• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun Control Harming U.S. Troops

At first I thought, "Newmax! That's worthless," but then I noticed that their source is Soldier of Fortune. Now there's a trustworthy source! In any case, the argument is so convoluted and tenuous, it is evidently the result of a crack binge.
 
Don't see what it has do do with the failure of the pentagon to make sure the troops have what they need to get the job done..
Click to expand...

Because the defense department cannot find contractors (gun makers) who are willing to manufacture the weapons they need. Something the Pentagon has no control over.
 
So... (and please correct me if I read the story wrong...)

We send troops to Iraq with crappy weapons, but that's not the real problem. The real problem lies in the private citizen's inability to purchase the good quality military parts here in the states, and ship them over to their buddies in the war.

Gee whiz, this article has all the answers:

Create classes of soldiers: the have's and have not's. Rich and poor. (Good for morale?)

Embarrass the US government when soldiers of low quality equipment are killed.

Make the US government look like it doesn't care about soldiers.

Create more kills.

Create more shrapnel wounds (air exploding grenades). (This is good because our enemy needs to pause and take care of their wounded women and children).

War is just a big game to these people, it must be really annoying we can't just click off to reload and choose new weapons.
 
Richard G said:


Because the defense department cannot find contractors (gun makers) who are willing to manufacture the weapons they need. Something the Pentagon has no control over.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with gun control?


Defense contractors make tons of stuff that it is not legal for the average citizen to own..


There is something screwy with your story...
 
Diogenes said:
...

There is something screwy with your story...
Click to expand...
It's really quite simple:

1) Pentagon has procurement problem.

2) Soldiers in peril gets people all worked up.

3) We (RichardG & crowd) have a religious aversion to any kind of limitation of access to weaponry.

Let's paste it all together and see if it floats. In an ocean of stupidity, even that boat will float.
 
Richard G said:


Because the defense department cannot find contractors (gun makers) who are willing to manufacture the weapons they need.
Click to expand...

Umm yeah, THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!!!

As if there is ever a shortage of compaines who wouldnt jump at the chance to score a fat defence contract!!! There are times they win contracts before theyve invented the product. (ie Star Wars shield) Guns are not that hard to make.
 
Firearms maker Barrett has developed a 6.8 caliber rifle for civilian and police use, Farnam said, in anticipation of a military need. But so far, procurement of the weapon – or a similar, larger caliber rifle for troops – hasn't been publicly discussed by the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

:eek: I suspect that either someone confused caliber with mm or a decimal got misplaced. If I am wrong, then I hope they issue trusses to the infantrymen who have to carry a rifle that
fires a 6 ¾ inch round.
 
This is one of the more sillier threads RichardG has started, and that is saying something.

As one who has worked for the US Army for 20 years and has seen how we go about procuring things, I'm not surprised that it's taken this long to consider a new rifle. Big-ticket items get all the bucks, while the smaller things get whatever dollars are left over or are "left until next year's budget" and the Army has to make do.

Add to that it takes YEARS for a bureacracy to come to a decision, do all the testing, get the money from Congress, state exactly what they want in a Request for Porposal, change it 60-70 times based on what is possible and/or Congressional*Pentagon pressure and politics, negotiate a contract, and actually build the bloody things. All this when the money may not be available in the budget for year after year because we need more Nuke subs or B-2 Bombers.

But a contract for up to 2 million rifles, to include support services, ammuntion clips and such would still be a major deal--and if US companies don't want to bid on it, I bet some European or Russian (I always thought the Russ built the best infantry rifles..not complex, but sturdy and trustworthy) corporation might be willing to do it.

The point being..oh, wait a minute, this is a Richard G thread so making a point would be a waste of bytes.
 
From Dickie's article:
Sometime, before we get into a big war, the U.S. military needs to get rid of our current generation of 'varmint rifles' and start issuing real rifles," one small arms expert told John Farnam, author of SOF's "Combat Weaponcraft" column, a firearms instructor and a Vietnam vet who saw a lot of combat as a U.S. Marine.
Click to expand...
Well, at least they consulted an "expert".
 
Richard G said:
Because the defense department cannot find contractors (gun makers) who are willing to manufacture the weapons they need.
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you telling me that the private sector has failed us?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
Ladewig said:


:eek: I suspect that either someone confused caliber with mm or a decimal got misplaced. If I am wrong, then I hope they issue trusses to the infantrymen who have to carry a rifle that
fires a 6 ¾ inch round.
Click to expand...
I think it's 6,8 mm.
 
From the article that Richard G noted:
...

Add to the problem the fact that the M-16 family of weapons utilizes .223 caliber (5.56 mm) ammunition, which has proven too small and light for war.

...
Click to expand...

Wow!

Are there people still harping that the 223 is too small to be a practical military weapon? I thought that issue was settled some 40 years ago.

Golly, these guys need to turn off the John Wayne movies and get with the times! The M-1 shot a large bullet, but it only held 8 rounds, whereas M-16s normally have 20 and even 30 round clips.

Well if Richard G wants to get into a gun fight with someone that has more that will have at least 2.5 times as many shots as he does, then please do so. As for me, I would prefer the extra capacity afforded by the M-16.

However the military is exempted from gun laws so one cannot blame them for the poor planning, supply, and numerous other post-war problems.
 
Ooh! Speaking of people who don't present their opinion, nor back them up.

Good to see you back, Dick. Anything to add on this subject? Maybe a comment about preying on the innocent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom