Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But civilians don't, just THE MAN.

Frazzled wrote:But civilians don't, just THE MAN.

This is the last known photo taken of said culprit, alias "The Man". Please contact your local authorities (who happen to work for the man) if you get attacked at night by any vampires.

Frazzled wrote:

IAmtheWalrus wrote:
History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.

***That means deer pellets to me. It also means deer pellets to the Commander that does it. Rome thought it had an excellent separation of powers too.
Trust No One Believe Nothing.

Please correct me if I'm missing something here, but I don't find the comparison between Caesar and the contemporary US armed forces particularly apt. For one thing, before Caesar overthrew the government he established the Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and already had his foot in the door of Roman politics, something none of our generals are allowed to do. Service members are allowed to advise, not to make policy. Additionally, before he overthrew Rome he spent several very successful years warring in Central Europe and created for himself an army completely loyal to him, something a flag officer in the U.S. would be hard pressed to do because the Congress has to approve the nomination of generals to important positions.

If you follow the creed 'Trust No One, Believe Nothing" I pity you, it must be lonely.

Frazzled wrote:

IAmtheWalrus wrote:
I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war.

***Er…the Civil War
***1917 Russia
***Every freaking coup in Latin America, in history.

More importantly that doesn’t help your argument. If the military follows orders and impugns our rights then your argument means the whole military will do it (which I don’t agree with).

The cases you have brought up are not applicable to the military today, for several reasons.
1) The Civil War
As previously mentioned the U.S. military before the civil war was a tiny, regional shadow of the national organization it would become. In 1860 we didn't maintain much of a professional army and relied on state militia for the common defense today the military is primarily made up of full-time professional soldiers. Though I'll admit currently we're leaning on the National Guard to help as we're hurting for people. Additionally, the military shifts it's personnel every 2-4 years and keeps units mixed up so they don't maintain the regional ties that were so prevalent then.

2) 1917 Russia
I'm a little insulted that you're comparing the conscripted second-rate soldiers of the WWI Russian army to our military today. That was a terribly oppressed army of peasants conscripted from their little farms and towns and sent to fight people they knew nothing about for reasons they didn't understand, and after having died in droves, returned to a homeland on the verge of economic collapse. Our military is all volunteer, and we fight because we chose to, for a country we believe in. I think I'm missing where we're similar.

From what I understand of military juntas in South and Central America, it's largely power-hungry generals that overthrow elected governments, and sometimes has to do with drugs. Our leaders would have a hard time amassing a loyal force, for reasons previously outlined, and service members are subject to harsh and invasive investigations of their character and property. Getting away with be associated with drugs at all is difficult, so I'd have to say that the sort of stuff that goes down in South/Central America might be a completely different situation.

Why do some people think owning guns isn't great?
Personally I enjoy target shooting.
Unless somebody invents a time machine and goes back to prevent the development of firearms it's an issue we will always have to deal with, because no matter what laws are in place the people society has to worry about having weapons the most will always have access to them. If criminal elements have access to them I see no reason to deny law abiding citizens, or subjects in some cases =)

Noble713 wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.

This must be new. I went through Basic @ Ft. Leonard Wood in 2003, and we never did anything with the .50 cal, M203, or M240. In the 2 1/2 years that I spent in active Air Defense Artillery units we only ever fired the M16 and M249. I had an opportunity to fire an M9 while doing range detail, but didn't take it (they just don't excite me). Then I spent 2 1/2 years in a National Guard infantry unit. The infantry crash course they put us through at Camp Robinson, AR was too short for M9, .50cal or Mk19 ranges, so I've STILL never fired those. When my unit conducted a .50cal range at Annual Training, I was off at the Warrior Leader's Course...

I can't vouch for how recently they integrated that, but I think it might have to do with convoy operations. That one was of the things they stressed pretty heavily when we were training on them, that just in case someone tagged us to be the gunner on the Humvee we needed to know how to do it. We even got a nice training session in the EST on gunning from a turret. It's sad that you never got to fire the M2, it's a blast. There's nothing like sitting behind that bad boy and know you can wreck some bad guy's day. And the Mk19 would be a sweet toy to play with, but alas I haven't had the chance yet.

Trust me when I say that the Mk19 is the biggest POS ive ever had the misfortune to be the gunner behind for an extended period of time.

Prone to Misfeed: Check
Prone to Stovepipe the caseing: Check
Really hard to remove said stovepipe: Check
Needs stupid large amounts of lube else it wont work: Check
Lube bad for your health and looks like Cum: Check
Deploy well lubed gun to the desert for instant mud fun: Check

When I was a Mk19 gunner, I used to have a long handled thick screwdriver and a ballping hammer dummy corded to my hatch cause every time fired the damn thing about every 5th-10th round would Jam. Would have to insert said screwdriver through the side guide for the chargeing handle and lever the damn thing out into my hand waiting below. (Live round + a foot fall=bad) If a caseing jammed Id have to break links, and insert screwdriver down through the top and bang on the until it fell out.

Frazzled wrote:Wait are you arguing we shouldn't be able to have tanks? But what about the advantageous rush hour driving opportunities? Plus you could stop at the park and ride and pick up ten - fifteen passengers on the top and hit the HOV lane. Nice!

Uh, just a correction before I get started, the US Armed Forces answer to the President, not to Congress. They defend both, but the President has the ultimate authority when it comes to the military...

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Please correct me if I'm missing something here, but I don't find the comparison between Caesar and the contemporary US armed forces particularly apt. For one thing, before Caesar overthrew the government he established the Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and already had his foot in the door of Roman politics, something none of our generals are allowed to do.

Good point here. In the Roman Republic, military service and political power were almost inextricably entwined. I will say this though, you might be putting a bit too much importance on the 1st Triumvirate. While it was most certainly engineered by Caesar, it was put there to save his ass from political problems more then anything. Pompey the Great, was easily the most powerful man in Rome, and the most wealthy, at the time. Don't forget the fact that he was married to Caesar's daughter, Julia. Crassus on the other hand was really a third wheel the entire time. He got himself killed in his idiotic Parthian campaign, and that was all he wrote.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Additionally, before he overthrew Rome he spent several very successful years warring in Central Europe and created for himself an army completely loyal to him, something a flag officer in the U.S. would be hard pressed to do because the Congress has to approve the nomination of generals to important positions.

Well it is largely the same process as is done here. So who is to say that Gen. Petraeus for example couldn't do the same thing? All governorships were assigned by the Consuls and the Senate. Caesar only ended up starting the Roman Civil War because they were going to throw his ass in jail...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Uh, just a correction before I get started, the US Armed Forces answer to the President, not to Congress. They defend both, but the President has the ultimate authority when it comes to the military...

This is true, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he doesn't have the ability to deploy the U.S. military for more than 90 days without the consent of Congress. I don't consider either the ultimate authority, as that would violate the checks and balances principle, but the point is that the military answers to the civilians, not itself.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well it is largely the same process as is done here. So who is to say that Gen. Petraeus for example couldn't do the same thing? All governorships were assigned by the Consuls and the Senate. Caesar only ended up starting the Roman Civil War because they were going to throw his ass in jail...

This is true, but again this links back to the sociological differences between then and now. A general then was present on the battlefield and visible to the troops, now a commander is just that in name. It's rare that the common soldier sees anyone higher ranking than his company commander on the modern battlefield, but I don't really have the resources to back that up. I suppose the closest example I can offer is Gen. MacAurthur, beloved general sacked for political reasons without a rise out of the troops. The Information Age has made impossible many of the things that were possible in previous eras.

This is how you clear rush hour traffic.

M109-6 Paladin. 155mm Self-propelled Howitzer.

I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.

If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood

Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.

If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood

1) "When seconds count the police are only minutes away"

2) Not entirely feasable to move to another neighborhood unless you are a millionare or make enough that buying a new house doesn't bother you. That and unless you move out to where the nearest neighbor is miles away no neighborhood is technically safe.

If you follow the creed 'Trust No One, Believe Nothing" I pity you, it must be lonely.

You must not know many lawyers then.

Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.

If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood

I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".

FITZZ wrote:

Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.

If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood

I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".

Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.

Maybe they're just backed up on their lists? They'll get to you soon enough. If I know anything about crazy criminals, its that they are thorough.

Anshal wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.

If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood

I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".

Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.

Mr. Gun?...hmmm,I kind of like that,maybe I'll change my screen name.
No,you never said you arn't self reliant,you did however imply that you would depend on others to ensure that you are protected,which is entierly your own business.
And,yes,you should be very happy that you live in a "safe" country with a minimal amount of criminals.

Anshal wrote:
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.

I will just leave these here.......

Dude there is like 5 people in Norway...a little bit different of a situation...

Dance Mister Bear! Dance! Bwhahahahaha!

jp400 wrote:

Anshal wrote:
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.

I will just leave these here.......

Don't catch the first one other than it looks like a .22 version fo a Peacemaker.
model .29 or latest version thereof, or a Dan Wesson?
Ruger Blackhawk?
thompson contenders of some sort?

Thats about right. Not 100% of each one though.

Anshal wrote:Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.

So you simultaneously admit that while you don't live in a situation that would require a firearm for self-defense others might, while denouncing everyone who feels they do need one for not being "normal people"?

this is why we need firearms, to protect ourselves from this:

I am waiting for an epic picture Fraz...

The horror....the horror...

Some things cannot be unseen....that is not epic...why do you put up the nasties????

Time for some healing.

Frazzled's dream


Did I mention Halloween's just around the corner
Vampire sparky!


Other vampire costumes


Vampire Dork

Frazzled wrote:The horror....the horror...

What has been seen cannot be unseen. Thanks for ruining my eyes forever. I doubt even lazic can fix what you have done.