New Iraqi Armor.

[86m1028]

Ray shouldn't you be working on a fence!

Yes..... Fence & a flex plate in an M1009

 

[Csm Davis]

May 4th, 2015.


I'm not sure how many Americans I would trust with MRAPs and Armor right now given some of the goings on here in the US of late, but as long as the A-10 is in inventory and flyable, not much of this junk will live long enough to be a serious problem to us in a combat situation.

Wasnt there something about it being "treason" to defend the A-10 from some USAF brass? An the joint strike fighter is a dream come true? Maybe its a nightmare?
Like mentioned in another thread, wonder whats gonna happen May 09?

July 13th, 2015.

Gentlemen:

It was no joke up there about the armor. I am not sure that I would trust too many Americans with armor in a functional context. Do remember that Detroit and Minneapolis are prime ISIS recruiting grounds, and that Tim McVeigh was home grown and very dangerous, plus there are sufficient militias and other such types around that probably do need watching.

To give them armor would be quite foolish to anyone who is a reasonable, thinking individual. Small arms are one thing, heavy armor or artillery is something quite different and was never considered by the Founding Fathers to be a Second Amendment right. Loonies can exist almost anywhere, but armor driving loonies like the guy in San Diego so many years ago, of the guy in Colorado with the armored bulldozer....?????

Y'all are in titled to your options but you do realize that if you want you can buy from the manufacturer many armored or up armored vehicles? These are not offensive unless you mount a turret like a tank of which they are not tanks.
Now back to why can't I buy a real tank but they can give them to the Iraqis. I would never use it in anger unless Uncle Sam asked me to, like the old guys in the movie battleship. I think that the veterans should be given their battle rifle when they are given their honorable discharge. We were charged and trained to defend this nation and many stood that post with their finger on the trigger and or button, now WE can not be trusted? There is something wrong with that.

 

[dilligaf13]

It's the lowest common denominator principle. 99.9% of veterans (and American citizens) can be trusted with weaponry, armor, etc., etc. Unfortunately the .01% that can not be trusted results in everyone being punished.

 

[TehTDK]

Cage armour is a fad. It adds a lot of weight and offers little proven protection. Several of my friends have served overseas in vehicles with both the cage/bar armour on and off and it made no desernable difference in survivability. Most of the Aghanis couldn't hit with their RPG's and the range was too short to really post a danger. On the other hand the cage armour made the vehicles even heavier and made them more surceptible to roll over on IED strikes and roll over on banks.

Besides most people stuffed their belongings down between the hull and the cage thus completely negating its practicality.

 

[CUCVLOVER]

Just a historical point of fact here.

Cannons, which were the artillery of the 18th and early to mid 19th century were commonly owned by private citizens, groups, and many, many shipowners. Ammunition for these items was commonly available in normal commerce.

All military items of the period could be owned by anyone who could afford it.

Not arguing any political or social policy issues here; simply drawing attention to the realities of the historical period.

Cannons were NOT excluded from the 2 Amendment's limitations on the government over the citizens' ownership of weapons.

Thank you.!!