All Our Base Are Belong to China!

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:14 am

Paragraphs, Europa.. Paragraphs.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:18 am

Europa13 wrote:We have a right to bare arms, to defend ourselves and to defend against a tryannical governing body... We have the right to overthrow our own government. That is why we have the right to bare arms... And yes, it makes it hard for a foreign government to invade. And do you really think that 90% of the people with guns, after an invasion, would lack leadership? How many Special and Delta Forces soldiers (keep in mind the SEALS, Pararescue, Rangers, etc...) have passed through the Army since say... The 1970s? What do you think they'd be doing? And what was their job? To train foreign soldiers, well, at least SF... Delta... hehe, KILL KILL KILL. Then, look at how many reserve officers from the Army and other branches there are, local police, etc... You have quite a number of possible leaders in any given city. Also, thanks to Bush, the assault weapons ban was lifted... Lately i've been thinking about getting the new HK-XM8 myself with a Sig P226 9mm as a sidearm... Good all around coverage. The point is, you'd have a lot more "well ogranized" groups than you might think... And again, as I said earlier, the big ones you have to worry about are the Neo Nazis and KKK because they're already organized and will be afterwards, not to mention that most of them live in rural areas any ways and wouldn't be killed by the bombs right off probably. ;0) And then someone mentioned that you're more likely to get hurt if you own a gun? Shit happens... Hell, i'm more likely to run someone over, kill my child while he's riding with me in a car, die in a plane crash, or god knows what else than have someone shoot themselves with my gun, but do I give up driving (Side Note: I'm all for advancements in gun saftey, smart chips, etc..)? That whole train of thought is bullshit and .... Grrrrr... If you're scared of guns, don't own one... Don't try to take my rights away because you're a pussy... And I'm not saying you *whoever made that comment* are, but there are a lot who have that same idea and want to see the 2nd taken away from us legal gun owners.

A big hell yeah to your big ass post

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:13 am

ApTyp wrote:Shit, let's just quote resist.com while we're at it. "As long as it makes an interesting read" could take you very far...

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:18 am

this baffles me

Europa13 · Post by **Europa13** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:22 am

ApTyp wrote:XM8? As in the new plastic rifle of the US Army? Wasn't it scrapped due to serious heat tolerance issues?

No... Though it is plastic and very light and versitile. Its generally just a good all around weapon, I like the add-ons... Sniper, Machinegunner, Close quarters, etc... Everythings interchangeable... And it uses standard NATO rounds, which are easy to come by... You can dunk it in water and not worry about water getting inside the weapon, she'll fire. And finally, like I said, "no", it's still slated to replace the M16/M4.

Ranger · Post by **Ranger** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:22 am

Huh......... The stupidity of people who don't recognize the second amendment as important never cease to amaze me. If you think about it, it's the only thing keeping The government from telling us breathing is illegal...... Assault weapons...... Pointless if you ask me. (And I know you didn't) The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how many rounds you can send down range, if you can't hit the enemy, you're just not doing anything. True Machineguns DID change the face of war, but you still have to hit the bad guys to kill them. As for "Hillbilly" not being any good against a tank..... You've obviously never been in a tank. It just takes someone willing to sit on the tank as long as it takes for the crew to get out, then one bullet can probably kill them all. Guns don't kill. People do. I can be just as leathal with a screwdriver or a ballpoint pen as I can with a gun. True, I'd have to get a lot closer, but I also wouldn't seem as threatening. Guns are tools. Plain and simple. They still need a HUMAN BEING to pull the trigger. As for weapons of Choice.... I have a Mosin Nagant (WW2 soviet bolt action rifle) and a powerpoint 9mm that I've spent in all around 200 dollars on which is just as good as an M-16 with and M9 or M-203. It's all about how you use them. Keep ignoring the fact that people are different. But it won't change anything. Anything that happens all depends on who wants it more.

Europa13 · Post by **Europa13** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:39 am

Ranger wrote:Huh......... The stupidity of people who don't recognize the second amendment as important never cease to amaze me. If you think about it, it's the only thing keeping The government from telling us breathing is illegal...... Assault weapons...... Pointless if you ask me. (And I know you didn't) The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how many rounds you can send down range, if you can't hit the enemy, you're just not doing anything. True Machineguns DID change the face of war, but you still have to hit the bad guys to kill them. As for "Hillbilly" not being any good against a tank..... You've obviously never been in a tank. It just takes someone willing to sit on the tank as long as it takes for the crew to get out, then one bullet can probably kill them all.

I'd like to see you hang on to an M1A1 as it's plowing across hills and through trees doin 45 MPH buddy. Want to know what will quickly demoralize our infantry? Seeing an M1 Abrams blow up... Why? Because they simply have no match on the battlefield today and when 1 blows up "O SHIT WTF DO THE BAD GUYS HAVE!!!??" My Sgt saw it once in the first gulf war and that's exactly what happened to the troops who were caught in a cross fire... M1A1 comes to the rescue and blows sky high... Their underbellies are soft and an RPG bounced off the ground beside it and up into the undercarriage... 1 in a million shot, but destroyed it.

Assualt weapons aren't "all" fully automatic... But, if you meant "Fully Automatic weapons/Machine guns... Then i'll say this... I can put 2 rounds into 24 targets up to 500m away, using 1, 45 round belt with no scope, using a SAW.... Double expert right there... And with popup targets noless. With an M16, I Hawkeye any range... Thats targets ranging up to 300m. Just takes practice.... I can hit targets 70yrds away with a bow... Lots of people love target practicing you know... Now, back to the point I was about to make... Machineguns are mainly used for surpressive fire... That's why most of your "assault" weapons have a 'full auto' option, to give the individual the option of surpressive fire, to scare the enemy into thinking A. there's more out there or B. someone's got some heavy firepower. Any way you look at it, the enemy is going to keep his head down while your men advance on their position. That is the main purpous of a machine gun, well, that and stationary defensive positioning. And when dishing out surpressive fire, it dosn't really matter if you can kill the guys you're shooting at or not... As long as they keep their heads down, you're doing your job for your squad.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:21 am

Europa13 wrote:
ApTyp wrote:XM8? As in the new plastic rifle of the US Army? Wasn't it scrapped due to serious heat tolerance issues?
No... Though it is plastic and very light and versitile. Its generally just a good all around weapon, I like the add-ons... Sniper, Machinegunner, Close quarters, etc... Everythings interchangeable... And it uses standard NATO rounds, which are easy to come by... You can dunk it in water and not worry about water getting inside the weapon, she'll fire. And finally, like I said, "no", it's still slated to replace the M16/M4.

DefenseReview has this to say:

It's DefRev's understanding that the XM8 recently failed a US Army test. It apparently suffered some kind of unspecified mechanical problem. It's also been reported that the XM8 overheats when fired (presumably extensively) on full-auto (handguards melting and such). We're looking into this. We've been told that the US Marine Corps (USMC) doesn't want it (unconfirmed). So, it would seem that the XM8 development program is in serious trouble, at the moment. Several of our sources have even gone so far as to say the XM8 is dead. This is, as yet, unverified. We'll see. Even if this is true, for the moment, US Army programs have a way of coming back from the dead, on occasion.

Ranger · Post by **Ranger** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:21 am

While I never scored a hawkeye with the M16A2 I did score expert. Regularly, and I was just a mechanic. About machine guns, everything you said was true. But it's true for soldiers. I don't care how untrained a military force is, their soldiers will still act like soldiers, and that makes them predictable. Civilians with no training on the other hand, will often times suprise soldiers by doing things they don't expect. Of course that lasts about as long as it takes for the enemy to figure things out and adapt tactics, and people like to fall into habits. If something works once, they'll keep doing it. As for anging on to an M1A1, I grant you that it would be very difficult. However, the crew would need to know you're there and it's pretty easy to hide from the crews "electronic" eyes and it's difficult to hear someone walking on top of a tank that's running. O.k. an M1 would be difficult to hang on to, but there is nothing else in the world that can match an M1s speed except for this french tank which I can't remember how to spell. My apologies and I will look it up and post it later. Any way the point of my post was that you can't just discount the value of an armed populace in reference to an invasion. I also wasn't refering to a civil war, but to an enemy invading. Say it's china, they have crappy versions of old russian tanks that would be easy to hang on to.(they're full of handholds for carrying infantry) And besides, nothing is impossible. The only thing that makes things impossible is beliving that they can't be done. Not that beliving something can be done will always make it work, but it does increase the odds.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:26 am

2+2=3 IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!111 JUST BELIVE INNIT!!11

vendetta · Post by **vendetta** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:45 am

Ranger wrote:[. . .] You've obviously never been in a tank. [. .. ]

Well, I did... Sure, it was not a 'real' one, since it was a piece of crap that they used as a statue in an army base. Nothing prevented people from entering from the bottom. I had a smoke in it too. Really cozy inside, hell yes.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:07 am

johnnygothisgun wrote:You must forgive my asking, but did you mean "claret" as in a reference to the British raids in Indonesia?

No. I was referring to claret.

Helpful ? Probably not. Illuminating ? Not my place.

RGE · Post by **RGE** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:03 am

Ranger wrote:Say it's china, they have crappy versions of old russian tanks that would be easy to hang on to.(they're full of handholds for carrying infantry)

Uh, so the tactic would be to hang on to the tank and shoot anyone trying to get out? Wouldn't that be rather easily countered by the crew driving the tank into the their own lines and have the person clinging to it shot by their infantry? Also, I thought that was one of the points of having infantry travel together with tanks, so in such a case the tank wouldn't even have to go far. Or wouldn't the tank crew know about the person waiting on top of the tank? I guess that could work if the tank doesn't have infantry watching over it.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:29 pm

Well in the old days, meaning WW2-era or so, Finns had pretty much only molotov's cocktails and birch wood logs to destroy tanks with during the first Soviet invasion. By the second time around, a few years later, there were more advanced weapons involved. But the early Russian-made tanks were very vulnerable to highly flammable liquid, when some was thrown to weak spots (places that lead to the engine/insides or something?) which either caused the ammo inside to explode, I think, or the crew to escape from the fire's way... And if a strong enough log was stuck between the tracks it'd make the tanks immobile

Of course modern tanks are way more advanced, but still, they aren't perfect killing machines. Never have been, never will - at least on their own. There's always a way to destroy one for an experienced and skilled soldier, even on foot.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:31 pm

Yeah, but not for Jethro McFarlane, King and Dictator of the Northern Illinois Free Militia and Goatrapers. All these assholes who hang on to their guns assuming that they'll be able to fight off some mythical paranoid delusion "invader" when the US military will have been defeated are just kidding themselves.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:59 pm

Your own government is more likely to be your enemy than foreign invaders.

Oh, and Spazmo? A bunch of rag-tag assholes fighting a superior invading army while the domestic army was defeated to shits wouldn't work? Just look at Iraq, congoid!

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:58 pm

Iraqis have been hardened by many years of constant horror. Americans are soft and weak. Also, the Iraqi army was complete crap, unlike the US Army which is properly equipped and trained.

A_M · Post by **A_M** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Spazmo wrote:[...] unlike the US Army which is properly equipped and trained.

Well, the Iraqi army was a joke, but most the militia people were trained from kids + poisoned with terroristic propaganda. Add the fact that the good' ol K' is a basic item in many iraqi homes, Islamic fanatism is in most people there and the terroristic hit and run tactic. When you summarise this you got a dangerous foe. The US commanders apperently only thought about the Iraqui's military forces and expected an easy win. They were wrong

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:59 pm

Actually, what I think they were counting on was to be greated with open arms as liberators and for the most part they got that....unfortunetly the most part didn't include people comming in from the border because they want to get paid for killing Americans. That's actually what most of the problem is, people comming in through the borders.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:58 pm

Actually, the main problem is Iraqis who help the insurgents, both domestic and foreign. You remove popular support, and you're pretty much done. Until there are people who shield the resistance fighters, you're stuck.