Deactivating a gun is like clipping a birds wings, it is against nature. But I feel for you English guys because that is all you have available, unless of course you move to America.
-
-
-
G43
The G43 was initially planned to be issued to all front line troops with the idea of replacing the K98, German production capacity never reached the levels hoped for, so the K98 soldiered on. The Germans had many disappointments with their Semiauto rifles, the G41 was overly complex, and had a tendency to jam quite readily due to it's gas/"Bang" system. The G43 was supposed to be the answer to that. As a sniper rifle the G43 was also a disappointment. The accuracy never reached the levels hoped for. First issues of the rifle went to elite SS units, L/W Fallschirmjager units, and army units such as Grossdeutschland. Darrin Weaver has published an excellent book on German Semiauto rifles entitled "Hitler's Garands." Full of useful info. Chris....Comment
-
Oh the innocence of youth, and the glorious effect of propaganda!
cheers, Rik
Originally posted by totenkopf059 View PostComment
-
But it is ruining history and it is altering it, guns dont cause crime and I doubt many criminals will save up 6000 dollars for a G43 when they can use a 5 dollar hammer they have in there garage. The Germans didnt issue their men Deactivated guns.Comment
-
Oh no!
A G43/MP40/MG34/K98/MG42 is a G43/MP40/MG34/K98/MG42 de-activated it or not. They were designed and built for one purpose to kill people, nothing more or less. Having been on both the recieving and giving end of military firearms I can vouch for that.
As for us poor folks in England, believe it or not we quite like the fact that your average loony doesn't own an assault rifle!.
Those of us who wish to, can and do own rifles and fire them reguarly. It just involves getting off your arse and applying and paying(not a lot) to do so. Most people who moan about the restrictive UK gun laws are those who cannot be arsed to put a little effort in, which makes me wonder if they are at all serious!
To be sure you cannot own an assault rifle or a machine gun, but why the **** would you need one? home protection? Its not often your home is robbed by a full assault company of burglars with heavy weapons back up is it?
As for ruining history! RIDICULOUS. Using that rationale owning an M42 HBT inf tunic without the soldier to go init is ruining history!
cheers, RikLast edited by Rikster; 10-25-2006, 02:01 PM.Comment
-
What do you mean you dont need to own a machine gun, back when England invaded us(even though my 5th great grandfather was a British soldier, but stayed and turned into a American marine) do you think that we wouldve beat England easyer with Machine guns, it is ruining history by destroying them as well. I think strong Machine gun laws need enacted every were but you should be able to own one, and most illegal MGs come from Mexico here so there is no bitching allowed for Legal Vet bringbacks. I do agree that if there were no guns Dunblane wouldve never happened but there are guns and stuff like this will happen. Man, I love a good debate.Comment
-
I'm not debating I am stating facts!
You do not need a servicable MG unless you are on the battlefield!
Anyone who thinks differently is a danger both to themselves and those around them.
As for that England invasion nonsense what bearing does that have on a debate on de-activation of weapons?
ps what on earth do they teach you in school nowadays?Comment
-
Oh boy. I guess it is a matter of perspective. My wife often questions my firearms purchases, and I simply tell her that one can never really have enough guns. To me, a deactivated firearm is like a condom with a hole in the end. Why bother!
(joking)
Cheers,
JohnnieComment
-
Originally posted by Rikster View Post
In your country criminals have more rights than the victims themselves.Comment
-
Rikster,
I don't want this to deteriorate into a rock-throwing contest. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms. It doesn't say we must show "need" - it is a birthRIGHT. Lots of folks don't understand it, or think about it, or maybe they just don't care, but that amendment was written to protect us from OUR GOVERNMENT, not burglars. The Constitution is an amazing work of dedicated men, & its scope is greater than most Americans appreciate. So, yes, there is a conceivable need that citizens might have for assault-type weapons.
Now if you want to make it an easier to digest, apples-to-apples comparison, why are automobiles capable of 150 mph completely legal in this country, when the highest speed limit in the land is less than 100? MANY more folks succumb to auto accidents each year than gunshot wounds, but no one suggests outlawing cars? Even though they pollute the air we need to breathe!
Nope, no comparison. History shows us the people who want to keep their populations unarmed. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein - I wonder what they all have in common?
Sorry for the soapbox rant. I'm not yelling, either. I'm just saying this.
Best,
MattLast edited by Matt Wilson; 10-26-2006, 01:50 AM.Comment
-
I have one question, How many armed men were sent to Treblinka? But lets get back on topic. Is that trigger missing on that top G43?Comment
Comment