Manzanar

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#81

You blundered. All of those sources compare the M1 Carbine to the modern standards for assault rifles. The M1 Carbine is a WWII era weapon. It is not a modern weapon. It was designed prior to WWII.

Do you see your blunder? Let’s hope so.[/quote]

The definition is absolute and not time dependent! It’s not like the definition of a sports car (as you claimed earlier) - it is a defined entity, and the definition has not changed from the Stg.44 (which invented the term) to the present day. There is, as you have said, 1 pre-WW2 wpn that fits the description (Federov Avtomat), and then the MP43 in WW2, so your claim that there was nothing to compare it to is false. It is unique, and it fits in its own category, not in the category of assault rifles. If your claim was true, then the Mauser C96 with shoulder stock, the Artilliery Luger with shoulder stock and Bergmann MP18 (it’s rifled & fires hot 9mm Para loads) should be considered “assault rifles” in WW1 because of the way they were used!

If I blundered, then you are the only person in the whole wide world that didn’t, since you are the only person I know of who is claiming this! How come you are so “enlightened” as to think that you can go against all accepted wisdom?

If you back yourself up with some respected sources, then I will change my opinion, as will all the others here. If you can’t and are a gentleman, you should concede defeat. Over to you.

#82

Was the Baker rifle an assault rifle? It was a rifle, it was used in assaulting the enemy, therefore it must be an assault rifle!

#83

Just to re-iterate : Find me some sources that don’t compare it to “modern standards” (i.e. conventional wisdom) to back up your position, otherwise it is untenable. At the moment, all we’ve got is your personal (and rather ill-considered) opinion to go on, standing against the might of some people who have done some real research and have some real personal experience.

#84

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.
[/quote]

I correct us both:

They said it was legal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a car, and the discussion was about carrying weapons in the US, not in Britain.

As for Alaska…

a non-concealed weapon is legal for carry without a permit. The reaon is because there is a very real problem with bears attacking citizens there, and people who go walking at the edge of town may be placing themselves at risk.

“Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes”

http://crime.about.com/od/guns/f/gunlaw_ak.htm

As for Vermont:

“It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway.”

So um, it is illegal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a motor vehicle without a permit in either state. Sorry, but you are incorrect my friend.

#85

Something, is preventing me from posting that question for the 24th time, and it is on the server.

You know what the question is please answer it

#86

It has been interesting to see the ‘information’ upon which the resident ‘expert’ on all things military bases his posts.
Enlightening too, has been the way in which he seems to assume that by ignoring the questions they will go away.

For a very short time I had hoped that he would be prepared to be educated by those that actually know better, but his arrogance has rapidly shown me it was indeed a folorn hope.

I can now sit back in comfort and laugh at the utter piffle he posts.
I can’t even look at the title of the Jet Engine thread without a broad grin breaking out across my boat !

Chill gentlemen all these posts come from someone who, although alleging to have grown up around weapons, claimed a mere thirty-one days ago that the M1 has a spring operated action !

In those thirty-one days he has suddenly become an expert !

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

#87

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.
[/quote]

I correct us both:

They said it was legal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a car, and the discussion was about carrying weapons in the US, not in Britain.

As for Alaska…

a non-concealed weapon is legal for carry without a permit. The reaon is because there is a very real problem with bears attacking citizens there, and people who go walking at the edge of town may be placing themselves at risk.

“Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes”

http://crime.about.com/od/guns/f/gunlaw_ak.htm

As for Vermont:

“It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway.”

So um, it is illegal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a motor vehicle without a permit in either state. Sorry, but you are incorrect my friend.[/quote]

No, I did not say anything about certain state laws. As for the concealed weapon question, it was quite clear from the responses you got that people were talking about British soldiers in the UK so you are incorrect.

By the way, I am not your friend you patronising bastard.

#88

Ironman Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:11 am
Best LMG Thread
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above.

#89

Yup! Sure did! I thought it was.

#90

Tittyboy,

…er, sorry, you called me a tard.

Tubbyboy,
the conversation was about carrying automatic weapons, it was about the US, and you are delightfully, incorrect… still.

Alaska and Vermont? :lol:

#91

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: US Army and full-auto fire

None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters

Whilst we are discussing honesty, do you want to retract your accuracy at 500 metre comments seeing as the guy that posted this disagrees with you!

.

I don’t think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do

That comment was aimed at Pretorian, who served with the Warsaw Pact nations from what I understand - incidentally those “professional militaries” are stood in front of you at the moment, do you now “have better knowledge”

:smiley:

#92

…and I have also posted several times, though you forget, that it is my opinion that the M1 Carbine, since it fits the role and all chsracteristics opf assault rifles (circa WWII) except selective fire, that it is an assault rifle WHEN USED FOR THAT ROLE.

Get your info right first.

#93

Tittyboy,

…er, sorry, you called me a tard.

Tubbyboy,
the conversation was about carrying automatic weapons, it was about the US, and you are delightfully, incorrect… still.

Alaska and Vermont? :lol:[/quote]

What about Alaska and Vermont? Quote to me the post where I mention them.

Can’t? That is because I have never mentioned them. Retard.

The point about soldiers carrying concealed weapons was made about the UK. This was specified at the time. Just because you struggle to understand the written word doesn’t mean that everyone else is wrong.

Please do as I suggested earlier and put yourself out of our misery.

#94

Your info re. alaska is out of date:

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/alaska

HB 102, took effect June 11, 2003 and changes Alaska Statute 11.61.220 to allow anyone who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit if 21 years of age or older. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may still obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states or want to continue to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms. The effective date of this law change is September 9th, 2003. For more information contact the Permits & Licensing Unit at 907 269-0392

#95

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: US Army and full-auto fire

None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters

Whilst we are discussing honesty, do you want to retract your accuracy at 500 metre comments seeing as the guy that posted this disagrees with you!

I don’t think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do

That comment was aimed at Pretorian, who served with the Warsaw Pact nations from what I understand - incidentally those “professional militaries” are stood in front of you at the moment, do you now “have better knowledge”

#96

Nopers. It was the US. We were discussing automatic weapons in the US, someone made the claim you could carry a loaded auto in the back seat of a car concealed in the US, that they could go rent an auto in Nevada (implying that they could then leave the premisis with it on a rental) and the conversation turned to a tale about 2 soldiers in the US being taken out by a cop.

Bad memory or…

…bad upbringing?

#97

Yup! Sure did! I thought it was.[/quote]

What? You were wrong? You thought that it was operated by something called a “spring operated action”, something which does not exist? You got something so fundamentally wrong about a wpn which you profess to be an expert abuot? Perhaps you might be wrong about other some things to! Perhaps you might have invented your own unique definition of “assault rifle” which is in different to the accepted term, just like you invented “spring operated”?

If you google for “spring operated action” in quotes, your post comes up first. Who’s misinforming who?

#98

…and I have also posted several times, though you forget, that it is my opinion that the M1 Carbine, since it fits the role and all chsracteristics opf assault rifles (circa WWII) except selective fire, that it is an assault rifle WHEN USED FOR THAT ROLE.

Get your info right first.[/quote]

You’ve also posted several times, that the British Army send Gurkhas into battle “ahead of white troops”, without once backing up your statement with a shred of evidence.
Such evidence will be hard to come by, since the statements are rubbish.
Get your info right first.

#99

Some here are misinforming the young and impressionable with bogus claims and false information (Alaska? Vermont?), and that includes you, my friend.

#100

No, Shatzer said that, then it was proven true by British members who said “Yea??? So what!!!” (and other things about the Gurkas going in first). I simply stated my opinion of how (to use the same word I used the 1st time I reacted to it) “cheezy” that is.