View Single Post
Old April 12th, 2008 #43
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin View Post
That is almost word for word what I tell everyone, what are you doing reading my old posts and throwing my arguments at me?
Whatever. You're delusional if you think I'd bother to go around reading your old posts.

Quote:
Actually gun magazines will be more with your side than what I am saying. They go for the larger calibers.
Actually? My point was not over which they preferred, but that they turn it into a tactical issue, when it is not a tactical issue for government. It's a money issue. The U.S. military does not exist for the defense of the United States. Hasn't since at least the Great War. But at least 50 years ago it wasn't just a business operation.

Quote:
I already stated an 8 round rifle is not adequate against hundreds or thousands of attackers with a death wish, of course I am talking about combat here not stopping a crack head mugger.
Actually, if we go back to the beginning, you stated that the 5.56 was introduced because soldiers could not carry enough ammunition to deal with such waves of attacks. You still haven't said one word with regard to the fact, which I pointed out, that soldiers waste more rounds with an M16 and thus don't conserve ammunition any better. If you need a thirty round magazine to kill the same number of people as you do with an 8 round clip, you're going to run out of ammunition all the same. I don't need combat experience fighting gooks in the jungle or coons in the desert to tell a fallacious argument. The moment you make an argument, you deal in logic, and then you're in my territory.

If you need to lay down fire to deal with waves of attackers, you give squads MGs and provide close air support. Oh, but wait, they've phased those out too for another 5.56 piece of junk. And in 20 years, the Warthog, probably the best aircraft you ever made, will be gone, not to be replaced by a more advanced aircraft of similar function, but by the wholly inadequate F-35. It looks sexy though! Like the little M4 carbine they seem intent on giving to every soldier. But this is just another "conspiracy theory".

Quote:
The people who write them are not stupid, they are paid what to say. It is like saying a journalist doesn’t know the truth, he or she writes what brings in a check.
So who is spreading conspiracy theories now?

Quote:
So tell us how many AR-15’s you have shot.
I'm not any sort of firearm fundi, not particularly enamoured of the things either, but growing up where I did and having crazy German colonial friends, I've fired off a few weapons in my time, mostly game hunting rifles, but also military issues.

I've completed my mandatory military service, where we trained on the Steyr AUG. I'll tell you, I'd rather depend on an FN FAL in a fight than that thing any day.

But I'm not a former Navy SEAL, Army Ranger, Green Beret Vietname vet gunslinger who hunts gophers in the woords at night like you.



Quote:
How many different guns have you had apart down to the last pin and spring and put back together, how about how much practice you have had in bad weather and any other sort of climate.
Snow and temperate forest.

What does any of that have to do with any of this? Do I need to have built my own guitars and played in dingy bars to know that a Les Paul plays easier and better than a Yamaha?

This is just another one of your stupid ad hominem arguments.

Quote:
What experience do you actually have aside from some conspiracy website?
I've been attacked by armed niggers without the liberty of having a firearm to shoot them. I never froze up or pissed my pants.

Conspiracy? There you have it; just throw out the words "conspiracy theory" and you have won the argument. What about the Stryker? Is that piece of junk just a "conspiracy theory" too? Or your lumbering deathtraps called "supercarriers"?

Quote:
Your argument isn’t holding up. First you claim ZOG wants to save money on ammunition then you claim they want to spend 3 times the amount of money on ammunition (more round per kill) and guns because corporations want the contracts.
You do actually know what profit is?

Quote:
So does ZOG want to spend the money or save the money?
It wants to spend less money per round at the budget level and make more money per round at the business level. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this but then I am speaking to a moron.

Quote:
You can’t make up your mind, it is just one mindless conspiracy after another.
No. You just don't have a mind.

Quote:
It is a simple equation, more rounds means more firepower.
By that equation, you should equip your forces with SMGs.

Quote:
The .223 is a high velocity and very accurate round so it is more than adequate in killing and for aimed shots,
It's a piece of junk which cannot even penetrate dense foliage, let alone obstacles in an urban environment where it is most frquently used today.

Quote:
well let’s just say people don’t go shooting gophers at 200 yards at night with .223 rifles for nothing.
Yeah, and you'll be lucky if you penetrate thick clothing with lethal velocity at twice that range.

Quote:
I see you mentioned Vietnam which proves it is determination over technology. There is a lot of difference fighting on a homeland versus extreme unknown territory. The reason the KWA isn’t successful in places like Vietnam and Iraq is because Americans are not used to that type of battlefield. In places like Germany and Russia American soldiers have shown to be a force because they are accustomed to the mild climate and urban territory. Iraqis and Vietnamese couldn’t do as good here as Americans did over there.
The reason is flawed strategy.

Quote:
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about since you take parts of a post and try to respond to something that has already been answered before you even said it.
Rubbish. Which parts are these? I responded to your entire posts, and you haven't responded to a single one of my actual points.

Quote:
You may know something about philosophy and I am sure if someone is dying in a ditch they will want your google searches and philosophical quotes, however when it comes to things like survivalism, food preparation and storage and combat medicine I think most here would take my word over yours any day.
This isn't about any of those things. So you can keep the appeals to your own authority to yourself. It is about the reasons for the U.S. using the 5.56.

Do you have experience at the executive level of the armaments industry? Do you have experience at the defense level of the U.S. government? Do you have experience at the strategic level of the U.S. military? Do you have the knowledge of economics, politics, military science or psychology necessary to analyse the motivations of these people with any more authority than I?

Quote:
I already showed how soldiers have no experience with guns and need more rounds, you didn’t have an answer for that.
More magazine capacity. Not a smaller caliber.

Obviously the M1 was so lousy, ineffective and hated that it lead a certain person to call it "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man."

Quote:
Go to some thread and argue religion so you can stop tainting the only good place on VNNF with your nonsense and arguments over ideologies instead of what actually works.
What? Scared you're going to lose the only reputation you have left? The opinions of a moron will always be the opinions of a moron, no matter the topic.

Quote:
Soldiers with 6 weeks of weapons training would just take expert aimed head shots with 4,000 gooks,
I never suggested anything of the sort. My reference to head shots was in connection with modern body armour. Just spray wildly with your 5.56 pea shooter and cross your fingers that you hit a foot or a head.

Quote:
Arabs or whatever bearing down on them and let go with a 8 round clip.
8 round clips? See how you have to use straw men to argue your point.

Quote:
Arabs laying down rapid fire from 30 round AK’s
Oh, so 7.62 magazines don't hold just 8 rounds?

Quote:
and these 18-year-old soldiers who just picked up a gun 6 weeks ago will calmly take aim and pick the Arabs off one by one. I don’t know what fantasyland you are living in but real people even true marksmen are not calm enough to take surgical shots in combat.
Yeah, well there you have it. You have to have a weak, rapid fire weapon because you send a bunch of weak, untrained boys, niggers, and worse still, females, into combat.

Quote:
Ever notice how the clowns who live in countries with complete or near complete gun bans are always the experts and think everyone should go back to 100 year old weapons because that is all they have ever seen. The favorite saying is “I have never shot a Glock but I can tell you why they are bad”, or a similar gun.
I have never suggested to go back to weapons from a century ago.

Quote:
You also have some kind of myth of people who get high and go out in mass numbers on crime sprees
That happens in South Africa every day.

Quote:
and won’t be turned away from anything less than a mortar round.
Where did I mention mortar rounds?

Quote:
Stop watching Charles Bronson movies and join the military, wait this is the Internet and you were a highly decorated soldier who saw combat all over the world and could hit a penny at a thousand yards while rounds bounced off the ground 3 inches from your head.
Yeah, just like. Don't you know? I lost an eye in NAM helping Chuck Norris bust Rambo out of an NV prison camp.

Quote:
Tell us how successful countries that still use the M-1 Garand are again?
Exactly what armed conflicts are we using to measure "success". The last time I checked, the U.S.A. lost in Vietnam and is losing in Iraq. Hell, you lost 50 000 men fighting a bunch of primitive gooks. So much for all your huge miltary successes since introducing the 5.56.

And what entitles you single out a firearm as the cause of ineffectiveness in combat, rather than the fact that you are comparing whites to niggers, since niggers, sandniggers, and other primitives are the only ones fighting any wars apart from the U.S.? That and the British in the Falklands performed much better fighting real soldiers than you ever did slugging it out with a bunch of subhumans.

Quote:
How about the FAL, most countries that use that don’t do worth a squat in combat situations.
I can point out the differences in combat casualties for major battles of SADF infantry using the FN FAL in Angola, and U.S. infantry using the M16 in Vietnam. In both cases you had white soldiers and their non-white allies engaging non-white paramilitary forces backed by conventional forces, with Soviet funding and equipment, in somewhat comparable environments.

Last edited by Sándor Petőfi; April 12th, 2008 at 11:13 AM.