What European nation, and America as well, has not had soldiers of another nation fighting for their side in a war?
We were talking about foreigners being actively recuited in their home country by Britain to fight on front lines in place of Brits. The basis of what is dispicable about it is that these Gurkas, like the Irish centuries before, and others, were a very poor people, and Britain went to their home land and offered them the job of getting killed so an Englishman would not have to. To me, and I am sure countless others, such a practice is dispicable.
Now, it might be different if a bunch of foreigners whoâs country had not been actively recruited in years past, and who were not dirt stinking poor, came to britain and said that they wanted to serve in Britainâs army. Do you not see the difference?
Itâs the mentality of it all. Itâs the whole âLetâs go to that dirt poor nation and get some poor schmucks who bathe once a month, train them to fight, put guns in their hands, and send them in first! That should save a few hundred or thousand Englishmen. Hey, I think we can get some from India too, but we have to take over their country and occupy it to do that first. No problem though.â
It just gives people a bad taste in their mouth. I am not slighting the Gurkas whatsoever. I think they are noble and I am sure they have faught honorably and well, and probably for good causes too. I imagine they are excellent soldiers. But then, that is not the point.
I really donât want to discuss this subject anymore. You know my oppinion of it.
As for the Matter of the Gurkas, why do we have to have this argument again? They are not forced to fight they are volenteering, and the British Government now, does not try and force other people to fight for them and to put them in the front lines.
No, itâs just that your reading comprehension is poor. Thatâs why you are confused about it. [/quote]
No old son, I am not confused, nor is my comprehension poor.
No sh*t. Itâs a good thing.
[/quote]
There you clearly agreed that it was a good thing that owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Unless of course English is not your first language, in which case I shall make allowances for you.
âŚyet 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, itâs 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.[/quote]
Preatorianâs post about the AR15 customisation was at 07:52 hrs.
Your response about the full auto modification was at 08:34 hrs. After that, at 10:15 hrs, he posted the picture of an M16 which is a selective fire weapon, not semi-auto.
Your claim of being influenced by the picture is untrue.
Once again you seem to think that âcustomisedâ means by a full auto conversion, is English really your first language ?
Secondly you keep mentioning fully automatic, I find this strange given the knowledge of weapons that you profess.
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![/quote]
Despite this rather nicely worded paragraph, it still does not alter the fact that you are using hearsay and guesswork rather than actual âhands-onâ experience for your argument.
(Clever touch though, or it would have been had it not differed so strongly from your usual style of posting that it would be asking to stretch the credulity of anyone reading it too much to pretend you didnât have assistance with it.)
I mentioned earlier that you could obtain the necessary information from the authorities concerned, you could also try your local library.
I also mentioned that the spoon-feeding of information was not a concept to which I subscribed, we require our lads to be able to think for themselves.
However soldiers may use private vehicles, including their own, for operations or exercises in which an overt military presence is inadvisable, that would be one case in which they would be driving to or from a military base with selective fire, or in rare cases full auto, weapons.
But then if you had served in the armed forces anywhere in the world you would know this wouldnât you.
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 someoneâs opinion that it is not? LMAO How ludicrous![/quote]
How did I support your argument that it was ?
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 donât expect anyone to believe that now, do ya?[/quote]
Would you be so kind as to point out just where I asked this question prior to your inference that I had, which you posted at 16:52 hrs on Sat 07 May 05 ?
Youâre having trouble following whatâs going on I see. Hereâs 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 donât know if itâs legal. Now you say my opinion is about âunspecified actionsâ 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?[/quote]
It is not I who has the problem understanding this.
On the question of ownership, should a serving soldier hold a permit for a selective or full auto weapon, then he or she is perfectly entitled to have it at home or other designated place of security.
If permission to bring it onto the camp or base has been granted by the Commander of that establishment, (some have differing Standing Orders,) then no crime would be committed there either.
In regard to duty, we are paid all the time, we do not clock on and off as civilians.
Leave can be, and has been, rescinded for duty as circumstances dictate.
If, as I noted earlier, a particular Op or Ex requires a lower profile then driving in civilian vehicles will be part of that.
You have now seen that your argument is fallacious and revert to arrogance, crack on if that pleases you, you merely prove Tubbyboy correct.
Yes.
Only if covered from view, otherwise they are within reach.
On occasion, and generally on Ex or Ops.
Tough, youâre disappointed. Live with it, lifeâs like that.
Well Iâve answered IRONMANâs points and questions.
Will he answer, in a clear and coherent manner, mine ?
I can always live in hope.
However IRONMAN, on re-reading your post I must sadly come to the conclusion that Tubbyboy is correct in his statement - you really are a fool.
But it gets worse than that.
Your knowledge of the way the armed forces works illuminates the fact that you have not served, despite this you offer âinformationâ on weapons and tactics with no experience of them.
Where does this come from ? Frequent use of Google or just computer games ?
You denigrate the actions and insult the intelligence of men who have been there and done that which you can only manage in your dreams.
Young man, you are truly lost in your efforts to support the bullhocky you spout. The liscence would not allow a soldier to have in their posession a military weapon issued by the US military at home - because the weapon would not have been manufactured prior to 1987 or purchased from a Class III weapons dealer!!! That is the US law my boy!
You are so full of crap. With every post you make, you make yourself more clearly a full-of-crap wannabe bullsh*tter. Stop clogging up the thread with bullcrap lies.
As I have previously explained, a liscence to posess a fully automatic weapon in civilian circumstances (such as when a soldier is at home or not on duty serving the nation) requires the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States himself, that the weapon was manufactured prior to 1987, and that the weapon is purchased from a Class III weapons dealer. The law is clear and explicit. OMG boy. You are so full of crap.
A soldier is not permitted any more than any civilian to have in their posession an automatic weapon at home or about town without the forementioned liscence, and certainly not a US military issued weapon! LMAO. You make it more clear with every post how truly you are an idiot motivated only by a desperate desire to prove yourself right, even if it means trying to do so by making completely false statements.
Obviously, you are a soldier as you claim either. A soldier would know this. You do not, even after reading it. Just more lies. :roll:
And here is the most absurd and idiotic lie you have made yet -
[b]If covered from view? LMFAO You lie so much boy. You truly are an idiot arenât you? In every state in the US posession of a firearm in a vehicle that is not visible is a felony crime! It is a concealed weapon, and that will land you in jail, civilian or not! If the weapon is inside an automobile, it must be on the dashboard or the seat, otherwise it is a concealed weapon and you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, but instead you go directly to jail. If it is not in plain view when an officer of the law aproaches the vehicle, it is considered concealed, and that is a felony! And you say it must be covered to be legal??? OMG Boy.
In fact, in most states, even having a pocket knife in your pocket qualifies as a concealed weapon. That is why some people wear knives in sheaths on their belt - because it is not considered concealed according to the law. LOL[/b]
Can you only imagine -
âIs this the base commanderâs office?â
âYes. How may I help you?â
âSir, this is Seargent So and So of the So and So Sheriffâs Department. I have one of your men in jail here.â
âShit. What did he do?â
âHe was found to be in posession of an M4 Carbine on the back seat of his car. Furthermore, it was concealed with a jacket. Naturally weâŚâ
â$(%&(*&#(!&! Ok, Weâll be down to see you ASAP. Thank you for calling to tell me.â
âYes Sir, youâre welcome.â
LMAO!!!
Boy, you are full of lies and wannabe crap. You have no idea what you are talking about, you are not a soldier, you lie, youâre wannabe, and youâre an idiot as well.
Go play kiddo. Get back to your Captain Whamoâs Power Puffs and let the grown-ups discuss these matters. :lol:[/quote]
Double post IRONMAN, please delete. And I think you shall be warned about using bad language directly to another person, any way both u and Cuts are getting off topic, I suggest you either stay on topic or make a new topic relating to what you are saying somewhere else.
Young man, you are truly lost in your efforts to support the bullhocky you spout. The liscence would not allow a soldier to have in their posession a military weapon issued by the US military at home - because the weapon would not have been manufactured prior to 1987 or purchased from a Class III weapons dealer!!! That is the US law my boy!
You are so full of crap. With every post you make, you make yourself more clearly a full-of-crap wannabe bullsh*tter. Stop clogging up the thread with bullcrap lies. Go play that crap somewhere else kid.
As I have previously explained, a liscence to posess a fully automatic weapon in civilian circumstances (such as when a soldier is at home or not on duty serving the nation) requires the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States himself, that the weapon was manufactured prior to 1987, and that the weapon is purchased from a Class III weapons dealer. The law is clear and explicit. OMG boy. You are so full of crap.
A soldier is not permitted any more than any civilian to have in their posession an automatic weapon at home or about town without the forementioned liscence, and certainly not a US military issued weapon! LMAO. You make it more clear with every post how truly you are an idiot motivated only by a desperate desire to prove yourself right, even if it means trying to do so by making completely false statements.
Obviously, you are a soldier as you claim either. A soldier would know this. You do not, even after reading it. Just more lies. :roll:
And here is the most absurd and idiotic lie you have made yet -
[b]If covered from view? LMFAO You lie so much boy. You truly are an idiot arenât you? In every state in the US posession of a firearm in a vehicle that is not visible is a felony crime! It is a concealed weapon, and that will land you in jail, civilian or not! If the weapon is inside an automobile, it must be on the dashboard or the seat, otherwise it is a concealed weapon and you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, but instead you go directly to jail. If it is not in plain view when an officer of the law aproaches the vehicle, it is considered concealed, and that is a felony! And you say it must be covered to be legal??? OMG Boy.
In fact, in most states, even having a pocket knife in your pocket qualifies as a concealed weapon. That is why some people wear knives in sheaths on their belt - because it is not considered concealed according to the law. LOL[/b]
Can you only imagine -
âIs this the base commanderâs office?â
âYes. How may I help you?â
âSir, this is Seargent So and So of the So and So Sheriffâs Department. I have one of your men in jail here.â
âShit. What did he do?â
âHe was found to be in posession of an M4 Carbine on the back seat of his car. Furthermore, it was concealed with a jacket. Naturally weâŚâ
â$(%&(*&#(!&! Ok, Weâll be down to see you ASAP. Thank you for calling to tell me.â
âYes Sir, youâre welcome.â
LMAO!!!
Boy, you are full of lies and wannabe crap. You have no idea what you are talking about, you are not a soldier, you lie, youâre wannabe, and youâre an idiot as well.
Go play kiddo. Get back to your Captain Whamoâs Power Puffs and let the grown-ups discuss these matters. :lol:[/quote]
Keep going lads, heâs cracking⌠:twisted:
Ironman, first of all, I have to say you come across as bit of a flid so Iâm going to ask a legitimate question because Iâm a little confused.
If what you say about the possession of fully automatic weapons being illegal is valid, why can I go to Las Vegas, fork over $25 and get my hands on MP5A4s, MP5K PDWs, Uzis, MP40s, Stens, Tommy Guns, Grease guns, M16s, AK47s and an FN Minimis/ M249 SAW and up to 50rds of 9mm or 5.56? I thought the Federal Assault Weapons ban had been repealed and these things were now a matter for state law.
It appears I hoped in vain for a clear and coherent reply.
Yes Ironman, I thought that your argument would degenerate into further insults and profanity. I however can put my point across without swearing or foaming at the mouth.
You have no idea of my age so I can only assume that you mean to try to insult me by calling me boyâ or is that the normal turn of phrase a Redneck uses ?
No matter, I do not need to do that, nor will your insults have any effect, because as we in the military know, words from a WALT are worthless.
You, as a person that has never served, are under the misconception that the armed services are under the same laws regarding weapons while on duty as the rest of the population.
You also suffer from the delusion that the transport of a weapon in any form of container is concealed. No matter.
That I actually do serve is documented and proven, while not here but to a number of people both civilian and military, that view the site. They all have valid points of view, as none of them are blowhards.
What you personally think of me is of no consequence whatsoever, as you are after all just⌠a walt.
Regarding Ironmanâs last comment about cops pulling over squaddies. In the Ft Bragg area a couple of years ago I believe a Sheriffâs deputy at a traffic stop shot and killed two steely-eyed SF types who had weapons in the car because they were on exercise. Apparently the locals werenât told by the snake-eaters the ex was being held.
Imagine a bunch of the Hereford droopy moustache club being topped by a local bobby. A SF blue-on-blue caused by a copper, what a bunch of amateurs. :twisted:
Tragic, my condolencies to the families, friends and colleagues of the two dead men and the police officers involved.
Not a pleasant time for anyone.
One hopes that sort of incident will not occur again, but it just shows how easy a blue-on-blue can occur if even a small part of the jigsaw puzzle is dropped.
Keeping comms with the law enforcement department in the AO is a vital part of ensuring everyone stays alive.
IRONMAN if the British only ever send foreign troops into battle ahead of our own nationals how do you suggest we got our first foreign troops? It would be impossible for a playground bully to co-erce little skivvies to fight for him without first having won a few fights himself.
Im not suggesting that we as a military are playground bullies. but you appear to, (if you disagree with that then I thank you) if however you concur then surely you must appreciate our own troops had to win battles in order to subjugate nations anyway therfore we do risk our own blood first and foremost, and risk no ones blood more than any others.
The Gurkhas;- they asked to be allowed to fight alongside us having seen the bravery of the British in combat. Lieutenant Frederick Young when captured by Gurkhas, was asked âwhy did you not run?â he responded that having been commissioned at age 15 he âdid not come all this way to run off at first sight of the enemyâ it was this spirit that mean before peace treaties had been signed the Gurkhas befriended him and lived with him for two years. Following he cessation of hostilities Young asked to be allowed to recruit a battalion of Gurkhas for the East India Company. 3000 men came forward (a battalion at that time contained 8 companies of 120 men) this was not a forcible recruitment drive, Gurkhas were aware that war was dangerous, they were in their own lands and we were visitors to a large extent, yet they chose to fight beside us.
taken from;- J.Parker THE GURKHAS - better to die than be a coward. HEADLINE. 1988 P.45-46.
It is clear that you dissaprove of the use of foreign nationals within another nations military, I do not intend to show that this is moral nor immoral, it is merely a fact âamoralâ if you will. All I ask is that you concede that America has also used foreign nationals in its military, in revokation of you ealier comment
there are tens of thousands of US soldiers. None of those wearing a US uniform are foreigners. Not one."
it is a simple enough question, I dont want a diatribe I would just like you to answer yes or no, is the above comment correct.
Whilst accusing Cuts and Tubbyboy of being pretend soldiers and wannabeâs may be amusing I would not suggest it. a large proportion of this Forumâs subscribers are aware of their role in the military and it weakens your argument to make assertions that are KNOWN by parts of the forums readership to be false.
In the Falkands the Ghurkas lost 1 dead, (although several wounded) killed not by enemy action, but when his spade hit (it is thought) an unexploded grenade as he filled abandoned Argentinian trenches.
Hardly the casualty record of a unit âsent in to battle ahead of British troops.â
The Ghurkas are not âsent in ahead of British troopsâ, they play their part in battle in exactly the same way as any other fighting unit of the Army of which they are proud to be a valued component.
Nepal was never ruled by the British. Ghurkas have never been coerced into joining the British or erstwhile British Indian Army.
They are a warrior race who choose to fight alongside the best, as allies.
Elswhere, Ironman has stated that the U.S. is not an Imperial Power, since it has neither a King nor Emperor.
I hate to disillusion him, but when the Founding Fathers were deciding the form of their Government, they, being educated men, decided on the method of rule practiced by many ancient Greek city-states.
A King, albeit an elected King, and for a fixed period, is exactly what America has.
The decision to use a different and totally new title was in acknowledgement of the fact that this would not be well understood by the less well educated majority of rebels against the Crown.
A quote has sprung to mind, which while it does not apply to myself, may well be suited to the gentleman mentioned by South African Military earlier.
If I recall it correctly, it goes like this:
Strictly speaking it doesnât quite work, as in this case Iâm completely ambivalent towards his personal views now.
But as they say, if the cap fitsâŚ
:lol:
You can buy fully automatic weapons in Nevada without a permit from the Secretary of the Treasury?
NO. You cannot.
It has been. But just because a weapon is classified as an assult weapon does not mean it is fully automatic, now does it? No, it does not. The AR15 is an assult rifle, but it is not automatic. For that matter, the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle, but it is not automatic either.
Did you not call me a âwaltâ and a fool" more than once prior to my last post? Um⌠yes you did my boy. Donât be a hypocrite. And you are not a soldier as you claimed, else you would know that you cannot carry your automatic weapon concealed in your car when not on duty. If you want to lie and post garbage to fill the threads with arguments, please do it on another forum. Look how much crap has been added to this thread alone because of your lies and the false information you post.
That would have been a trajedy, but I doubt it actually happened. What kind of bizarre circumstances would there be for such a conflict? Hoever, IF it actually did happen, it would appear to have been somehow the mistake of the soldiers, for if they were on excersizes, they would have been in uniform, possibly near a military vehicle and the officer would have been aware that they might have been carrying weapons as he approached the them (or their vehicle?). What could provoke a cop to take down the soldiers? Did they reach for their weapons (like morons) in the presence of a cop? Did they refuse to drop their weapons or point them in the copâs direction after he ordered them to drop thier weapons?
That story does not sound plausible. But then again, if it happened, it is obviously because they reached for or had their weapons in their hands and would not drop them when ordered to do so by the cop. No way did the cop simply see them and start firing without ordering them to drop their weapons, especially if they are in uniform, with military weapons, near a military vehicle. How did the cop encounter suich a situation anyway? BTW, you did not mention if it had been ruled a justifyable shooting and the cop was aquitted or not of any wrong-doing.
That story has so many holes in it that it does not sound a bit believeable. But if it happened, no doubt those soldiers did something to provoke the cop to fire upon them.
However, if it did happen, please post a bonafide media site (newspaper, TV station) so we can read about it. As for the cop taking down 2 soldiers, what would be so hard to believe about that? Do you not realize that cops go through training as well as soldiers? Have you never seen video of cops shooting at silloettes of bad guys that pop up unexpectedly all around in a training facility? As for handguns, Iâd say a cop is more likely to be better at using one than a soldier, myself.
Ignored. I have stated that I will not discuss that subject further. You know my opinion of it.
Ignored. I have stated that I will not discuss that subject further. You know my opinion of it.
Condescension will get you nowhere âmy boyâ. Has it occurred to you that he may not be a US soldier? Other countries do have armies you know. I can say that, if he is talking about the British Army, he is quite correct. In certain circumstances, weapons can be carried within seemingly non-military vehicles with the occupants wearing non-military kit. Donât forget that we have been fighting one of the longest counter-insurgency campaigns going, so there have been times and places for soldiers like Cuts and others around here to have travelled armed but incognito.
Back to you, have you ever served in the military? You seem to avoid answering that oneâŚ
No my boy, it does not occur to me, for after so much blather, if he were a soldier, he would have ALREADY stated what service he were in. If he does so only now after such lengthly blather and stating more than once he is a soldier, it would most obvoiously be a lie. It does not take a genius to figure that one out, now does it?
if he were a soldier, he would have ALREADY stated what service he were in. If he does so only now after such lengthly blather and stating more than once he is a soldier, it would most obvoiously be a lie.
PERSEC PERSEC PERSEC (to all of the above post) or alternatively Cuts and the others have more to their lives than their military credentials and dont feel the need to beat their chests about it in every forum they enter. Experience and Knowledge speak for themselves, I dont think that any of the other serving members or veterans that are in this forum have had call to doubt their legitimacy - Only you.
Observe these powers of deduction. Two SF die in an altercation with plod and and IRONMAN can tell us exactly how it happened and more than that - assign blame to the âmoronicâ SF guys who are now dead. My god you could replace Columbo on prime time TV, or maybe more likely Angela Fletcher, inquests and the lot could be thrown out before they even began.
You do not know the circumstances of the engagement and no one here has claimed to either, other than SF carried weapons whilst on ex and (presumably) got rumbled by uninformed uniformed Plod.
Please refrain from calling doubt on the Military credentials of those assembled, having military experience does not increase or decrease the chances of these men being correct over these issues. These are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact, that are available to all personel within Military circles and quite a few without.
Let us leave military credentials at the door, and in that fashion neither party can use it as a tool to denigrate the other side, We wont ask you to justofy your views with your âI knew a blokeâ stance. And for my part I shall not refer to my military experience. it will be a level playing field in which the value of each case can be identified individually.
As you have established the entire course of events with the specials firefight, here is another one for you.
âSomeone was shot in Dallas by a sniper, who did it?â
I never said automatic weapons are illegal. You mean after all this you did not read where I have posted more than once that a liscence to own an auto in the US must be aquired from the US Secretary of the Treasury, must have been manufactured prior to 1987, must be purchased from a Class III weapons dealer?
As for the Uzi, it would be illegal for a citizen to posess one in Nevada:
In nevada, it is unlawful to possess, manufacture, or dispose of a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches in length, a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches, or a rifle or shotgun with an overall length under 26 inches.
Since the weapon is designed to be operated with both hands, it is classified as a rifle, and is not a pistol, so the law above is relevant.
Hi again Crabtastic, just to return to your post about the guys shot for a moment, Iâm sure youâve noticed that Tinwalt has responded poo-pooing the contact. Iâve not tried to find out whether it occurred or not, if we did that with every contact and every KIA weâd do nothing else.
If perchance it hadnât happened exactly as youâd heard it at least it remains a salutatory lesson that either the comms template should be widened or at least the comms ord addressees returns be double checked.
What surprised me was that the walt now gives the exact detais of how it happened and how the deceased, (who he now describes as morons !) provoked the police officer into opening fire.
Personally I wouldnât speculate, nor I think would most experienced soldiers, but there you go - once again heâs off on a trip in his secret life !
Every cop I know would mourn the loss of other uniformed guys and give comfort to the officer involved, so I guess Tinwalt isnât amongst the Blues either.
Ironman has stated elsewhere alengthy post wondering why the US is apparently despised in some quarters.
I can only say that the level of arrogance, arguments based on miscomprehension of facts, assumptions based on his own opinions, without any evidence, and condescension in his posts should, perhaps, give him a pointer as to the reasons.
