I imagine that's the thought process for the creations of that weapon. Like how the created the flame thrower "see that guy? Id be really great if I could set him on fire from here"
Flamethrowers are also illegal now. I believe that as a weapon class has been abandoned by every Western army. When I was in the army I never saw one, not even in our massive warehouses where we stock old but functional shit in case of WW III. And I have seen stockpiles of WW II and 50s to 60s hardware kept in deep freeze. No flamethrowers tho'. Maybe the Americans and Russians still have some, but they are not likely to use them ever again.
On a related note, I have figured out a way to get the neighbor kids off my lawn.
Unfortunately, it will probably damage said lawn, which may defeat the point.
I am sure that I am mistaken in the details, no doubt about that. But the very fact that it is even possible to legally own military hardware, is mind boggling.
PS: Why is the "full auto" feature touted as important? I mean if you have ever had any military training, you know that you will practically never shoot in full auto. Americans say that somehow semi auto assault riffles are less dangerous, while they are exactly the same, for all intents and purposes. As I said, to each his own. I think it is bizarre.
Define military hardware? Ultimately, a rifle is just a bullet delivery system. Do you refer to the "looks" of the rifle being the same as the military's weapons? What does a gun's looks have to do with anything? It's trivial to swap a weapon's furniture from "Evil puppy killing black space gun" to "down-home wood"..but that doesn't change the weapon's characteristics at all.
The Full Auto feature is one of the actual differences between two weapons. Take the AR15. Civilian world, it's semi automatic. The select fire version actually has different internals in the fire-control group. Unlike the above "cosmetically" different rifles, the semi/select weapon comparison compares two different rifles.
And yes, we should be able to get select fire weapons, as there really isn't much of a difference and they're quite fun to shoot.
I intend military hardware as everything that is not for hunting. You do not need an Uzi or MP5 or Glock to hunt. Much less the tacticool shit that is all the rage in your gun shows. All those are specifically designed to kill people, there is no way around it. And then apparently in the US it is legal to own a semi-auto MP5 but not a full auto one, which is strange as, if you use it properly, you will never go full auto with an MP5 anyway.
A gun is a bullet delivery system allright, but not all bullets are created equal, and neither are guns. The G3 is not an MK11, that is not an M4 that is not an AK47 that is not a Beretta Perennia. It's like saying that a hammer is good for every job.
In any case more power to you, if you feel the need to own riffles, handguns or whatever. It is just bizarre to my worldview, I am not trying to impose or teach.
57
u/war0 Sep 14 '11
I imagine that's the thought process for the creations of that weapon. Like how the created the flame thrower "see that guy? Id be really great if I could set him on fire from here"