Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys are going to give me aneurysm. Obama said that their is no more need to have hundreds, if not thousands, of naval ships since modern day navies are just as capable to strike with smaller, specialized, fleets. As a sailor you know that.
And Obama did not say that horses and bayonets are completely gone from the military, just that we have less of them because there is less of a need for them in a modern military.
Heck, I work for the Navy and WE know that we don't need all those ships. The only people thinking we need all those ships are defense contractors who stand to make a lot of money building them.
Hey- MY dad was one of the last in Russia to be trained in the use of a sword while on horse back...talk about actually knowing someone from another era....I still remember him showing the moves...There was a certain pattern used while in a full gallop...slice right - slice left - thrust...slice left slice right thrust. I guess the move came from mounted combat on a crowded and frantic field.. Just thought I would mention the story.
One of the main features of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban was the prohibition of bayonet lugs, or bayonet attachment points, on rifles.
Pres. Obama has repeatedly stated his support for that law.
So which is it--bayonets are obsolete and no longer relevant, a la catapult, spear, etc. Or a deadly weapon that is ravaging our streets and must be banned? Which?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverboat Gambler
'94 AWB is no longer valid in most States as of Sep '04. Also M16 A2/3 were never effected as they were Government property and already Class III.
I know that, but the point is just that Pres. Obama has stated his support for reinstating the law, as recently as in the debates. My point is just that he contradicts himself, implying on one hand that bayonets are obsolete in today's military, while on the other hand it is necessary to keep rifles that can accept a bayonet, out of civilian hands.
A case could be made that Obama managed to semi-contradict himself while being wrong on both hands. Bayonets are still used in the military, but have never been much used in domestic crime. I guess you could say it was a lose-lose-lose situation for the prez when he made that comment.
I know that, but the point is just that Pres. Obama has stated his support for reinstating the law, as recently as in the debates. My point is just that he contradicts himself, implying on one hand that bayonets are obsolete in today's military, while on the other hand it is necessary to keep rifles that can accept a bayonet, out of civilian hands.
A case could be made that Obama managed to semi-contradict himself while being wrong on both hands. Bayonets are still used in the military, but have never been much used in domestic crime. I guess you could say it was a lose-lose-lose situation for the prez when he made that comment.
I know that, but the point is just that Pres. Obama has stated his support for reinstating the law, as recently as in the debates. My point is just that he contradicts himself, implying on one hand that bayonets are obsolete in today's military, while on the other hand it is necessary to keep rifles that can accept a bayonet, out of civilian hands.
A case could be made that Obama managed to semi-contradict himself while being wrong on both hands. Bayonets are still used in the military, but have never been much used in domestic crime. I guess you could say it was a lose-lose-lose situation for the prez when he made that comment.
First "fewer" equal "none" and now it equals "obsolete?"
Where is Romney going to find all those horses to replace the tanks?
I guess Obama will use tanks to pull caskets now instead of horses.
I guess he will use tanks instead of horses in the mountains of Afghanistan. Oh, wait. they CAN"T use tanks. That is why they use horses.
Since we now, and have had, air craft carriers for years, we don't need all the battleships and destroyers and other support ships we have been using for years.
THAT is why it is called a "battle group".
Obama's LACK of knowledge on how the military works is astounding.
Do people not understand the English language to know that "fewer" is NOT the same thing as "none?" Are people's English skills THAT awful, or do they really know the difference and are acting as if they are the same intentionally being disingenuous?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
