NationStates Jolt Archive

:fluffle:

Can't wait.



www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/semiforum.cgi?read=77039

I thank you for your inquiry concerning the AUG semi automatic availability status in the U.S.

For your information, Steyr administrators decided on May 4th, to commence with the AUG A3 semi automatic rifle production in the U.S. Its targeted availability is by the SHOT Show 2007. Furthermore, there are currently no plans to produce pistol caliber AUG’s in the U.S.

On June 2nd, the final AUG A3 SA configurations were determined in Austria (tentatively we named it the “American Universal Gewehr” - American Universal Rifle), after obtaining BATF guidelines regarding what needs to be produced in the U.S, and which components may be imported.

Currently, Steyr engineers are working on completing its technical data package (TDP) and the process of securing Austrian export and U.S. import permits for the transfer of the TDP to the U.S.

A lot of details are being worked this project at this time to realize our targets.

I hope this information will help to put any rumors to rest, and if we can be of any further service to you please contact me at any time.

With best regards,

Karl Walter

Steyr Arms, Inc.

The anti-gun people are going to go ballistic (pun intended :p ).

AUG's are modular. One quick receiver switch and your "semi-auto" can have burst fire, or even full-on rock-and-roll if you use the LMG module...

I hate that gun. I much prefer the XM8.


I will refuse to use that weapon.

The anti-gun people are going to go ballistic (pun intended :p ).

AUG's are modular. One quick receiver switch and your "semi-auto" can have burst fire, or even full-on rock-and-roll if you use the LMG module...

Oh noes!

You would be surprised how easily you can make a semi-auto into an automatic. I know people who have fully auto's, illegally, and if they think the cops are coming, or anything similar, they just ditch a little piece of metal and its compliant again :P

As much as I hate the idea of privately oened firearms, even I have to admit that Steyr weapons are extremely cool.

I hate that gun. I much prefer the XM8.


I will refuse to use that weapon.

I have to ask what your problem is with the Steyr. I've heard nothing but good things about it for a long time.

But WHY? I can't think of anything you might need that for.

Liasia']But WHY? I can't think of anything you might need that for.

Since when do people only own things that they need?

Since when do people only own things that they need?
Mmm but in the case of something like a gun, where the owner clearly wishes he could use it, its not the same as a recreational book or a tv or whatever. Besides, I can't accidentally shoot someone with most recreational goods.

Liasia']Mmm but in the case of something like a gun, where the owner clearly wishes he could use it, its not the same as a recreational book or a tv or whatever. Besides, I can't accidentally shoot someone with most recreational goods.

Here we go... *gets the popcorn*

Here we go... *gets the popcorn*
Thought i might as well take a dump on DM's thread *shrugs*

Liasia']Thought i might as well take a dump on DM's thread *shrugs*

Seems all the gun enthusiasts are gone, or they are writing an extremely long essay to rebuke your comment.

Seems all the gun enthusiasts are gone, or they are writing an extremely long essay to rebuke your comment.
Or they'll just shoot me. Thank god for teh internets.

Liasia']Mmm but in the case of something like a gun, where the owner clearly wishes he could use it, its not the same as a recreational book or a tv or whatever. Besides, I can't accidentally shoot someone with most recreational goods.

Yes, I'm sure he plans on using it, but chances are he'll use it for target shooting. Believe it or not, that's all the vast majority of gun owners use their guns for.

Yes, I'm sure he plans on using it, but chances are he'll use it for target shooting. Believe it or not, that's all the vast majority of gun owners use their guns for.
Target= mental substitute for a human.

Seems all the gun enthusiasts are gone, or they are writing an extremely long essay to rebuke your comment.

I wasn't aware gun enthusiasts could string together coherant sentences, never mind write long rebutal essays. :D

I wasn't aware gun enthusiasts could string together coherant sentences, never mind write long rebutal essays.

*gets 20 bags of popcorn*....

I wasn't aware gun enthusiasts could string together coherant sentences, never mind write long rebutal essays.

Gettin' kinda close to trollin', boyo...

Gettin' kinda close to trollin', boyo...

Sorry, I was only joking, should probably edit in a smilie or something.

Gettin' kinda close to trollin', boyo...
Doesn't trolling have to be at least fairly slanderous?:confused:

I have to ask what your problem is with the Steyr. I've heard nothing but good things about it for a long time.

I don't like them. Nothing against quality, as I know they are good weapons. I personally prefer H&K. If i'm going to be fighting an enemy army, I want German equipment, not Austrian ;)

EDIT: Yup, I was right.


I don't like it's look, and I think it would feel odd to handle, unlike my personal preference, such as the XM8 or its predecessor, the G-36.

Liasia']Doesn't trolling have to be at least fairly slanderous?:confused:

Nah, it's just posting for no other reason than causing major reactions, rather than actually contributing to an ongoing debate or starting a worthwhile discussion.

Nah, it's just posting for no other reason than causing major reactions, rather than actually contributing to an ongoing debate or starting a worthwhile discussion.
I know- slander is untrue, so my comment was suggesting (although jokingly) that his was in fact correct in it's comments about pro-gun people.

I don't like them. Nothing against quality, as I know they are good weapons. I personally prefer H&K. If i'm going to be fighting an enemy army, I want German equipment, not Austrian ;)

(Its Austrian right? I was almost certain it was)

Yes, that's correct. As for your liking H&K, well, all I can say is you have good taste in guns.

Nah, it's just posting for no other reason than causing major reactions, rather than actually contributing to an ongoing debate or starting a worthwhile discussion.

You need to get more of a sense of humour about yourself methinks.

Liasia']Target= mental substitute for a human.

Don't be silly. I've noticed, in my time on NS General that most Europeans associate guns with killing people. However, that association isn't the kind that we have here in the States. The vast majority of us view guns as extremely dangerous tools, or extremely dangerous pieces of sporting equipment.

I've been a casual target shooter for about 15 years (since I was 8). Believe it or not, I find the idea of killing another human being to be absolutely repugnant. Not all gun owners are the raving homicidal maniacs you believe us to be. I target shoot because it's challenging and fun. Not because I'm fulfilling some sort of subconscious blood-rage.

You need to get more of a sense of humour about yourself methinks.

Entirely possible. I have a sense of humour, but it seems to deactivate sometimes...:p

Don't be silly. I've noticed, in my time on NS General that most Europeans associate guns with killing people.
Maybe that's because that's what guns do?

Liasia']Maybe that's because that's what guns do?

Only if used inappropriately.

Only if used inappropriately.

That is what they are designed for. If you wan't them for sport, at least don't get guns that are designed to penetrate flesh.

Only if used inappropriately.
If by inappropriately you mean 'for what they were designed to do'. If you want to go target shooting fine, but use a bloody BB gun.

That is what they are designed for. If you wan't them for sport, at least don't get guns that are designed to penetrate flesh.

That's a bit difficult to find. It really doesn't take much to penetrate flesh.

Liasia]If by inappropriately you mean 'for what they were designed to do'. If you want to go target shooting fine, but use a bloody BB gun.

Yes, that is what I mean by inappropriately. They may have been designed for that, but that's not the only thing they can do. I'm of the opinion that anyone who even accidentally shoots someone should be charged with at least attempted murder or negligent homicide.

And why should I use a BB gun? I've never come anywhere close to hurting someone with the firearms I shoot.

That's a bit difficult to find. It really doesn't take much to penetrate flesh.
Tasers, or again, BB guns


Yes, that is what I mean by inappropriately. They may have been designed for that, but that's not the only thing they can do. I'm of the opinion that anyone who even accidentally shoots someone should be charged with at least attempted murder or negligent homicide.
Even perfectly capable people have accidents *cough*cheney*cough*
And why should I use a BB gun? I've never come anywhere close to hurting someone with the firearms I shoot.
But you can't deny it does happen. One moment of carelessness can cost someone their life.
responses in bold

Liasia']Target= mental substitute for a human.
As long as it remains a mental substitution, where's the harm? And how would you suggest policing people's thoughts, anyway?

As long as it remains a mental substitution, where's the harm? And how would you suggest policing people's thoughts, anyway?
I would suggest not arming people who may suconciously wish to cause other humans harm with automatic weapons. Pardon me if that seems a bit extreme.

Liasia']I would suggest not arming people who may suconciously wish to cause other humans harm with automatic weapons. Pardon me if that seems a bit extreme.
How can you tell?

How can you tell?
You can't, but it's naive to still dole out the firearms and trust people. As is evidenced by the stupidly large gun crime rate in the US and incidents like this one
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1916.html

Liasia']responses in bold

Come on now, that makes it a bit of a hassle to reply to.

Liasia]Tasers, or again, BB guns

From what I understand tasers aren't really accurate enough for target shooting, and neither are the vast majority of BB guns. But then, the only BB gun I ever owned was a $20 one my parents bought me when I was 8. And BB guns certainly can penetrate flesh, even on just a few pumps. The chances of a BB gun shot being lethal to a person is rather nil, but they're still quite dangerous to eyesight.

Liasia]Even perfectly capable people have accidents *cough*cheney*cough*

That statement makes two rather large assumptions. That Cheney is a capable individual, and that it was an accident.

Liasia]But you can't deny it does happen. One moment of carelessness can cost someone their life.

Unfortunately, yes it does. I would certainly be in favor of a licensing system, similar to the one used for cars, so hopefully the more careless and, to be honest, stupid people wouldn't be able to buy them. There are quite a few people who shouldn't be anywhere near firearms, but are.

Liasia']You can't, but it's naive to still dole out the firearms and trust people. As is evidenced by the stupidly large gun crime rate in the US and incidents like this one
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1916.html
It may be naive, but in Etats Unis is is unconstitutional to arbitrarily deny access to them as well.

It may be naive, but in Etats Unis is is unconstitutional to arbitrarily deny access to them as well.

Change the constitution.

Liasia']I would suggest not arming people who may suconciously wish to cause other humans harm with automatic weapons. Pardon me if that seems a bit extreme.

No one is talking about allowing automatic weapons. Those are banned under the National Firearms Act, unless you pay something like $10,000 and go through a rather rigorous ATF background check. Even then, many states completely ban their use. The firearm that this thread started about is semi-auto.

[QUOTE=Wallonochia]That statement makes two rather large assumptions. That Cheney is a capable individual, and that it was an accident.
QUOTE]
ROFL! And the best part is the two are not mutually exclusive :p

It may be naive, but in Etats Unis is is unconstitutional to arbitrarily deny access to them as well.
Depending on how you asses the constitution, and it's author's aims.

I don't like them. Nothing against quality, as I know they are good weapons. I personally prefer H&K. If i'm going to be fighting an enemy army, I want German equipment, not Austrian ;)

EDIT: Yup, I was right.


I don't like it's look, and I think it would feel odd to handle, unlike my personal preference, such as the XM8 or its predecessor, the G-36.

The XM8 is a glorified G36..sort of.

Of course, it also had problems with the receiver melting. Not good.

What is suprising is that in the past year and in the next two there have been several new weapons coming out-FN brought out the P90, the Fn2000, Smith and Wesson started building it's own AR15, and now Steyr is building AUGs here in the states. Yarr, matey, life is good.

No one is talking about allowing automatic weapons. Those are banned under the National Firearms Act, unless you pay something like $10,000 and go through a rather rigorous ATF background check. Even then, many states completely ban their use. The firearm that this thread started about is semi-auto.
Although I'm certain something was posted along the lines of 'but I can make it go boom-boom more really easily!'.
Besides, in the US can you not buy one of those .50 cal rifles?

[OFF TOPIC]anyone got a link to that video of that guy in the school in Texas give a class a lesson on safe gun handling and shooting himself in the leg. I have a feeling it may come in useful a bit further into this thread[/OFF TOPIC]

Change the constitution.
Thanks, but no thanks. to paraphrase a famous gun-nut quote,
"Outlaw guns, and only the government will have guns."

[OFF TOPIC]anyone got a link to that video of that guy in the school in Texas give a class a lesson on safe gun handling and shooting himself in the leg. I have a feeling it may come in useful a bit further into this thread[/OFF TOPIC]
LOL that sounds hilarious~!

Come on now, that makes it a bit of a hassle to reply to.
Sorry about that



From what I understand tasers aren't really accurate enough for target shooting, and neither are the vast majority of BB guns. But then, the only BB gun I ever owned was a $20 one my parents bought me when I was 8. And BB guns certainly can penetrate flesh, even on just a few pumps. The chances of a BB gun shot being lethal to a person is rather nil, but they're still quite dangerous to eyesight. Surely that makes it more challenging, if its harder to be on target? And i'd rather lose my eyesight than my head.


Unfortunately, yes it does. I would certainly be in favor of a licensing system, similar to the one used for cars, so hopefully the more careless and, to be honest, stupid people wouldn't be able to buy them. There are quite a few people who shouldn't be anywhere near firearms, but are. There are quite a few people driving who shouldn't be.

Thanks, but no thanks. to paraphrase a famous gun-nut quote,
"Outlaw guns, and only the government will have guns."

Dude, if the govt. wants to oppress you then a few rifles won't stop them. A bolt-action hunting rifle against an F-18 isn't really a fair fight.

[OFF TOPIC]anyone got a link to that video of that guy in the school in Texas give a class a lesson on safe gun handling and shooting himself in the leg. I have a feeling it may come in useful a bit further into this thread[/OFF TOPIC]

It was an ATF agent, and I don't think it was in Texas.

Ironic, isn't it?

Liasia']There are quite a few people driving who shouldn't be.
/ agree! Driver's license should be as hard to get as a pilot's license.

It was an ATF agent, and I don't think it was in Texas.

Ironic, isn't it?
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1147.html ta-da

Dude, if the govt. wants to oppress you then a few rifles won't stop them. A bolt-action hunting rifle against an F-18 isn't really a fair fight.
Not really certain how I could be oppressed with an F-18 (killed, but not oppressed), but you are largely correct. However, the sentiment I expressed most closely (I believe) matches the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Not having been there, I could be wrong.

Liasia']http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1147.html ta-da
OMG it's Rastacop!

Liasia']Although I'm certain something was posted along the lines of 'but I can make it go boom-boom more really easily!'.
Besides, in the US can you not buy one of those .50 cal rifles?

Yes, you can change them to be fully automatic, but it's not exactly what you'd call reliable. Also, a fully automatic weapon is nearly useless past 5m or so. I spent 4 years in the US Army, and it really disabused me of my Hollywood notions as to how military firearms work.

You can buy a .50 cal rifle, but the cheapest one is something like $7,000 or $8,000. Not exactly the sort of purchase the average NASCAR lovin' redneck is able to make.

Liasia']Surely that makes it more challenging, if its harder to be on target? And i'd rather lose my eyesight than my head.

It's not harder to keep on target, but the projectile generally doesn't go quite where you want it. BBs are far too light and get blown around unless they're extremely high powered or at extremely short range. Shooting a firearm at a distance requires you to control your breathing and how you squeeze the trigger, and a small mistake will put you rather far off target. It's a lot harder than you'd think.

Liasia']There are quite a few people driving who shouldn't be.

Very much so. I'd like the tests for that (and gun ownership) to be more difficult than they are.

Not really certain how I could be oppressed with an F-18 (killed, but not oppressed), but you are largely correct. However, the sentiment I expressed most closely (I believe) matches the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Not having been there, I could be wrong.

America has repealed amendments before when it realised they were a bit daft. I don't have the right to own a gun in the UK and I don't see anyone trying to billet soldiers in my house or force me to pay tax without representation. The 2nd amendment is an archaic safe guard for democracy that should be abandoned.

Yes, you can change them to be fully automatic, but it's not exactly what you'd call reliable. Also, a fully automatic weapon is nearly useless past 5m or so. I spent 4 years in the US Army, and it really disabused me of my Hollywood notions as to how military firearms work.

You can buy a .50 cal rifle, but the cheapest one is something like $7,000 or $8,000. Not exactly the sort of purchase the average NASCAR lovin' redneck is able to make.

It's not harder to keep on target, but the projectile generally doesn't go quite where you want it. BBs are far too light and get blown around unless they're extremely high powered or at extremely short range. Shooting a firearm at a distance requires you to control your breathing and how you squeeze the trigger, and a small mistake will put you rather far off target. It's a lot harder than you'd think.

All very nice, but I think i'll stick to my longbow (not that I have much option, mind).

America has repealed amendments before when it realised they were a bit daft. I don't have the right to own a gun in the UK and I don't see anyone trying to billet soldiers in my house or force me to pay tax without representation. The 2nd amendment is an archaic safe guard for democracy that should be abandoned.
Tsch, you're just jealous! J/K, but I'll agree to disagreee with you on this.

Liasia']All very nice, but I think i'll stick to my longbow (not that I have much option, mind).

I've always wanted to pick up archery, it seems like a lot of fun.

I've always wanted to pick up archery, it seems like a lot of fun.
It's very cool, you should try it.

Tsch, you're just jealous! J/K, but I'll agree to disagreee with you on this.

You got me, when I was growing up I used to look forward to the day I could buy a pair of nickel plated esert Eagles. Then that idiot had to go and shoot all those kids at Dunblane and get hand guns banned :(

I love the Aug almost as much as i love the L85:sniper: :mp5:

Liasia']I would suggest not arming people who may suconciously wish to cause other humans harm with automatic weapons. Pardon me if that seems a bit extreme.



I love automatic weapons. A personal favorite of mine is the AK-74M. Good, reliable weapon, and fun as hell to use!

Yet I would never harm another person, unless they meant me or my family harm.

I love automatic weapons. A personal favorite of mine is the AK-74M. Good, reliable weapon, and fun as hell to use!

Yet I would never harm another person, unless they meant me or my family harm.
I probably should have emphasised the subconcious part

Liasia']I probably should have emphasised the subconcious part


How can you really tell???

Liasia']I probably should have emphasised the subconcious part


By that logic, you must have a subconscious desire to kill people too, since archery was (and still is) a means to kill people.

By that logic, you must have a subconscious desire to kill people too, since archery was (and still is) a means to kill people.


Thank you.

By that logic, you must have a subconscious desire to kill people too, since archery was (and still is) a means to kill people.
Uh-huh, but i'm happy to risk using a bow beings as i'm rubbish with it and couldnt hit a barn from the inside. Thing is, anyone can be deadly with a gun with maybe 2 seconds practice, even small children.

How can you really tell???
You can't, so maybe its better to give nobody guns eh?

Liasia']Uh-huh, but i'm happy to risk using a bow beings as i'm rubbish with it and couldnt hit a barn from the inside. Thing is, anyone can be deadly with a gun with maybe 2 seconds practice, even small children.


After 2 shots with a bow and arrow at the Renaissance Fair near my town, I was already hitting the bullseye on the target. Before that I never touched a bow and arrow in my life. It's really not that hard, about as much skill to shoot a gun (which I've done, both handguns and rifles). Except archery is harder on the fingers.....

Liasia']You can't, so maybe its better to give nobody guns eh?


Then you only arm the criminals.


And the government can better oppress a population once there is no threat of revolutionary retaliation.

Then you only arm the criminals.


And the government can better oppress a population once there is no threat of revolutionary retaliation.
Because you use your guns to fight criminals i'm sure:rolleyes:
If you honestly expect the US government to opress you, or if they did there would be any serious retaliation from it's citizens, I pity you in your paranoia.

After 2 shots with a bow and arrow at the Renaissance Fair near my town, I was already hitting the bullseye on the target. Before that I never touched a bow and arrow in my life. It's really not that hard, about as much skill to shoot a gun (which I've done, both handguns and rifles). Except archery is harder on the fingers.....
Dude, as if that was a proper longbow. The modern bow is piss easy to draw and aim, compared to traditional ones.

Liasia']Because you use your guns to fight criminals i'm sure:rolleyes:
If you honestly expect the US government to opress you, or if they did there would be any serious retaliation from it's citizens, I pity you in your paranoia.


I pity your naiviety.


Once you remove guns from the peoples hands, only criminals will have them. Crime rates will soar, as no one can defend from a robbery, etc, and therefore there is little threat.

I pity your naiviety.


Once you remove guns from the peoples hands, only criminals will have them. Crime rates will soar, as no one can defend from a robbery, etc, and therefore there is little threat.

Just like it did when we banned hand-guns in the UK.

I pity your naiviety.


Once you remove guns from the peoples hands, only criminals will have them. Crime rates will soar, as no one can defend from a robbery, etc, and therefore there is little threat.
Erm dude, there are countries with gun prohibition in place and get this- they have LOWER crime rates! If you arm the people, the criminals will just have to arm themselves as well.

Liasia']Dude, as if that was a proper longbow. The modern bow is piss easy to draw and aim, compared to traditional ones.


It was an old school longbow my friend. The Renaissance Fair here doesn't have the fancy new ones. 2 shots to bullseye, just as easy as a gun for me.

My point is, I just think it's a little hypocritical that you are opposed to guns yet support archery, a practice that has killed countless people over the centuries. If you hate guns, then by rights shouldn't you hate other projectile launching weapons?

Liasia']Thing is, anyone can be deadly with a gun with maybe 2 seconds practice, even small children.

That's not quite accurate. At basic training we did a week of rifle marksmanship, and I wouldn't call the majority of those who went through that "deadly". Passing is hitting 24 of 40 targets, and most barely made that.

I've also taught a few of my friends to shoot and it takes many of them several sessions to be anything close to proficient. Some people pick up on it quickly, but it takes others a bit of practice.

Liasia']You can't, so maybe its better to give nobody guns eh?

I'm a bit uncomfortable with punishing people for things they might do.

It was an old school longbow my friend. The Renaissance Fair here doesn't have the fancy new ones. 2 shots to bullseye, just as easy as a gun for me.

My point is, I just think it's a little hypocritical that you are opposed to guns yet support archery, a practice that has killed countless people over the centuries. If you hate guns, then by rights shouldn't you hate other projectile launching weapons?
6 foot long? Respect to you then as it took most contempory longbowmen a lifetime to become proficient with it.

I got it, but the thing is that not everyone can use a longbow. If I had to sacrifice my longbow to get rid of guns, I would. I'm not that selfish

Liasia']Erm dude, there are countries with gun prohibition in place and get this- they have LOWER crime rates! If you arm the people, the criminals will just have to arm themselves as well.

The question is whether or not gun ownership is what causes these higher crime rates. Finland and Switzerland also have extremely high rates of firearm ownership, but they don't have a US-like crime rate. Things like the massive income gap might be more to blame.

That's not quite accurate. At basic training we did a week of rifle marksmanship, and I wouldn't call the majority of those who went through that "deadly". Passing is hitting 24 of 40 targets, and most barely made that.

I've also taught a few of my friends to shoot and it takes many of them several sessions to be anything close to proficient. Some people pick up on it quickly, but it takes others a bit of practice.



I'm a bit uncomfortable with punishing people for things they might do.
Still, from close range with a pistol its just 'point and click'. over distances with precision, then obviously it might take a bit of practice;)
Depends if you see deprevation of guns as a punishment, I don't personally.

It was an old school longbow my friend. The Renaissance Fair here doesn't have the fancy new ones. 2 shots to bullseye, just as easy as a gun for me.

An old school long bow has a draw weight of about ~200 pounds and in the right hands can kill a man ~200 yards away. If you drew that and and got 2 bullseyes in 3 shoots then you are indeed both built like arnie and the quickest learner in history.

With as much crime as the US has now, do you think it's realistic that criminals would just give up?

Like Europes much better anyway? In Paris, I had to play body guard because we had so many damn pick pockets trying to get to us. I started a fight with one person who tried to take one of my friends purses, I tried to start a fight with another who backed off like the first one did, and the third, me and one of my buddies kicked the shit out of him)

Liasia']Depends if you see deprevation of guns as a punishment, I don't personally.

Clearly you don't, but many people in the States would. Different culture and all. However, it really illustrates the beauty of having different governments with different laws, doesn't it? If only it were easier to be able to vote with your feet.

An old school long bow has a draw weight of about ~200 pounds and in the right hands can kill a man ~200 yards away. If you drew that and and got 2 bullseyes in 3 shoots then you are indeed both built like arnie and the quickest learner in history.


The target wasn't that far away, maybe like 20 or so yards out. But I *was* able to draw the string back, maybe not as far as it is designed to, but enough to get the arrow flying. I don't see what is so hard about shooting a longbow, or a gun for that matter. I picked up both extremely fast.

Same with throwing knives and darts. Shooting/throwing is in my blood.

Clearly you don't, but many people in the States would. Different culture and all. However, it really illustrates the beauty of having different governments with different laws, doesn't it? If only it were easier to be able to vote with your feet.
Mmmm if it were, i'd be in Holland by now.

The target wasn't that far away, maybe like 20 or so yards out. But I *was* able to draw the string back, maybe not as far as it is designed to, but enough to get the arrow flying. I don't see what is so hard about shooting a longbow, or a gun for that matter. I picked up both extremely fast.

Same with throwing knives and darts. Shooting/throwing is in my blood.

Ahhh, now that makes sense. Shooting a longbow when you only draw it to a point in front of your eye is easy. A full draw pulls the arrow back to somewhere around the ear and you aim using the years of experience you've built up not your sight, this is what give it the amazing range.

The point being I learned to shoot a rifle well in an afternoon, a longbow would take me years.

The first gun I ever shot was a .22. I got a bb gun at 5, and fired an AK-74M
with 90% accuracy (9/10 were direct hits) on a moving target (Beer bottles thrown by my friends dad into the air). I love weapons. And as Automagfreek said (you're the man! Please don't kill me!!!! My nation likes sovereignty!!!) "Shooting is in my blood."

Liasia']Mmmm if it were, i'd be in Holland by now.

And I'd be in France. I will eventually be in France, but not nearly as long as I'd like.

And I'd be in France. I will eventually be in France, but not nearly as long as I'd like.
I've been there several times. It's just like England, but more expensive.

And I'd be in France. I will eventually be in France, but not nearly as long as I'd like.

lol!

If we weren't allowed to own guns in the US, I'd move to England. You may have the same laws over there, but at least the government wouldn't turn into a dictatorship.

I'd join the Royal Marines instead of the Army Rangers I guess.....

Liasia']I've been there several times. It's just like England, but more expensive.


I hated Paris. I thought it was dirty, too much crime, and all around icky.


I liked Russia and Germany better.

I hated Paris. I thought it was dirty, too much crime, and all around icky.


I liked Russia and Germany better.
Lived in Germany, it was meh at best. A bit clinical.
Never been to Russia, probably will at some point I suppose.

Liasia']I've been there several times. It's just like England, but more expensive.

I've been there a number of times. When I was in the Army in Frankfurt I used to go to France every other weekend or so. Mostly Strasbourg, but if I had a long weekend I'd go to Lyon or Marseille.

My major at university is French, and I'm going to France this coming Spring semester. I'm also going over in the Fall of '08 to assist an English teacher at a lycée for an academic year. Eventually I'd like to move there and teach English, but without EU citizenship it's somewhat difficult to move there, I hear.

Dude, if the govt. wants to oppress you then a few rifles won't stop them. A bolt-action hunting rifle against an F-18 isn't really a fair fight.

They can't really oppress people with aircraft. It takes boots on the ground to do that, something rifles will work on.

I've been there a number of times. When I was in the Army in Frankfurt I used to go to France every other weekend or so. Mostly Strasbourg, but if I had a long weekend I'd go to Lyon or Marseille.

My major at university is French, and I'm going to France this coming Spring semester. I'm also going over in the Fall of '08 to assist an English teacher at a lycée for an academic year. Eventually I'd like to move there and teach English, but without EU citizenship it's somewhat difficult to move there, I hear.
Did you like it? I've been there mainly on booze buying trips, and daytrips. It's nice enough I suppose.

Liasia']Because you use your guns to fight criminals i'm sure:rolleyes:
If you honestly expect the US government to opress you, or if they did there would be any serious retaliation from it's citizens, I pity you in your paranoia.

We Americans had to fight an oppressive government before-King George's Great Britian. It's impressed into our minds so deep 200+ years haven't removed it.

They can't really oppress people with aircraft. It takes boots on the ground to do that, something rifles will work on.

The govt. removes your right to vote in a bill of self-perpetuation. People march in protest. F-18 bomb them.

See, you got oppressed without a soldier being in sight.

We Americans had to fight an oppressive government before-King George's Great Britian. It's impressed into our minds so deep 200+ years haven't removed it.
Opressive my ass *cough*

The govt. removes your right to vote in a bill of self-perpetuation. People march in protest. F-18 bomb them.

See, you got oppressed without a soldier being in sight.

No, you got killed.

Liasia']Opressive my ass *cough*

Yep. Taxing us without representation, seizing of arms, etc. Sort of like today's gov't in some ways.

Yep. Taxing us without representation, seizing of arms, etc. Sort of like today's gov't in some ways.
The stamp tax was actually a tax cut, but it just reminded people they weren't getting represented.

We Americans had to fight an oppressive government before-King George's Great Britian. It's impressed into our minds so deep 200+ years haven't removed it.

You're the man! Thank you!

Liasia']Did you like it? I've been there mainly on booze buying trips, and daytrips. It's nice enough I suppose.

I absolutely loved it. I like the French people and the French culture. As I said, I'd like to move there one day, if at all possible.

Liasia']Opressive my ass *cough*

I take it you're from England?

No, you got killed.

Not everyone in the country would have marched but everyone would have lost rights. Some are dead but all are oppressed, you see how that works?

Yep. Taxing us without representation, seizing of arms, etc. Sort of like today's gov't in some ways.

Lamentably so.

I take it you're from England?
Yeh, but I didn't really mean it. Tho i'd like to point out that Canada, New Zealand and Australia didn't do too badly under the British Empire.

Not everyone in the country would have marched but everyone would have lost rights. Some are dead but all are oppressed, you see how that works?

Then those who survived reach for their guns.

Liasia']Yeh, but I didn't really mean it. Tho i'd like to point out that Canada, New Zealand and Australia didn't do too badly under the British Empire.


Really?

Or maybe it was the fact we had the balls (and the ability, which some of them didn't) to fight against you. One of my relatives fought in the Revolution, and again in 1812 at the battle of Baltimore.

Then those who survived reach for their guns.

And the ones that do will be taken out by the vastly superior firepower available to the govt through the military. The 2nd ammendment is only an illusion of security, in reality the people would pretty much get owned by the govt.

Really?

Or maybe it was the fact we had the balls (and the ability, which some of them didn't) to fight against you. One of my relatives fought in the Revolution, and again in 1812 at the battle of Baltimore.
And the fact we were fighting napoleon at the same time.

And the ones that do will be taken out by the vastly superior firepower available to the govt through the military. The 2nd ammendment is only an illusion of security, in reality the people would pretty much get owned by the govt.


Better dead then Red.

Trust me, I'm not just saying that. Military service is in my family's blood. We've fought in every American War, and in some cases died. Its been drilled into me that I should fight and if need be, die to defend my country from its enemies, even if it were my own government.

Better dead then Red.
:confused:

Better dead then Red.

What? Where did communism come into this?

What? Where did communism come into this?


lol, I knew that would confuse some people

Thats an old saying from the Cold War. It can be used interchangably with Facism.

Better dead then Red.

Trust me, I'm not just saying that. Military service is in my family's blood. We've fought in every American War, and in some cases died. Its been drilled into me that I should fight and if need be, die to defend my country from its enemies, even if it were my own government.

Same here.

A phrase we both have in common-Molon Labe. Read up on it.

You're preaching to the sheeple man. Most people here advocate MORE gov't interference in our lives and shudder at the thought that one can live a perfectly livable life without it.

And the ones that do will be taken out by the vastly superior firepower available to the govt through the military. The 2nd ammendment is only an illusion of security, in reality the people would pretty much get owned by the govt.

Do you really think the gov't would use bombs and artillery against it's own people?

No.

And the ONLY way to really occupy a town or city is by having boots THERE, in physical control of the place. There are..what, 80 million gun owners? If only 1/80 fought back, there'd be 1 million. That's almost as many troops the US has. That's more than the police forces. It's an army.

The 2nd amendment would be used to gain larger and more powerful weapons. Kill the artillery crew, take the peice. Same thing with rockets.

Do you really think the gov't would use bombs and artillery against it's own people?

No.

If a govt. had got to the place where it felt the need to subjugate its' own citizens then I doubt they would think twice about the types of ordinance they were using to do it.

And the ONLY way to really occupy a town or city is by having boots THERE, in physical control of the place. There are..what, 80 million gun owners? If only 1/80 fought back, there'd be 1 million. That's almost as many troops the US has. That's more than the police forces. It's an army.


Why would you need to occupy individual towns? Just use the central govt. to control what you want.

You may be able to muster similar numbers but they won't be as well trained or disciplined as a standing army. You can see the numbers in Iraq now, the army is killing far more insurgents than insurgents are killing army.

The 2nd amendment would be used to gain larger and more powerful weapons. Kill the artillery crew, take the peice. Same thing with rockets.

Maybe, but each larger piece would cost men at a rate higher than you would be able to afford to sacrifice them.

Better dead then Red.

You dont have to shoot red stuff.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1113/stopaj6.jpg

Some people really don't understand.

Look at vietnam. Yay, we have incredibly superior firepower to them. We're killing more of them than they are of us.

Wait, whats this? Why havn't we won yet? There's a never ending supply of enemy reinforcements? We aren't actually achieving anything substantial?

Lets look at FartSniff's claim about the crowd bombing. Lets see what would really happen.

Government is clearly abusing its power at this point. People protest, and get bombed.

Everyone sits down and does nothing? Right...

More likely: People start getting organized. A group of people attack a state legislature, and take it over. Soldiers fight back(you're going to use artillery on your own buildings? The people win either way).

Then it starts happening all over. You start seeing attacks on all sorts of police, governmental, and military buildings and bases. Most likely, the white house, congress, etc all get burned down.

The government couldn't prevent these things without boots on the ground. Four vans, coming from different directions, unload quite close to the california legislature. They shoot anyone guarding it, anyone with a gun affiliated with the government, and start storming it. By the time anyone gets there to stop it, its already fortified by militiamen, or burning to the ground.

The government couldn't forcibly oppress an armed populace against it. The guerilla warfare would be impossible to deal with. Any soldier goes into a large city, they start to get shot at from every block or two.

Tanks, etc? The gunners would get sniped, then the tanks swarmed upon.

Some people really don't understand.

Look at vietnam. Yay, we have incredibly superior firepower to them. We're killing more of them than they are of us.

Wait, whats this? Why havn't we won yet? There's a never ending supply of enemy reinforcements? We aren't actually achieving anything substantial?

Lets look at FartSniff's claim about the crowd bombing. Lets see what would really happen.

Government is clearly abusing its power at this point. People protest, and get bombed.

Everyone sits down and does nothing? Right...

More likely: People start getting organized. A group of people attack a state legislature, and take it over. Soldiers fight back(you're going to use artillery on your own buildings? The people win either way).

Then it starts happening all over. You start seeing attacks on all sorts of police, governmental, and military buildings and bases. Most likely, the white house, congress, etc all get burned down.

The government couldn't prevent these things without boots on the ground. Four vans, coming from different directions, unload quite close to the california legislature. They shoot anyone guarding it, anyone with a gun affiliated with the government, and start storming it. By the time anyone gets there to stop it, its already fortified by militiamen, or burning to the ground.

The government couldn't forcibly oppress an armed populace against it. The guerilla warfare would be impossible to deal with. Any soldier goes into a large city, they start to get shot at from every block or two.

Tanks, etc? The gunners would get sniped, then the tanks swarmed upon.

It's hard to snipe gunners. They are under several inches of armor. However, on older soviet tanks you can immobilize the vehicle by cracking the vision blocks with several rifle fire hits.

It's hard to snipe gunners. They are under several inches of armor. However, on older soviet tanks you can immobilize the vehicle by cracking the vision blocks with several rifle fire hits.

I'm talking about people using the heavy guns on the top of the tank, and commanders. Not that they would likely be there, in a hostile, guerilla enviornment.

My MOS was 11M. You don't really need to tell me about armour :P

Some people really don't understand.

Look at vietnam. Yay, we have incredibly superior firepower to them. We're killing more of them than they are of us.

Wait, whats this? Why havn't we won yet? There's a never ending supply of enemy reinforcements? We aren't actually achieving anything substantial?

Lets look at FartSniff's claim about the crowd bombing. Lets see what would really happen.

Government is clearly abusing its power at this point. People protest, and get bombed.

Everyone sits down and does nothing? Right...

More likely: People start getting organized. A group of people attack a state legislature, and take it over. Soldiers fight back(you're going to use artillery on your own buildings? The people win either way).

Then it starts happening all over. You start seeing attacks on all sorts of police, governmental, and military buildings and bases. Most likely, the white house, congress, etc all get burned down.

The government couldn't prevent these things without boots on the ground. Four vans, coming from different directions, unload quite close to the california legislature. They shoot anyone guarding it, anyone with a gun affiliated with the government, and start storming it. By the time anyone gets there to stop it, its already fortified by militiamen, or burning to the ground.

The government couldn't forcibly oppress an armed populace against it. The guerilla warfare would be impossible to deal with. Any soldier goes into a large city, they start to get shot at from every block or two.

Tanks, etc? The gunners would get sniped, then the tanks swarmed upon.

Nuh uh, we lost because they had AK47s and we had those shitty M16s. Weee! Pissy .223 bullets leaving the gun too quickly then having the gun jam and shatter and break into a million pieces!

Nuh uh, we lost because they had AK47s and we had those shitty M16s. Weee! Pissy .223 bullets leaving the gun too quickly then having the gun jam and shatter and break into a million pieces!

Yes, we lost because we used a different assault rifle *sigh*

To be fair though, the US citizenry would be using much stronger bullets in general, like .308win and M43's, etc

I have one question.

Is there a reason that everytime someone tries to start a thread concerning firearms or any sort of weapon handling, certain NS members decide they just have to hijack the thread and use it as their platform to bitch about the US 2nd Amendment and attack private ownership of firearms?

You don't like them, that is entirely up to you. But seeing as you don't have an interest in firearms, why don't you just ignore the threads pertaining to them then? I consider socialism to be wildly ignorant and a foolish system of political belief, but you won't see me going into the threads about it and attacking the people who believe that kind of thing, calling them names and suggesting they aren't all that intelligent. I simply ignore said threads and have yet to ever click on any of them.

Or is that just to hard to do?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.......

2007, hmmm, guess that gives me time to start putting a bit of cash aside. After I finally pick up a pistol that is. Though I am still thinking that the CX4 would be a good purchase after the Glock too.

Yes, we lost because we used a different assault rifle *sigh*

To be fair though, the US citizenry would be using much stronger bullets in general, like .308win and M43's, etc

Ok, so we lost because of other problems, but the M16 was really quite terrible.

I have one question.

Is there a reason that everytime someone tries to start a thread concerning firearms or any sort of weapon handling, certain NS members decide they just have to hijack the thread and use it as their platform to bitch about the US 2nd Amendment and attack private ownership of firearms?

You don't like them, that is entirely up to you. But seeing as you don't have an interest in firearms, why don't you just ignore the threads pertaining to them then? I consider socialism to be wildly ignorant and a foolish system of political belief, but you won't see me going into the threads about it and attacking the people who believe that kind of thing, calling them names and suggesting they aren't all that intelligent. I simply ignore said threads and have yet to ever click on any of them.

Or is that just to hard to do?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.......

2007, hmmm, guess that gives me time to start putting a bit of cash aside. After I finally pick up a pistol that is. Though I am still thinking that the CX4 would be a good purchase after the Glock too.

Ohh, I really want a Cx4, except for...

A. Not sold in CA/to CA

B. Doesn't come in 10mm(Screw .40's. For a Carbine, I want some 10mm goodness)