Originally Posted by SŠndor Petőfi
Yes, that is it. You can throw away all your magazines and articles which deal with tactical issues surrounding choices of weaponry, because the people who write them are too stupid to see the larger picture, namely the picture from the perspective of the person who makes the decisions over the defense budget and the person who manufactures the weaponry: a civilian sitting in government trying to line his pockets, and an executive sitting in his office trying to line his pockets.
That is almost word for word what I tell everyone, what are you doing reading my old posts and throwing my arguments at me? Actually gun magazines will be more with your side than what I am saying. They go for the larger calibers.
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.
The people who write them are not stupid, they are paid what to say. It is like saying a journalist doesnít know the truth, he or she writes what brings in a check.
So tell us how many AR-15ís you have shot. 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. What experience do you actually have aside from some conspiracy website?
Your argument isnít 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. So does ZOG want to spend the money or save the money? You canít make up your mind, it is just one mindless conspiracy after another.
It is a simple equation, more rounds means more firepower. The .223 is a high velocity and very accurate round so it is more than adequate in killing and for aimed shots, well letís just say people donít go shooting gophers at 200 yards at night with .223 rifles for nothing.
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 isnít 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 couldnít do as good here as Americans did over there.
You obviously donít 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. 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. I already showed how soldiers have no experience with guns and need more rounds, you didnít have an answer for that.
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.