My cold dead hands...

[Fat Old Guy]

A young acquaintence joined the Marine Corps about four or five years ago and has served in Iraq. Before the mess started in Iraq, he was planning to get out and told me the reason was a lack of support. He was a granadier but had only fired three live grenades the past year. No money for training ammo. He also told me they didn't have enough live rifle ammo to practice marksmanship. Ironically, millions of rounds of "old, expired ammo" are destroyed every year. I guess that when it hits its expiration date, it can't even be used for practice.

 

 

[Adrianvs]

The military can be really picky about their ammunition. I recall watching a program showing how the Army (I think) builds each cartridge individually. They buy the parts in bulk and then customize them to their specifications. Each cartridge is then weighed and otherwise inspected by hand. I had no idea..

[Bob White]

Rob asked,

 

"why did Hitler not take Switzerland?

If you think it was due to the swiss army you are mistaken. The Germans needed Switzerland and other neutral countries as money launderers. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/6_35/53460433/p2/article.jhtml?term=

 

"He took Poland, he took Czechoslovakia, he took France and their Maginot Line!"

They were not neutral, They didn't like him. Hitler had more use for them as conquered realestate and assets, than as neighbors.

 

"Yes, I do think that having the most powerful, most advanced, military force in the world is PART of "being prepared"

I'm glad you see that. Now, answer this question. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all important" to 10 being "really reall really important".

How big a part does the US military (including National Guard and Reserves) play in "being prepared"?

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fat Old Guy]

" I recall watching a program showing how the Army (I think) builds each cartridge individually."

 

That would probably be the Army Marksmanship Unit, a group of cracker jack shots that kick butt in shooting competitions around the world. Regular issue ammo is cranked out by the gazillions.

 

Military ammo has a practical shelf life of 50 or 60 years or even longer. However, when you're going in harm's way, you don't want to find out that you have the 1% of the ammo that has gone bad so you replace your ammo on a regular basis but there is no reason that the "expired" ammo cannot be used for training purposes.

[RobK]

Money laundering doesn't explain the past several centuries of Swiss freedom from invasion. In fact, I would think the banks would make it a very desirable possesion.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all important" to 10 being "really reall really important" [h]ow big a part does the US military (including National Guard and Reserves) play in "being prepared"?

 

Bob, you're implying a false dichotomy. On a scale of one to ten, how important is the front wheel of a motorcycle to being able to ride it?

 

How long would a beseiged city stand if no one inside were armed and all it had to protect it were it's walls? Which is safer from attack, an unwalled encampment with everyone well armed and ready to fight, or a walled city with no arms inside?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I travel a bit in my non-scouting career, I can say I have been to Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Seatle and a whole bunch more, unless my vision is really really really bad, I havent seen any walled cities in the US.

 

Now the Alamo in San Antonio (Love the riverwalk) probably comes as close to a walled city as I have seen as long as you discount Disenyworld, Six Flags, etc.

[Fat Old Guy]

" I havent seen any walled cities in the US."

 

That's because we have citizens with guns.

[Bob White]

Sorry Robk, but I believe you have the wrong idea of a false dichotomy. A Dichotomy offers only two choices. A false dichotome demands a decision between two choices implying that they are the only ones to choose from.

 

I offered neither a dichotomy or a false one. I asked for a measurement, a rating, of how important a role you believed the organized military of the US played in "being prepared".

 

Without going into a long history debate which a forum such as this does not lebd itself to, my point was that while there are some good reasons to be raised for gun ownership by citizens, national defense is not one of them. At another time in history perhaps, in other countries less advanced, certainly. The argument that "ah you never know things may change" is weaker still.

 

Let's keep gun ownership and it's uses in perspective.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[RobK]

OGE, that's called an analogy.

 

OK Bob, perhaps "false dichotomy" is the wrong label, but you implied a relative importance to preparedness between a stong standing army and an armed populace, ie being prepared is 87% big army, and 13% armed populace.

 

"Barbarians at our gates! At another time in history perhaps, in other countries less advanced, certainly" said the one Roman to the next as they went merrily on their way to the Circus Maximus, happily munching their bread. History, Bob. It happened; learn from it.

[Fat Old Guy]

"At another time in history perhaps, in other countries less advanced, certainly."

 

State of advancement is all relative and is no guarantee. The Roman Army was the most advanced of its time. In the 1770s, the British Army was the most advanced of its time. In the 1980s, the Soviet Army was pretty advanced but was sent packing by a bunch of primitive Afghans. The US suffered some pretty severe damage from a handfull of unadvanced people about 2 1/2 years ago doing much to have prevented that attack. Neither did armed citizens but, you and yours, have long worked to keep armed citizens from being allowed to protect themselves.

 

 

[Bob White]

You don't think it was history that helped design today's military?

 

You don't think it was history that helped to form modern day military tactics.

 

Isn't it history that developed our current expertise in military logistics.

 

History also teaches us that the Roman army was not defeated due to the lack of personal arms in the homes of the Roman citizens.

 

I don't see this as a matter of not learning from history but of being aware of what was actually learned. What we learned was the importance of a trained, prepared, organized military. Without counting a single non-military gun owner the US has undisputedly the best military in world history.

 

You want a gun for personal protection, hunting, target shooting, collecting I can see an argument for all of those. But to say you need it to protect our country from the invading Huns is not an argument that has any logical basis, only pure emotion.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter]

I have mostly just watched this discussion bounce back and forth between Bob and others, so at the risk of anything "freezing over" (or maybe just a bit of floating ice in this case), I'll just say this:

 

I agree with Bob. I think a little moderation and rationality is all he is looking for, and all I look for when I discuss gun control with people who talk about "my cold dead hands." I seldom find it. Wanting to have a gun for protection is one thing, but I hope people don't kid themselves into thinking that the protection is total, or that it is a risk-free proportion. More recently the thread has veered off into some of the more "philosophical" aspects of the "cold dead hands" ideology, such as it being necessary for Granny to have her Glock or 22 in order to fend off the invading Soviets. Or something. I agree with Bob about that too. (Oops, I see a pretty solid sheet of ice there now...)

 

 

[Adrianvs]

Haven't you read Dante? Hell has been frozen over for millennia.

[Fat Old Guy]

"History also teaches us that the Roman army was not defeated due to the lack of personal arms in the homes of the Roman citizens."

 

We're not talking about the Roman army, are we?

[Fat Old Guy]

"I agree with Bob. I think a little moderation and rationality is all he is looking for"

 

The problem is that you have no idea what a little moderation is. You and your lot snivel about "reasonable controls" but yet you cannot express what those are and if you do get something, you want more. You have no idea what moderation is because you have no idea of what the existing laws regarding guns are.