I misunderstood you because your English is not good, but no offense meant by that. My mistake - truly. But I think US soldiers cannot take their own weapons to war. I have never seen a US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon in any photograph or video footage. Have you? Can’t say that I have ever seen anyone from any nation doing that, myself.
My brother had an AR-15. But if you mean modified to be fully-automatic, that would be dangerous, since if it were discovered you could go to prison for that. That would not be a smart thing to do.[/quote]
Preatorian mentions a customised AR15. Speaking in gunsmith’s or armourer’s terms this means individual additions or changes to the weapon in order, (generally,) to enhance the accuracy, action, ergonomics, reliability or sighting system.
There is for example a gas piston system which may be applied to the AR15/M16 series which greatly enhances mtb cleaning and therefore it’s reliability.
Changing an AR15 to selective fire specs may be done in a number of ways and may or may not be legal depending on the granting of the necessary permission.
With reference to your not having seen soldiers with weapons other than those generally issued, have you served in any of the the armed forces yourself ?
If you have, it might be due to the unit/job/theatre in which you found yourself.
My selmaked englsh someday can went me in trouble. By the way - that forum - good way for me make my english a bit better.
I just can imgine how hard to read my posts (and especially understanding this posts too) for someone with native english.
I’m sorry for it.
If i’ll get some pictures of soldiers, using non-official weapon - i will share it in this forum.
By the way - one really interesting picture from Afganistan
This weapon belongs to US Mountain infantry captain.
Note - that carbine have new M4 barrel and butt/stock. But have old-early-Vietnam era upper and lower receiver (without bolt forwarder and with border around magazine-button). I guess that receiver from firstly used M16, not even M16A1.
I don’t know any reason of such construction, not any idea…
By the way that picture illustrate modul-based construction of all AR-15 family.
Is in’t not a civilian carbine but not a clear M4 too, and not a Colt Commando…
This picture - a object of great mistery on few weapon-forums…
And i not meand this pic as evidence that US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon. Just interesting picture.
Oh, no… i don’t like fully-auto weapon, by the way.
And not meand any illigal modifications hawe done with friend’s AR-15.
Normal customized AR-15, with scope, customized stock, lazer targetpointer, etc. But still semi-auto only.
Nobody like spend part of life in jail’s cell. Especially for stupid full-auto modification of good semi-auto carbine. Wich reason do that mods ? To blow some poor deer in bloody mess by one full-magazine ceaseless burst ? :lol:
I have already pointed out the basis of your mistaken understanding of the situation about which you post. But so that you will attempt once more to comprehend it, let me reiterate it once more.
The soldiers that Britain has used in it’s military that are foreigners are not naturalized. They are simply foreigners. Britain has had a long history of encouraging and recruiting soldiers from poor third world nations. I am not anti-British, but I, like others, find it dispicable, distasteful, and dishonorable that a nation would use such methods and use those of other less industrialized nations to put their lives on the line in warfare for a nation that has not and will not offer them citizenship and living space in exchange.
As for foreigners in the US military, you have not comprehended what I have said on that matter either, so I reiterate that once more as well. Those soldiers that you point to are a world apart from those that Britain employs, and the differences are so great as to make the situation completely incomparable:
Those persons have imigrated to the United States by thier own doing, have applied for citizenship in the US by their own choice, and were not recruited in some foreign land to serve in the US military. They came to the US and asked to be an American citizen as well as an American soldier. The United States does not recuite foreigners from other countries to serve in it’s military.
Now, I can only assume that you carefully read once more my simply stated explaination of these two completely different situations, and I can only therefore assume that you comprehend it. If you do not understand after reading the above, then you are either in greater need of help than I can provide to assist you in your reading comprehension, or you are so bullheaded that despite the simplicity of the statements, you will refuse to the end to see the remarkable difference between the them.
[/quote]
It “squares” because for 99.99% of the citizens of the US it will remain illegal to posess a fully automatic weapon. When you understand why virtually none will ever be allowed to posess one, you will have answered your own question without the need to pick at word choices or blather about them, and you will have done so without my help.
…yet his statement inplied otherwise. To almost anyone reading it, it is assumed that the modification would be to make the weapon fully-automatic.
May? May not? Possibly? :lol:
You debate with someone based on how something “may or may not” be? You don’t know, and you want to bicker about what you don’t know? Holy smoking guano Batboy!
As for me, I have always heard all of my life that it is illegal in the US to modify a weapon and make it fully-automatic. Have your heard all of your that it may or may not be? I doubt seriously that there is such thing as “permission to modify a weapon to make it automatic”, only permission to purchase or sell a weapon that IS automatic made before 1987, which itself is most exceedingly difficult to obtain because of very special circumstances and qualifications which must be met.
The US military issues weapons so soldiers. Why would you be so interested to know if US soldiers can use their own weapons in war? Show me where any soldier in any military in an industrialized nation is able to use personal firearms as their main weapon, then you will have your own answer without griping at me for not providing what you have admitted that you do not know. :lol: If you are so inclined, ask a US military officer or email the US Army at www.goarmy.com.
Let me help you since you need it:
A soldier carrying a fully automatic weapon in his car on the way to a base would be breaking the law.
A soldier carrying a fully auto weapon from the base to his home would be breaking the law.
A soldier in posession of a fully auto weapon in his home would be breaking the law.
It’s ok my friend. It was my mistake for not understanding, you speak English pretty well overall.
It is curious. I am inclined to believe it is simply the use of different parts still in stock to produce the weapon more than I am to believe that it was modified by a soldier. Perhaps they are allowed to modify weapons with permission from their commanding officer if it would suit their purpose in combat situations.
I have had friends in the US military, and they were required to leave their weapons on the base when they took leave. I just know that they cannot take them home or to the base.
I think that you will find that certainly Gurkhas are allowed to become British citizens after serving a minimum term of service (I believe 4 years off the top of my head). Most Commonwealth citizens can live here anyway.
It does sound however as though you are anti-British. Never mind, to paraphrase someone far wiser than I, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make yourself look like a fool.”
Please do not call me a fool. You are not wise enough (eh… isn’t that what you said?) or old enough or sinless enough to call anyone a fool.
Nope, not anti-British at all. If it were any other nation using such trashy tactics I’d dislike that too. I can only assume that since you are defending such a dispicable practice, you must aprove of it.
You mean to say that you THINK that they may be allowed to become British citizens and to move to Britain AFTER serving for 4 YEARS in the British military, during which time they will be sent by Britain into battle before any British citizen is (OMG), having been actively recruited in a foreign country to serve in Britain’s military and sent in as front line troops whenever a British war comes about? How gracious of the Brits! Wow! Then maybe they can get British health care to help them with the dissabilities they received fighting in Britain’s army as front-line troops! What a killer deal that is!
Any nation doing such as that should be ashamed of it, and I would say that if it were the US or any nation on Earth.
They were not British citizens when recruited.
They are not even living in Britain when they are recruited.
They were actively recruited in a foreign country.
They are sent in as front-line troops whenever war comes about.
They cannot become a british citizen until after serving in britain’s military for 4 years?
That is truly sad. The dream of a better life and glory are a powerful motivators, and it seems that Britain is clearly taking advantage of it.
You are indeed right, and what is more is that each and every one of the Gurkhas recruited is aware of that when they themselves trek up to 500 miles to be recruited. It is there choice, and even soldiers that are British will serve for four years and maybe die.
A dead soldier will not collect a pension or health care regardless of whether he was born a British citizen or not. All soldiers take their risks themselves/ Gurkhas are not tricked into serving for our military.
The recruitment rate at times has been up to over 450 applicants for each place, Gurkhas wish to fight, (their reasons are their own) within HM forces. do not begin to suggest we abduct them and make them fight, they are as aware of the risks of high velocity lead as the guys that sign up in their career offices in the UK.
What sense is it to state that a man of the volition to fight and die for a cause must only ever fight for the country he is born in. THe International brigade in the SPanish civil war opposed Franco, would you have accused them of stupiduty and blind faith?
The Gurkhas are at present fighting in the Middle East for the coalition of the willing, should they not fight because OBL and Al Quaeda does not directly threaten Nepal?
Of a man wishes to pick up arms and fight and if they wish to fight alongside men of another nation in a common cause, if htye are not decieved over their chances of survival (as all men regardless of race are aware of the dangers of war) Why should we refuse to allow them to fight alongside our causcasian soldiers?
The Gurkhas had contemptfor the British forces, and the East India Trading Company, we earnt their respect through our courage, they could easily have decimated our forces in their native lands, but chose not to because they recognised a warrior spirit in the British soldiers. It would be disrespectful to then turn them away and not allow them the opportunity to serve with us. They chose not to massacre the British becasue they respect us, how disrespectful is it of us following such graciousness to turn to them and say “thanks for saving our skins but we can take it from here.”
It “squares” because for 99.99% of the citizens of the US it will remain illegal to posess a fully automatic weapon. When you understand why virtually none will ever be allowed to posess one, you will have answered your own question without the need to pick at word choices or blather about them, and you will have done so without my help.
[/quote]
If you’d have read both of your statements in my post you quoted you would see how they are mutually exclusive.
In the first you are either saying that it is a good thing they are not illegal, or that it is a good thing that the confusion has been cleared up and therefore my statement was correct - ie that they are not illegal. Either way the result is the same.
In the second you clearly state that they are illegal.
I will reproduce the post I made once again for clarity - this time in full:
That’s me foxed then - how does that square away with the statement below ?
[/quote]
It looks more obvious now, doesn’t it ?
As to ‘picking at word choices,’ if statements about legality are going to be made then the words chosen should leave no room for misunderstanding. Please tell me how that is foolish or nonsensical.
…yet his statement inplied otherwise. To almost anyone reading it, it is assumed that the modification would be to make the weapon fully-automatic.[/quote]
No, perhaps you assumed that it meant modification to full auto, (or even the more likely selective fire,) because you have this bee in your bonnet about Preatorian’s comments, but that in no way makes it read that way to ‘almost anyone.’
Preatorian’s conversational English may not be up to your high standards, but his technical expertise when it comes to hardware is very good and he does tend to use the correct word for specific items or actions.
It is clear to anyone who understands a modicum about wpns what he meant.
As you obviously count yourself amongst the cognoscenti I can only assume that you deliberately took a different view.
May? May not? Possibly? :lol:
I have always heard all of my life that it is illegal in the US to modify a weapon and make it fully-automatic. Have your heard all of your that it may or may not be? I doubt seriously that there is such thing as “permission to modify a weapon to make it automatic”, only permission to purchase or sell a weapon that IS automatic made before 1987, which itself is most exceedingly difficult to obtain because of very special circumstances and qualifications which must be met.[/quote]
‘I have heard’ and ‘I seriously doubt’ are not good bases for arguing your point.
Had you said that in the beginning and then someone had put you right that’s one thing, but using it as an excuse for a previously asserted position is, to say the very least, weak.
You would do better applying to the relevant authorities for a copy of the primary legislation which covers this, then you will be able to give your statements a firm grounding.
I grew up with firearms around, and have used them at work all my adult life, both in and out of uniform. As such I have a certain amount of experience and knowledge of the laws pertaining to them.
I am always willing to assist people in firearms related matters to whatever extent I can, but I never countenance spoon-feeding.
The US military issues weapons so soldiers. Why would you be so interested to know if US soldiers can use their own weapons in war? Show me where any soldier in any military in an industrialized nation is able to use personal firearms as their main weapon, then you will have your own answer without griping at me for not providing what you have admitted that you do not know. :lol: If you are so inclined, ask a US military officer or email the US Army at www.goarmy.com.[/quote]
I notice that you avoided my question; have you served in the armed forces ?
Why would I be interested to know if they may use private weapons ? because I am a soldier, that’s why. But as I already knew the answer I the question is redundant.
By the way if I take it that by gripe you mean complaint, then that did not occur.
No, I don’t need to think about it.
You are making very specific statements on the legality of unspecified actions.
In each case it would depend on the ownership of the weapon, whether or not the soldier was on duty and what that particular duty was.
I see no reason why you need to assume an air of arrogance in your posts, viz. ‘Let me help you since you need it’ and ‘Still thinking about it?’
It may be that you find it amusing or that you feel it lends you a crutch for your posts, regardless it is neither warranted nor appreciated.
Please do not call me a fool. You are not wise enough (eh… isn’t that what you said?) or old enough or sinless enough to call anyone a fool.
Nope, not anti-British at all. If it were any other nation using such trashy tactics I’d dislike that too. I can only assume that since you are defending such a dispicable practice, you must aprove of it.
You mean to say that you THINK that they may be allowed to become British citizens and to move to Britain AFTER serving for 4 YEARS in the British military, during which time they will be sent by Britain into battle before any British citizen is (OMG), having been actively recruited in a foreign country to serve in Britain’s military and sent in as front line troops whenever a British war comes about? How gracious of the Brits! Wow! Then maybe they can get British health care to help them with the dissabilities they received fighting in Britain’s army as front-line troops! What a killer deal that is!
Any nation doing such as that should be ashamed of it, and I would say that if it were the US or any nation on Earth.
They were not British citizens when recruited.
They are not even living in Britain when they are recruited.
They were actively recruited in a foreign country.
They are sent in as front-line troops whenever war comes about.
They cannot become a british citizen until after serving in britain’s military for 4 years?
That is truly sad. The dream of a better life and glory are a powerful motivators, and it seems that Britain is clearly taking advantage of it.[/quote]
For a start, I did not call you a fool, I merely said you that I would defend your right to make yourself look a fool. I was wrong to say that, however, you are a fool.
Secondly, how old/sinless do I need to be to state my opinion of someone who is clearly ill-informed and impervious to reasoned argument?
What I meant to say was actually what I said. Without actually checking the Terms and Conditions of Service for Gurkhas, I was unwilling to state as fact the exact citizenship conditions. I like to check that the things that I state in any public forum are as correct as I can make them. I do know that they are allowed citizenship, but I was not entirely certain of how many years service entitles them to have this at the present time.
I do not think this is a “dispicable” (sic) practice. I think that if you were to ask any Gurkha, they would also tell you that they have immense pride in being privileged to serve in the British Army, and even happier to be allowed to stay here after service. I don’t think 4 years minimum service is excessive, in fact, British recruits have to serve a minimum of 4 years 3 months anyway. How is that unfair? Would it be fairer for them to serve a month, drop out of training and then be given citizenship? Get real.
As to healthcare, any soldier in the British Army, Gurkha or not, gets a standard of healthcare that is at least equal, if not superior, to that enjoyed by the wider population. Certainly when it comes to dental care and treatment it is massively superior. Also the rehabilitation of injuries is very good.
Almost all of your other questions have, I think, been answered by Cuts or Bluffcove. There is one that rankles a little. Gurkhas are not necessarily sent out as front line troops. They are also very good engineers, signallers etc. There are even Gurkha musicians!
Please realise that the British have a long history of non-native troops. Whether you like it or not, people have wanted to join our army whether born in Britain or not. It is not despicable, it is actually IMO something to be proud of.
No, it’s just that your reading comprehension is poor. That’s why you are confused about it.
…yet his statement inplied otherwise. To almost anyone reading it, it is assumed that the modification would be to make the weapon fully-automatic.[/quote]
No, it’s just that your reading comprehension is poor. It was clearly worded for one assume that since we were discussing automatic weapons and he posted a picture of a semi-automatic weapon, the modification in question is assumed to be one that makes the weapon fully automatic. He only worded it that way because, as intelligent as he is, his English is not so good, because he is from Russia.
Not at all. My indescriminate proposal was founded in the assumtion that while yet to be assertained, the commodity of certainty is not commonly afforded to that which has basis in opinion, and since unredeeming opinion has been offered by you through either neglegence or ommision, despite prejudicial acclaim of unstated fact, the discresion to render opinion as fact remains, therefore, acceptible, and thereby acceptibly unarguable!
However, why don’t you quote the US legal code that proves that it is legal to carry a fully automatic weapon around in your car to and from a military base? Then you will have a slightly better reason to complain that someone to states that it is their opinion that it is not legal to do so. Other than that, you could simply offer something more pertinent to say, aside from griping that someone has stated an opinion that you have yet to offer prove is faulty!
I grew up with firearms too and i won several, but WTF does that have to do with the fact that you are asking for asnwers to questions, then griping at people when they offer thier opinion of what the answer is? If you have so much knowledge of the laws conserning guns as that, why do you imply that it is legal to carry an automatic weapon around with you in your car by supporting an argument against someone’s opinion that it is not? LMAO How ludicrous!
You are a soldier, yet you are asking us if it is allowed by the US military that soldiers may use private weapons in warfare, then you are bickering that someone stated an opinion that it is not legal for a soldier to carry an automatic weapon in their vehicle to and from their base?
And you say you already knew the answer. *condescending look * tisk tisk Geepers young man. You don’t expect anyone to believe that now, do ya?
You’re having trouble following what’s going on I see. Here’s a recap for you: You bickered when I said it would be illegal for a soldier to carry an automatic weapon to and from base, as though it were legal. Now you say you are a soldier but don’t know if it’s legal. Now you say my opinion is about “unspecified actions” that depend on ownership or duty. looking around Are you lost? Who in TF is on duty when they are driving to the base to report for duty?
So, being a soldier, you should know if it’s legal to carry an automatic weapon around or not (we can safely assume that we are talking about a current, US military issued weapon), yet you are griping that someone says they don’t think it’s legal, and that it might depend on if they are on duty (we can assume they are not since they are reporting to duty or on relief of duty).
My goodnes boy! You need to just give up on debating, period. You don’t even know we’re talking about, much less yourself! You only want to bicker uselessly.
BTW, Mr. Soldier, have you ever seen a US servicemen driving around with automatic weapons on them? Ever seen a soldier in his car with an ssult rifle on the back seat? Do any of your soldier buds do that? It is my OPINION that you wou8ld answer those questions with a sheepichly moaned, “No.”
Yea, he seems pissed doesn’t he? He’s bickering about someone stating an opinion that he has offered no evidence is faulty. And you, well, you are doing what you like most.
Yea, he seems pissed doesn’t he? He’s bickering about someone stating an opinion that he has offered no evidence is faulty. And you, well, you are doing what you like most. [/quote]
Are you talking about me?
Did I quote you? No. So there you have it. But below I do.
You got that right brother. They’ve been at it a long time. They have been recruiting foreigners to go into battle ahead of Brits a long, long time now. Britain is the only nation that I know of that has a history of doing such a thing. Hell, they even used the Irish to fight the Scots for them centuries ago, and that scenario has been repeated by them time and time again, right to this day. Back then however, they used to do it with lies about all the power and land and positions of authority they would be given by the king if they foaught England’s enemies for them. Ofcourse, they never made good on most of those lies, and usually persecuted them for expecting to get what they were promissed.
There might be another nation that has a history of doing such, but I don’t know of it personally.
You got that right brother. They’ve been at it a long time. They have been recruiting foreigners to go into battle ahead of Brittains a long, long time now. Britain is the only nation that I know of that has a history of doing such a thing. There might be another, but I don’t know of it personally.[/quote]
Bay of Pigs anyone? Yes, Britain has a very long history of non-British troops (Kings German Legion in the peninsular war springs to mind as an early example). Prove to me why this is a bad thing when they are volunteers and enter into service because they want to rather than any other reason. They have never been mercenaries, they have always been part of the army.
Ahead of the army? Get your facts straight first pal, and then we’ll talk.
Did I quote you? No. So there you have it. But below I do.
[/quote]
Who were you talking about then? I was the last poster before South African Military. Therefore, it is not too much of an assumption that you were referring to me.
