iron hand for a few centuries?
No one is asking you to have a weapon. No one is forcing you to. All that is being discussed is people's right to have the choice. Feel free to not buy one.
<!--QuoteBegin--TheInfragableKrunk+Jan 4 2004, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheInfragableKrunk @ Jan 4 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our Democracy was bent on the constitution...Jefferson ment for the protectors of the constitution (should all else fail) be the 4th branch of government.
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I doubt you can label it a "4th branch" of government. It's more like voters with a bite.
<!--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-->Still I can't figure out why people can't just use pepper spray? It's smaller to keep and easier to use than a gun and no one dies. Someone tries to rape a woman, she sprays the man and he will crawl there in pain for the next 10mins untill cops come and pick him up.
Believe me, in close combat situation it's better for everyone to use pepper spray or stunner or whatnot. No need for gun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If at all possible, I'd rather have the guy dead. "No one dies" is all well and good, but that just means he'll try to rape someone else. Unless you think a blast of mace is going to make him re-think his ways and philosophy on life.
I know you worry about the "feelings" and "rights" of criminals and low-lifes, but forgive me for not sharing that concern.
Secondly, mace and even stun guns are not that effective against determined assailants. Hell, even GUNS aren't always effective when the attacker is messed up on drugs. Besides, whats to stop the attacker from spraying the woman with mace instead? Send HER crawling on the ground helpless for 10 minutes while he rapes her? Of course, that can happen even now, and can happen with guns too. While she can use a gun to defend herself, the criminal can use a gun to rape her. It goes both ways, true.
Comments
It was officially dubbed the Model 1921 machine gun (the one you're referring to that was based on the 1917) and in 1932 it was modernized again and dubbed the M2.
Besides, I've never heard of a .50 browning 1917. Those were .30 caliber as far as I know. I think the Model 1921 is what you mean, which was essentially a 1917 rechambered for .50 if I remember right.
back on topic...
I hope you're not referring to the 1914 Battle of the Marne, or the 1916 Battle of the Somme... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just a head-up for the guy who asked about WWI, the US joined WWI in 1917 after the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany caused large scale losses of American merchant shipping.
And just as a note, I'm not touching this topic with a 10 metre pole.
I hope you're not referring to the 1914 Battle of the Marne, or the 1916 Battle of the Somme... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please lord, tell me you are kidding, Mr. military history major... <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> The nature of a stalemate war means that there were multiple battles with the same geographical locations.
<a href='http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/ww1/1stcombat.html' target='_blank'>http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/ww1.../1stcombat.html</a>
<!--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-->On July 15th the Germans launched yet another large scale attack in what is called the 2nd battle of the Marne. They suceeded in crossing the river, but after suffering heavy losses were thrown back, thanks in a large part to the fighting ability of the American men of the 26th, 28th,and 42nd Division.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/ww1/stalemate.html' target='_blank'>http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/ww1.../stalemate.html</a>
<!--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-->On August 8th the 33rd and 80th Divisions, along with the British, attacked and crushed all German opposition in the Somme area. The Attack went across the "no-man's" land behind British tanks. This was the beginning of the end for the German army on the Western front.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love it when I get to correct Ryo. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forgot to add John Howard. He banned all semi auto rifles in Australia in 93 or 94 I cant remember. And just this year he banned practically any handguns. Any sort of automatic rifle has been banned since time long forgotten.
Australian population = teh disarmed. So tell me - why isnt ASIO invading my home? Why isnt it tapping my phone lines and interrogating my friends to see if I have said anything against the Politburo ... er.. Canberra?
You notice that in all the examples you listed - only one really started as a democracy? (unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba) And when Germany went from democracy to a neo despotism, a large percentage of the population supported it.
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia.
Because they are disorganized and suffer from internal corruption, plus, the armies of the west will herald a call to arms against the agressors.
Sign me up
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence my little smiley. I was just having a poke to you Monse <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->unless Cuba did - I dont know much about Cuba<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cuba remained effectively under despotic rule even after the US invaded in 1898. Ironically Castro wanted to introduce American-style democracy to the island but when the US turned him down he had to turn to Russia for help, and they naturally wanted Che Guevara's vision of a socialist Cuba.
Wings you made my night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The only thing that stands between our intelligence agencies/government taking our freedom away happens to be disorganisation, and the armies of the west.
Back me up here Ryo - or have you abandoned "head vs wall" competitions arguing firearms with our American brothers?
Wings you made my night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The only thing that stands between our intelligence agencies/government taking our freedom away happens to be disorganisation, and the armies of the west. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mmm, I'm not sure if thats a compliment or if you are just being sarcastic.
It's very late. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not even sure if its on topic either, but here goes.
I'm going to assume you are American. Please correct me if you are not.
Do you believe that the only thing standing in the way of the CIA invading your home and repressing liberties in America is because of your firearms? Do you believe that the CIA stands poised and ready so that in the event most firearms in America are banned they can race in and start the oppression? From your statement, you gave me the impression that without our firearms, ASIO would have started to destroy our democracy, but it was hindered by corruption.
To me, that is tragic paranoia. The people of ASIO are not powermad psycho's. They do their job, pay their taxes, send their kids to school, retire and move into a retirement home, not plan the 4th Reich. And why would they plan the 4th Reich anyway? To pull that off they are going to need some serious political backing. Politicians care about one thing, themselves. No way in hell are they going to risk everything for a political revolution. And if they are, they are going to have to get a lot of their other political buddies in on it.
And then they are going to need the support of the Army. Whats the chances of the Australian army turning on the Australian public - their friends and family? Pretty freakin poor.
Massive risks, massive effort, for a highly unlikely bid at absolute power. And thats barely scratching the surface of whats wrong with the "population disarmed - govt automatically goes evil" paranoia.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've just lost the will to argue about this topic with Americans. Anyone else I'm willing to debate with, but Americans just bring up the 2nd Amendment and go on and on about how they have the right to form militias and overthrow their government. As far as I'm concerned, let them keep having their thousands of gun-related deaths each year and the illusion that their guns actually keep their government in check. They're more than welcome to all that and I'll sit here nice and happy in gun-free Australia not worrying the slightest about gangs of criminals entering my home or John Howard decideing he'd really love to be King John 1st.
Besides look at our size compaired to Australia in terms of population.
The gun is no more different then a weilded knife or hell even the mans greater strength.
But In the case of America, More rapes are deterred then caused with the use of a firearm.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue.
Believe me, in close combat situation it's better for everyone to use pepper spray or stunner or whatnot. No need for gun.
In the United States we have Conceiled Weapons Permits for such reasons.
Stun Guns don't always work.
Pepper Spray could incompacitate the user.
What good is a stun gun on a guy jacked up on crack cocaine or whatever?
I believe these are great ways of defending yourself in certain situations.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see proof of these numbers other than "a friend of a friend of a friend told me."
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Soviets also started as a democracy. It was a decade before they had descended into dictatorship. The Germans also were a democracy at first, until they descended into a dictatorship over the course of years as Hitler consolidated his power after being legally elected. So out of the 'very rarely' list, only one was not a democracy to start: Mao's cult of personality pseudo-communist dictatorship. None of which had wide-sclae popular support so much as uneducated head in the sand apathy. I am going to buy everyone here some history books, as I grow weary of the ignorance of history.
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep.
Established democracies very very rarely dissolved into a despotism without large scale popular support. Your complete lack of faith in your nation and democracy is astounding. The fact that many Americans believe they need their guns to protect them from possible regime change at home is probably one of the best arguements for taking the guns OFF them. Reason has escaped them, and has been replaced by paranoia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Soviets also started as a democracy. It was a decade before they had descended into dictatorship. The Germans also were a democracy at first, until they descended into a dictatorship over the course of years as Hitler consolidated his power after being legally elected. So out of the 'very rarely' list, only one was not a democracy to start: Mao's cult of personality pseudo-communist dictatorship. None of which had wide-sclae popular support so much as uneducated head in the sand apathy. I am going to buy everyone here some history books, as I grow weary of the ignorance of history.
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try as you work they won't believe you.
I can testament to this since a friend of mine's sister was being raped when he came into the house (break in) to make a long story short both men were sent to te morgue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see proof of these numbers other than "a friend of a friend of a friend told me." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Call the BATF Hotline.
1-202-927-8330
or E-Mail: ATFMail@atf.gov
Since whatever I tell you your gonna call it bias. So it seems to me in no point in lecturing you.
First off, let me state that the chances of ever passing an ammendment canceling out our right to bare arms is extremely unlikely to happen. Regardless of any arguements for or against it, 2/3 of Americans (I think I have that right) are not going to lose any freedom peacefully, even if they never made use of it. Riots would not be unexpected. That's just how we are.
Now, on to the gun laws themselves: I beleive the ideal of "fair use" applies here, just as anywhere else. If you can think of a legitamate use for something, you should have the right to own it (but illegal actions taken with that item are still punished by law). Upholding the ideals of the second ammendment, demolishing an animal by using an AR while hunting, or even just collecting them as a part of history are all valid uses, even if they cannot be considered immediately useful. Therefore, banning the weapons should not take place.
What about crimes commited with them? Other than the fact that making something illegal doesn't prevent criminals from acquiring and using it (even assuming it did, it's not like they couldn't stab you or something), we still need to discourage its use while still allowing legitamate uses. The only way that I can concieve of accomplishing both at the same time is to greatly increase the punishment awarded for the crime if a firearm is a factor, with more powerful firearms leading to heavier sentancing. A criminal who is caught robbing the QuickEMart with an AK is screwed, but Joe Average is still free to have some fun at the range.
In other countries, I would still hope that the ineffectiveness of gun bans will eventually come to light, and your governments find a method of crime control that will actually get them somewhere (ideally without stepping on the citizens).
I'm pretty much doing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm not personally in favor of assault rifles being inthe hands of all citizens. I'm also not in favor of uniformed comparisons with a completely unanalogous country like Australia who loved (and still love!) their colonial masters and cannot comprehend anyone being raised for centuries with a natural healthy skepticism and distrust of their government. You're not only <i>raising</i> sheep if you believe everything your government says and does, and that it always has your best interests in mind. You're <i>being</i> sheep. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess my main problem with your rebutall is the fact that I was talking about established democracies. To quote myself, Established democracies very rarely dissolve into despotisms.The Soviets, unless I really do need that history book of yours, had just overthrown the Czar's during WW1 in a bloody revolution. Now I am surprised to find out that for the first 10 years they had a democracy, thats all new to me, but thats hardly what I would call established.
I dont believe that everything my government does is in my best interest, which is why I vote for the politicians I believe will have my best interests at heart. But the day I go out and purchase a firearm to protect me from said government is the day my healthy skepticism and distrust of the government has descended into paranoia.
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita.
So you are saying the English government, a very established democracy, was not despotic in its dealings with the American colonies? How about with their African colonies? Chinese? Middle Eastern? What about their fine fair dealings with Ireland and Scotland? How about all the other long-running European Democracies which managed to colonize and rule most of the world with an iron hand for a few centuries?
No one is asking you to have a weapon. No one is forcing you to. All that is being discussed is people's right to have the choice. Feel free to not buy one.
That 4th branch was suppost to be the Organized milita. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt you can label it a "4th branch" of government. It's more like voters with a bite.
Believe me, in close combat situation it's better for everyone to use pepper spray or stunner or whatnot. No need for gun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If at all possible, I'd rather have the guy dead. "No one dies" is all well and good, but that just means he'll try to rape someone else. Unless you think a blast of mace is going to make him re-think his ways and philosophy on life.
I know you worry about the "feelings" and "rights" of criminals and low-lifes, but forgive me for not sharing that concern.
Secondly, mace and even stun guns are not that effective against determined assailants. Hell, even GUNS aren't always effective when the attacker is messed up on drugs. Besides, whats to stop the attacker from spraying the woman with mace instead? Send HER crawling on the ground helpless for 10 minutes while he rapes her? Of course, that can happen even now, and can happen with guns too. While she can use a gun to defend herself, the criminal can use a gun to rape her. It goes both ways, true.