In the United Kingdom we have much more restrictive gun laws than in the United States of America. Essentially guns are not a part of UK society whether they are hand guns or rifles although there is limited criminal use of hand guns in English cities such as London and Manchester. I believe that even semi-automatic assault rifles are available for ownership in the United States (without the bayonet ). I have had some experience in shooting a rifle called a Lee Enfield .303 MK4 rifle many many years ago and have been amazed that such a deadly weapon is available for ownership in the US. I was even more amazed to find that such weapons can be purchased for around $200 - $400. Is this weapon simply regarded as an antique or is a special license required to own such a deadly weapon? Also any comments on a comparison with more modern rifles would be welcome.

Well Hay-ell! They even let us have pointy knives over here!

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."

US gun laws are MOSTLY state and city-based, not federally controlled. The laws covering the rifle you are talking about vary from "No-way-at-all" to "walk-in-pay-money-walk-out-no-background-checks".

Guess which areas have higher crime rates!
(Hint: Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983."

-Blast

It's not a "C&R" rifle: Collectible and Relic. I believe those are, by definition, over 100 years old (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
No special license: it's a bolt action rifle. I'm pretty sure all states allow it, just have to be over 18, not a convicted felon, and a state resident (and even residency has exceptions). Bayonets, btw, aren't outlawed usually. Yes, semi-auto are available in MOST states. A few very limited areas allow full auto (not sure how, but you can go to 'ranches'). The states that don't allow semi-auto usually allow you to keep what you had before the laws went into effect; however you're not supposed to transport an illegal rifle over state lines.

I've never shot an Enfield. Similar weapons of the time would be the 8mm Mauser (any of the variations of the 3rd Reich), the Mosin-Nagant (1891, M44, or M38 varieties). Perhaps the 1903 Springfield as well. All were bolt-action, large caliber rifles. Comparable "modern" weapons would be similar to a bolt-action hunting rifle firing a 30-06 round or 7mm (though rounds can be argued ad naseum), and I believe those rounds have been around for quite some time too.

Personally, I'm not too worried about a guy with an older rifle. He's accurate, but his rate of fire is such that you'd have a reasonable chance of getting to cover, provided you weren't his first few victims. It's the idiots with the illegal auto's that I worry about!

The reason we are allowed to own such deadly weapons is because the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd-A is about citizens being able to resist or overthrow a corrupt government. It is a very important and equally misunderstood concept even in our own country.

That said; I love old milspec rifles. All of the WWI and WWII rifles are great. Lee Enfield, Mauser, 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, Schmidt Rubin and Moisin Nagant; all great reliable rifles.
The Lee Enfields, Nagants, some Schmidt Rubins and Mausers of all kinds of orgin can be had for $100-$300.
You can even get a filthy Mauser(Yugo, Turk...) or Nagant for less than $100 but you will have to clean all the cosmoline off.

All of these rifles are proven in battle and are as useful today as when they were made and are even useful for hunting larger game. Not as gnarly as a semi auto / auto of todays standards but still a reliable weapon. Some collect them for their nostalgia and some rifles with original markings and serial numbers can go for much more even thousands in the case of 1903's and Garands. Others buy them because they are inexpensive.

No special license to own and in fact in many staes you do not have to do the sale through a dealer as you do for non-C&R (curio relic).

The only "licenses" are for full auto and concealed carry in many states.

Firearms restrictions differ depending on the state of residence (and sometimes city). In general, restrictions are based on magazine capacity. Bullet caliber is not usually considered. Some states have additional limits based on bayonet lug and muzzle break. There was a Federal limit on some firearms classified as Assault Rifles, but that law expired and has not been renewed.

The Enfield being a bolt rifle with low capacity (10 rounds or less) is legal in most states. You can get them at many gunshops. I have a Mk4 No1 and a Mk1 No3 in my collection as well as a M1 Garand and a Springfield 1903.

You must purchase a rifle or pistol from a licensed dealer/gunshop or if unlicensed person, face-to-face. I beleive you must be 21 or older for a pistol and 18 or older for a rifle. It is illegal to ship a firearm to an unlicensed person. For collectors like myself, There is a collectors license that allows buying/receiving firearms specified as collectable via mail.

PS - Enfields are C&R and as such collectable. The rule is 50 years for C&R and 100 years for antique. Antiques are typically not regulated at all.

The enfield is a great old rifle. I suppose for the most part they would be considered a collectors item. In the U.S. you don't need a license to own a rifle or hand gun. You are required to pass a background check to purchase one though. In most states you can get a permit (license) to carry a concealed weapon.

A .30 caliber rifle, be it old as the enfield is, or newer is quite deadly. The thing is here there is game that require a large caliber rifle to take. The attitudes of the UK and US are also very different. I was raised around weapons and my children have been as well, and think nothing of handling a high powered rifle. We were taught gun safety at an early age and hunted with our fathers as kids.

I was stationed in England for 4 years and had this conversation many times, and IMHO it comes down to exposure. In the UK there isn't any big game hunting and people aren't exposed to these types of weapons and generally don't see the need for them. Here hunting is still practiced by a large portion of the population and it is an important food source for many. I have an Old Remington 30-06 that has taken many dear and a few elk and antelope that one of my kids will get when I'm too old to hunt.

Is there a special point you are trying to make to disparage America, or are you just trolling?

The difference in US vs UK gun laws are simple: it's one of the many perks of being a citizen, not a subject. I'm pretty sure a number of members of the House of Lords own firearms, or baring their willingness to touch something so icky and base, are able to heir bodyguards and arrange for them to be properly permitted to carry firearms to protect their Lord and Ladyships from a potentially dangerous of rabble of peasants.

Around here, we don't have the nobility, despite what some celebrities might think.

But speaking of the Enfield, it's a pretty typical weapon of the era. Good deer and general all around rifle, well designed with a smooth bolt, but I'm not as fond of the sights having grown up Springfield-designed ones. And it is part of your country's history, as much as the broadsword, Brown Bess musket and Spitfire. Rather than sneering at it, as you seem to do, take pride in it.

Background checks are federally mandated. Here are a few statistics from the Department of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Weapons In America - short summary

1. Federally, there is no such thing as a weapon illegal to own. Some, however do require a $200 or $5 tax stamp. Some call this a permit. Many classes of criminals cannot own weapons.

2. States make many items illegal.

3. US law & Idaho state law allow - machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, short rifles, AOW's, bayonets, switchblades, destructive devices, brass knuckles, stun guns, tasers, impact weapons and many others. I cannot think of a weapon that cannot be owned by an honest citizen for a $200 tax stamp.

This page shows some interesting photos from my Idaho retail store. None of these are for sale on the internet.

http://www.ponderosasports.com/500%20guns%20%26%20ammo.htm

That's one of the benefits of being a chemist. I have access to solvents that strip cosmoline off in seconds! It'll even pull it out of the wood stocks of sks and mosin-nagant rifles in a few hours.

-Blast

bentirran,

Make it your duty to inform your friends that guns and knives are good and save lives everyday. Maybe one day you too will be able to enjoy the right of self protection by bearing arms.

God bless America!

P.S. Anyone want to list some of their guns?

Isn't Switzerland mostly the same as the U.S.? Somewhere, I think I read that most citizens there can even own anti-aircraft weapons.

One thing I've wondered about England's latest no-knife law: I understand that a couple can get married at 16, but can't own knives until they're 18. Doesn't this get kind of tricky for cutting meat or veggies?

Sue

Please be careful how you word things. Just because something is semi-automatic does not make it an assult rifle. Too many times the media gets the wrong impression that they are or that knives are weapons so when I see someone mislabel things that way I try to point it out.

Only if the seller is a registered gun dealer. "Kitchen-table" gun purchases are not covered.

-Blast

I got mine 2 years ago for about $75 (actually traded $40 + my old Leatherman Wave), and it is now my SHTF rifle. I have to keep it locked up though. I've noticed it has a tendency, like all guns, to get loose sometimes and float down the street firing all by itself.

The answer as to the difference in attitudes on gun ownership between the US and UK is found in our history. Once upon a time we "colonials" here in the US had to use guns to secure our freedom from the British. As a result we decided to hang on to our guns just in case you guys over there got any more ideas later on down the road.

Not anymore evidently: Scotland to ban swords.

If true, I wonder what William Wallace would say.....

Just a thought regarding the rate of fire. Clearly a semi auto is always going to have an edge over a bolt action. But the Lee-Enfield is arguably the fastest military bolt action ever produced. During WWII the British taught quite effective close-quarters quick fire techniques for the Lee-Enfield. 5 shots in 4 seconds was standard (even faster in the hands of an expert), and with decent enough accuracy to ensure consistent hits at short range. This is not much worse than a semi auto. At any rate, few people could fire a semi auto chambered in a cartridge as powerful as the .303 much faster than that without losing control over the weapon. Check the SMLE section of Fairbairn's All-In Fighting (1942) for details. Paladin Press has published a good reprint lately.

Susan,
The Swiss have a culture of military service requiring most citzens to spend time in service and when they are done they take their rifle and other gear home to always be ready to defend Switzerland.
In WWI Hitler did not invade Switzerland mainly because of the armed and trained population. The right to own guns also kept Japan from invading the US in WWII. Owning guns scares your enemies and makes the think twice.

In WWII the Swiss had Schmidt Rubin K-31 rifles; a straight pull bolt action, now they get Sig SG 550's.
It is fully auto but not an anti-aircraft gun.

Re Old but deadly rifle.

Thanks everyone for your replies. I am aware that in the United States gun control laws vary from State to State and that under the US constitution there is the right to bear arms. What I was trying to determine was where the sensible limit to that right was.

In the UK there have been two notable tragedies which have led to a change in the law with regard to gun control. Firstly there was the Hungerford massacre (1987 16 killed), where a man armed with an automatic assault rifle went through a sleepy English village and began to randomly kill his relatives and neighbours. This led to the restriction i.e. ban on Automatic and Semi Automatic Rifles.
Then in the sleepy Scottish village of Dunblane in 1996, a man armed with hand guns killed 15 small children (about the same age as the children in aloha's pictures) and their teacher. This led to the restriction i.e. ban on hand guns. The common thread was that the individuals concerned in both tragedies were mentally disturbed. I do of course recognise that it is not the killing tool (Gun) itself that is responsible for such evil but the individual who uses that killing tool who is responsible for their actions. The problem is that individuals who are mentally disturbed, some are not responsible for their actions. I suppose the issue is that without access to such efficient killing tools then the individual is much more limited in what he or she can do i.e. the numbers of deaths will be a lot less.

I know that many will argue that if everyone had guns then the limits of both tragedies would have been more confined because the actions of the crazed gunman could have been stopped at an earlier stage. This might have been true for the Hungerford massacre but not the Dunblane massacre. You cannot legislate for the mentally disturbed but you legislate to ensure that they don't have access to such efficient means of killing. Please don't think that I am a gun control liberal (egg sucking liberal whose needs to be reprogrammed - Ponder - you have the greatest collection I've ever seen). I always found hitting the target at 1200 metres with the Lee Enfield quite challenging and rewarding. In America you live in a democratic republic, you as a nation have decided to ensure that you all have in principle the right to bear arms. In the UK, we live in a democratic constitutional monarchy. Democratic being the key word. Its just that the loss of the lives of innocent people and small children have tipped the balance of the argument against the personal ownership of such deadly weapons. Most people in the UK would agree that a small restriction on their freedom to own a concealed hand gun or assault rifle is something their are prepared to do to help ensure that future tragedies can be avoided. Of course the argument I have put forward can also be applied to other tools which can kill, Air Rifles, Swords, Knifes, Pointy Sticks etc, the politicians can take things to far. But at the end of the day the British people are inherently sensible and reasonable people and they do hold their freedoms within the law with high regard.

As for the Enfield rifle, I do actually regard it to be more deadly than even the fully automatic assault rifles (AR15s and M16 derivatives, licenses required I believe from previous responses on this thread) issued to the US army soldiers. This is because it is a much more capable weapon and when used in the right hands, therefore much more lethal.

Susan and billym - I know this going to make some mad but here goes - With regard to the swiss anti-aircraft gun point - I think I remember in 2003 Iraqi invasion that a local Iraqi farmer shot down a US Apache helicopter gun ship with a Lee Enfield .303 Mk4.

Then according to your criteria the Garand, the Mauser, and even the venerable '03 Springfield are all more "lethal" as well, since they are, in one way or another, superior to the Enfield. Yet none of these fine rifles are still standard issue anywhere that I am aware of--at least among countries claiming better than a 3rd rate military. As much as I love my No. 4 Mk III, I still consider it a backup to my A-Bolt, my SKS, and my 03A3. And if I had the dough to buy an M-16 or AK-47, it would slide even farther down the list.



On the contrary, thanks for the chuckle. Was this one of "Baghdad Bob's" reports?

I'd really, REALLY like to know where you came up with that idea.

There are only 2 attacks on the States that I'm aware of: a sub shelled up by Santa Barbara, CA; a few weather balloons fell to ground up around Idaho. The Japanese knew about the Gulf Stream and tried 'bombing' us that way.

Personally, I think that having a 3000 mile supply line would be a bigger intimidation.

Oh, and BTW, my No. 4 Mk. III is stamped "1942" and was made by Savage Arms right here in the good 'ol USA! One of about 4 million we shipped over under Lend-Lease.

A quote from Admiral Yamamoto commander of the Japanese Imperial Fleet;

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”


Here is a google search for lots of sources;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yamamoto+blade+of+grass+quote

Very true. That's one of the stats shown at the link I sent. Most criminals don't get their guns legally anyway. I used the DOJ's data there because they with the BATF are the most anti second ammendment portion of our government, but they're own data shows as gun ownership by private citizens goes up (RE the number of background checks) violent crime goes down. I'm anxiously waiting to see the crime statistics of Washington D.C. in two years now that they can possess firearms within the District.

"I think I remember in 2003 Iraqi invasion that a local Iraqi farmer shot down a US Apache helicopter gun ship with a Lee Enfield .303 Mk4."


That does not make it an AA gun just a lucky shot.

Actually this post was a response to Bentirran not Norad.

Bentirran,
I lived in England as boy and remember the "Bobbies" who did not carry guns at all. Now when I see the news I see British police as armed as any US SWAT team. So now your cops are loaded down and the citizens are helpless to resist. You live in a much less free society than when I lived there.

Here in the US there is NO sensible limit because we are free to resist our government. The media and leaders of your fine land have brainwashed you all into thinking you are safer when in fact it is the politicians who are safer. You are less safe because you depend on others for your safety and gave up your rights in the process.

I loved my time in England as a child but with knife laws as they are alone I will probably not return.

Most of the people in Afganistan were carrying singe shot when the russians invaded. Now the full auto AK-47 is the most common weapon. guesse where they got them.

Re Norad




I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles.

The reasoning for todays smaller cartridge weapons are to do with the amount of ammunition any single individual can carry and the type of warfare that would generally be expected to fight. Smaller ammunition and greater rate of inaccurate and indiscriminate fire is the order of today especially when fighting urban warfare. Even today the British Army has begun to realise the problems the US NATO 5.56 round has. It has limited range and killing power. Anything over 600 metres and the 5.56 round becomes effectively pointless. Even though the current standard British Army Rifle L85A2 has much more accuracy than any of the US army M16 derivatives the British army has now had to introduce many more bolt action L96A1's and Accuracy International AWM's (at least one per squad) to counter the 3rd world AKs (7.62s) and Lee Enfields (.303s) in Afghanistan and Iraq.



What I do remember was that the local farmer was being videoed in front of a downed Apache proudly displaying his bagged aircraft with his Lee Enfield. The Apache did have a few bullet holes in it. The most noticeable one was the one through the left hand pilots window. I guess it could have been one that had been abandoned after developing a mechanical fault and the crew had been rescued and then a propaganda piece being fabricated. But I think that it is normal procedure to destroy any downed aircraft if possible to ensure that they don't fall into a enemies hands to be used for intelligence or propaganda reasons.

What is the context of this particular quote?

Adm. Yamamoto always knew that a protracted war with the U.S. would lead to defeat because of the sheer advantage in men and industrial capacity the U.S. had. The US had enough people and factories so that "every blade of grass" could have a rifle behind it and Japan could never match that, but that doesn't necessarily support this idea that he thought Japan shouldn't invade because private citizens already had guns here before the war started. I'll be happy to change my mind if there's any evidence supporting the Second Amendment angle.

I think the idea of an "armed and trained" citizenry has some merit in the case of Switzerland, but again, the Swiss were citizen-soldiers and their deterrance value were as soldiers organized into military units, not as individuals who already had guns.

It's an effective military that deters invaders. On the other hand, it's the gov't and burglars that are afraid of an armed citizenry. Very different situations.

Dude you are a little too biased about your English gun.

"I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles."


All three rifles shoot a .30 cal round so the balistics are similar. The Enfield was probably the best rifle in WWI but the Garand is by far the best WWII rifle issued.
The Mauser is a great rifle better suited to hunting. The Garand had very little reliability issues; where did you get your info?
The worst thing about the Garand was the classic "ping" as it ejected the empty clip and "Garand Thumb" which only happened to most GIs only once.

Yes bolt actions are more reliable than semis in fact the Mauser action is considered the best bolt action ever made and is now copied by more manufacturers of hunting rifles.

The M1 Garand was one of the reasons the Allies won WWII.

The Enfield is a worthy rifle but I would take a Mauser or a M1 Garand over one anyday.

I have no doubt that Apaches have been lost to hostile fire, just not from a local farmer armed with a .303. I imagine it was brought down with heavier weapons and the farmer then posed for a few "hero" shots for that nights Al Jazeera broadcast.



That is just flat out wrong. The M1 was far more reliable than any contemporary self loader. It was reliable enough to be standard issue--the only WWII semi-auto to achieve that distinction. It fired the 30.06 cartridge as well, which IMO holds a slight but noticeable ballistic edge over 8MM and .303. As far as bolt-actions go you are right, the Enfield does have the reputation of being the fastest. And I share your dislike of the 5.56 Nato, at least as a battle cartridge.

Just as an aside, I notice that you apparently labor under the delusion that anything and everything made in America must necessarily be inferior to its European, particularly British, counterpart. That's why you seem to come off as something of a Eurosnob, particularly when your posts then descend into mini anti-American rants. You might keep this in mind if you want to avoid being labeled a troll.

I have not been able to find the context of the quote. Yes your point is valid it may be in context to the US's industrial and military abilities. But he never wanted to fight the US in the first place so in many ways he could have meant both concepts.

I am sure that if the US had ever been or is ever invaded the forces WILL have to worry about the armed citzens. Armed citizens have been the heart of many a revolution or resistance in our worlds history.

Re Norad:



I guess this quote needs to be qualified. Although I said that the Garand and Mauser where fine examples of the type together with the Enfield, the Garand is a gas operated semi-automatic. By definition any gas operated weapon is more complex, is heavier (due to more parts complexity) and subject to reliability issues because of the ingress of dirt and mud and even different temperature and humidities the weapon is used in. Even the venerable British Bren Gun had reliability issues because it was gas operated even though it was regarded by some as the most reliable light machine gun during WWII. I know this only to well as I have also used an SLR L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle also many years ago. Throw a bolt action rifle (Masuer or Enfield) into a muddy pool of stagnant water or push the muzzle end deep into some wet sand and it will take only a few seconds to get it to work again. Remove the bolt and magazine, take out the pull through from the Butt and pull through the barrel then replace the bolt and magazine and your done. The Garrand was a fine example of a gas operated medium calibre rifle, it was heavier, it was unable to be reloaded until the last cartridge was ejected, it held 2 rounds less than the Enfield, the rifles centre of balance I suspect was not as 'natural' as the Enfield or Mauser therefore being a bit more difficult in its handling. The garrand would probably be comparable to the SLR in terms of its ability and functionality although I suspect a bit more reliable than the SLR because it had fewer parts to go wrong. The real question was; is the Garrand, Mauser or Enfield more lethal than the M16 or L85A2 with its smaller 5.56 cartridge in the right hands. I suspect that they all are.

He'd weep for humanity, as do I.

Well.... If a UFO crashes in my front yard, and someone takes a picture of me with sidearm in hand as I investigate, would you think that I shot it down? I'd sure hope not, but there are fools born every day.

As far as the reliability of the Grand goes, yeah, your mouth is open and your ignorance is showing. My Garand was my grandfather's before me, and between the two of us we've probably put close to 20K rounds through it. While the accuracy might not be quite what it was becuase of wear on the barrel, he told me it has never jammed for him, and never has for me in the twenty years I've been shooting it.

Actually, military arms are intended to wound rather than kill, on the grounds that an injured man takes several more out of action and frightens even more. A dead guy needs nothing and just pisses his buddies off.

A guns effectivness has many variables. Rate and volume of fire made the M1 Garand superior to its contemporaries. The M16 / AR-15 is a very reliable, field serviceable rifle that has a high rate and volume of fire and is more accurate than many of its contemporaries.
The 5.56 NATO might not have the puch of a .30 cal round but you can carry many many more rounds. So in a fire fight the gunners shooting larger calibers run out of ammo sooner.
5.56 in not perfect but if it sucked so bad do you think the US military would keep using it?

If you believe websites, then he also said:

“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”

I'm more inclined to interpret his statement as a testiment to our industrial capability. Of course, without the context of his argument, it's kind of pointless to debate, IMHO.

A well armed citizenry is an extremely effective deterrent to an invading force. It's one thing to fight an air/sea war and attempt to bring your enemy to the point of surrender which is what Japan tried with Pearl Harbor. But it is totally different to be an invading force with the intent of occupying foreign territory.

History has shown the effectiveness of armed citizens against an occupying force many times. The most recent example is still going on today in Iraq. The war may have started out with the US fighting the Iraq army until they surrendered but who are we fighting now? Who is responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of our soldiers in Iraq over the past several years? Not the "organized, effective military" of Iraq but very small groups of armed citizens/insurgents that are conducting very effective guerilla warfare against the military trying to occupy their land. And how effective are these armed citizens? Well right now they have the elected politicians of the most powerful country in the world on the verge of voting to turn tail and run from them.

So is the US armed population a deterrent to an invading army? Absolutely! Imagine a foreign army invading my state of Alabama...sure the citizens alone could not stop a well equipped army but once they had won the initial battle and moved in to occupy the state the armed citizens that were left could and would wage a guerilla war against the occupiers that would lead them to reconsider if it is worth it just as the US is doing now in Iraq.

Vietnam is another example of the effectiveness of armed citizens and look at the result of Russia invading Afganistan. Armed citizens have routinely changed the course of war long after their organized, effective military has failed them.

A military leader that would fail to take into account the armed domestic population of a territory that he/she intended to invade would be making a catastrophic mistake.

A well armed citizenry is an extremely effective deterrent to an invading force. It's one thing to fight an air/sea war and attempt to bring your enemy to the point of surrender which is what Japan tried with Pearl Harbor. But it is totally different to be an invading force with the intent of occupying foreign territory.

History has shown the effectiveness of armed citizens against an occupying force many times. The most recent example is still going on today in Iraq. The war may have started out with the US fighting the Iraq army until they surrendered but who are we fighting now? Who is responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of our soldiers in Iraq over the past several years? Not the "organized, effective military" of Iraq but very small groups of armed citizens/insurgents that are conducting very effective guerilla warfare against the military trying to occupy their land. And how effective are these armed citizens? Well right now they have the elected politicians of the most powerful country in the world on the verge of voting to turn tail and run from them.

So is the US armed population a deterrent to an invading army? Absolutely! Imagine a foreign army invading my state of Alabama...sure the citizens alone could not stop a well equipped army but once they had won the initial battle and moved in to occupy the state the armed citizens that were left could and would wage a guerilla war against the occupiers that would lead them to reconsider if it is worth it just as the US is doing now in Iraq.

Vietnam is another example of the effectiveness of armed citizens and look at the result of Russia invading Afganistan. Armed citizens have routinely changed the course of war long after their organized, effective military has failed them.

A military leader that would fail to take into account the armed domestic population of a territory that he/she intended to invade would be making a catastrophic mistake.

That is why I said what I did in a previous post. I admitted that I could not find the context and that the other possiblity is quite likely. Either way he said it and the quote is heavily used by pro 2nd-A folks so it couold definitely be biased.

As for the rest of his quotes; I did not claim to be an expert.
Also I don't believe evrything on the web so please don't insinuate that I do. I don't believe evrything in the Library either. Thanks.

I still think my point of an armed populace being a deterent to potential enemies is quite valid.

Even today in Iraq many people who previously owned guns just to protect their family. Now that they are unhappy with the current situation they are using their guns against "their" enemy. All over the middle east one can buy an AK-47 in a marketplace.

Re Gatormba



I don't think any invading army would have the guts to invade Alabama not after watching Top Gear drives across Alabama whilst trying to get each other killed or arrested

Top gear is a popular TV car magazine program in the UK. Hope you don't find it too offensive and can see the funny side. It was pretty funny though. Three Eurosnobs almost get killed!

Norad45 - For a real Eurosnob you should check out Jeremy Clarkson in Landrover versus Tank

My dialup is too slow for me to go back several pages in this thread to find out who said that America's citizens were armed to prevent England's government from staging a modern invasion. I'm sure you were kidding. Our armed citizenry is to protect us from OUR government.

An interesting article from Geoff Metcalf in the Federal Observer:

Snippet from "Freedom Isn't Free":

"The first three battles of the American War for Independence (our Revolution) were not fought over taxation without representation, separation from an abusive clueless King, or nationalism. The first three battles of our American Revolution were fought to resist gun control.

"General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts sent a force to confiscate weapons and capture patriot leaders.

"When the British confronted Captain Parker and his militia in Lexington, they arrived to confiscate powder and ball. They met resistance and the negative consequences of collecting ammunition (one round at a time…)."
(http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10783)


Regarding gun control: Why do so many anti-gun people always use child gun deaths as their main argument?

I know that child gun deaths always seem to make the news, but how common are they really, compared to child deaths by other causes? I can't find much in the way of accurate figures, because they keep grouping them with gang-related deaths, which really skews the figures.

If someone can find some accurate figures, compare them against some of the following causes of death of children and young people:

*Deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the #1 killer of kids;
*Deaths from falls in the home, the #2 killer of young children;
*Deaths from being beaten or abused to death by their parents;
*Deaths from pregnancies in girls under 15 yrs of age;
*Deaths (eventually) from STDs acquired from unprotected sex;
*Deaths from smoking, starting at the age of 9;
*Deaths from recreational drug use.

Yes, it's unfortunate that they die, but I don't see anyone crusading for the abolishing of automobiles, stairs, balconies, etc.

Sue

Oh dear me, if I toss an empty enbloc clip on a rock and duplicate the 'ping' I can pick off most of the platitudes posted as easily as the poor german who thinks my M1 is empty. Was I alone in paying attention to the old COMBAT! series? Curling up with a video of Kurt Russell leading the Wolverines to Victory is well and good, but those same Soviets took how long to overwhelm the Ukraine, a nation with a long tradition of personal arms? The only ruskies anybody in the US of A is going to encounter is Tatiana the mail order bride in a far deadlier SUV without even People's Glorious Tractor Factory #5 driving experience. All weapons are potentially lethal. Good or bad, thats why they're called weapons.Look at the junk used by the majority of presidential assassins. We love to yodel down opponents with the swiss as example. Well, suprise, even they are looking at some measure of control with a rise in crime and shooting incidents.And whats all this now about our nail on chalkboard reaction to UK weapon laws? Is it our common history and language, not unlike discovering a close relative is gay or mentally defective and fearing contagion? People, this is a old, and at best wearisome social argument, and dragging out equally worn anecdotes and mythologies equally threadbare. Lets at least keep it civil in the forum. If I 've failed to insult anybody, I apologise.

When Yamamoto talked about a 12 month war, it was because he knew that if a victory could be forced on the US and Commonwealth within a year of Pearl Harbor (ie we give up after Australia falls or any number of scenarios), then he could win. And after that year, we'd be on a full fledged war time footing, and the great big boots of the sleeping giant would be stopping across the Pacific. But to achieve that, it would have ment stripping much of the Japanese Army aviation out of China and just beating on Australia without mercy while inderdicting all shipping and building a lot of landing barges.

It also means he would have to not have political clowns second guessing him and telling him the rules he could use.

That's a bit far fetched. The German MP-44 (Sturmgewehr) was altogether a far more advanced design, at least as reliable as the Garand and much more capable under most circumstances. Also, do not forget that many GIs preferred the M1 carbine to the Garand despite a much weaker cartridge and short range.



But think of this - just how much more would the Iraqi insurgents achieve if they actually had good leadership, better training, a proper command structure and a developed strategy? Right now the Iraqi resistance is still fairly chaotic. No comparison at all to organized, wide scale guerrilla war on the scale of Yugoslavian, Greek or French resistance during WWII or the Vietcong.

How many died before they got them?

The MP-44 is a full auto weapon so it is not on the same page as the other rifles we are talking about. Additionally it was only used at the end of the war 1944-45 and the majority of German infantry were still carrying Mausers.

But yes if I had to pick up any of the guns off the ground in WWII the MP's from Germany might be the best choice. It heralded the future of military weapons. You can see the DNA of both the AK-47 and M-16.
Awesome gun for sure.

As for an armed populace detering invaders; maybe it won't actually deter them from invading but they will regret it eventually. Yes many would die but that is not the point. American's, who enjoy being free and are gun owners would not stand idly by and let an invading force occupy our land without a fight. And yes if the time came many of us would yell; "WOLVERINES"

To be fair though, the Garand is a semi auto, so it cannot be compared to a bolt action like the Lee-Enfield.

True enough.

Apaches are completely armored, tub under, plexiglass windscreen. I have challenge that the apache was shot down with a rifle. I have seen these things take abuse in the field, and there is absoluetly no way it was taken down by a farmer with a rifle. IIRC, the Apache in question crashed due to flight computer problems. The US army tests their equipment before being sent into battle, and one thing tested is armor.
Besides, knowing the quality of a farmers firearms (non-maintained, usually pieced together from several different rifles), and the notorious inaccuracy of the average Iraqi, to suggest to the rest of the world that a multimillion dollar machine was taken down by an illiterate indigenous person is a classic David and Goliath story. However, this ohe was entirely untrue.

Also, this was reported in Afghansistan during the 80's as well, that Mujahideen were shooting down Hind choppers. This did happen, at least once, until the pilots had their glass replaced, And learned to fly higher than the ridgeline (the cockpit configuration is one pilot ontop of the other).

Re - oldsoldier

Are you saying that the Apache helicopter is completely and utterly impervious to a .303 bullet no matter where the bullet strikes the aircraft. I think the following refers to the Apache in question.

Wikipedia quote

'Recent reports indicate that the helicopter is vulnerable to ground forces in certain environments, such as when operating in urban terrain. Since 2003, Iraqi ground troops and insurgents were able to damage propulsion and flight control systems with ground fire, sometimes forcing the helicopters to make immediate emergency landings or shooting them down. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, some Apaches were damaged in combat, including one captured by Iraqi troops near Karbala on March 24, 2003, and shown on Iraqi television. The captured helicopter was destroyed via airstrike the day after it was captured.[3] The March 24 attack, against an armored brigade of the Iraqi PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. Guard's Medina Division, was largely unsuccessful, apparently because the tank crews had set up a "flak trap" in broken terrain, employing their HMGs to good effect.[4][5] More recently two Apaches were lost along with their crews between January 28 and February 2, 2007 to Iraqi insurgent ground fire in Taji and Najaf.[6]'

EDIT

There is a CNN link with a video clip -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.apache.attack/index.html

I am not sure if this refers to the incident involving the Iraqi farmer or was another seperate Apache downing incident. It would be interesting to find and view the original footage from 2003 with the Iraqi farmers 'bagged Apache' to determine if it was one of 'Baghdad Bobs' propaganda pieces.

The only deadly weapon is a Man, the rest are just tools too an end, a brick or a rope . The .303 is a fine tool robust and simple and accurate.We have a differant culture and it's part of our freedom's .Britain had the same not that far in your history, but I guess thats not taught anymore.

If I may quote my former employer Zubillulah Nasiri, former Mujahadeen and now Saab mechanic in SOCAL; Afghan's carried various SMLE's, 98 mausers, the old flintlock singleshots and a smaller number of AK 47s. These weapons proved even the fabled Kalashnikov lacking by simply sniping the soviets from the superior ranges of these weapons. Lets look at small arms worldwide. At this time there are 2 military small arms for every man,woman and child on this planet, and growing. Most of these are not the widely distributed AK, but predominently weapons from the USA and the west. A rising proportion of the 'soldiers' carrying weapons often taller than they are CHILDREN. Now, it seems to me the cost of two firearms could buy a lot of rice and beans, some clean water, cooking pot, cooking oil and maybe a few basic innoculations. This obscenity of small arms is killing people on both ends; the victim on the muzzle end and the second victim on the butt end.So the next time you buy a brick of .22s to barter with in some post apocalyptic porno fantasy send an equal amount to any number of worthy charities.

Most media outlets in the us are slanted to the left, but PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. News Network (CNN) is the worst and their news reports should be taken with some sceptisism. Just like Peter Arnet during the first Gulf War CNN likes to stab the US in the back when ever possible. You know they are under the influence of Ted Turner and Hanoi Jane.