Comments by "Anders Juel Jensen" (@andersjjensen) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
683
-
192
-
156
-
129
-
96
-
88
-
80
-
75
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
63
-
59
-
58
-
56
-
50
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
I served in the armoured artillery for 17 years. For the first 15 of those I never had a reprimand, let alone an actual accident, with any firearm, ordinance procedure or cannon. During regiment guard duty, where two men fell sick with legionella and ended up in the infirmary, I had to pull an all-nighter. At barf o'clock in the morning I decided to give the supplied guard rifle a quick once-over as it had caught a bit of rain water at the last patrol round. For some reason my brain decided to jumble the last three steps: do a dry fire test, switch to safe and then insert the (loaded) magazine. So I merrily inserted the magazine, loaded the weapon, pointed it at the ceiling and fired a 7.62 through the roof of the gate house... Quite inexplicably I abruptly found myself in a new state of alertness that, by stark contrast, made it abundantly clear to me just how drowsy I had actually been only 0.1 seconds prior.
The moral of the story is that coffee does not give you energy. It only suppresses the brain chemical responsible for telling you that you're tired and should pay extra close attention to things dedicated to killing people. So no, it doesn't only happen to Pvt Snuffy in boot camp.
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
@HighlandLaddie Well since you're being a twat about it, allow me to retort: @Antillicus did not specify in which respect he thinks Ian is the most pioneering. And "interesting" is an absolutely subjective term. But if the premiss of pioneering is reaching out to people outside the traditional gun enthusiast circles I think he is absolutely right. I wasn't interested in guns in the slightest, despite having done military service. But one day Youtube suggested me some hippie looking dude talking about the rifle I was issued (HK G3), so I figured why the heck not... And that's when I learned that Ian is a really good presenter, so I stuck around. I also happen to like books, and whatdoyaknow.
So what I personally think Ian is absolutely pioneering is: Presenting firearms history in an interesting and politically neutral neutral light, with a good balance between observations on mechanical, practical and logistical developments along with anecdotes about the people who made these things happen.
Mostly every other channel/source I've come across is slathered in either national pride, political agenda, that weird tin-foil-hat tactical-preperation-for-dooms-day vibe that just puts me off right away, or all of the above.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@therideneverends1697 Uh, controlled substances and the Danish army don't mix. At all.
It was a judgement call by the security officer. He asked if he should knock someone else out who wasn't home for the weekend, or if we were cool with him just stepping in (security officer is normally only on call) and we'd share 4 people's work among 3. We were, at the time, in DEFCON nothing-at-all, there was no live ammo (other than small arms ammo) on the base itself, and almost everyone was home for the weekend. Nobody out on exercise, etc. So we figured that would just mean 3 hours less sleep for each of us per night, but otherwise be a boring ass weekend guard duty. Being good sports we didn't wanna call in someone on base who might have planned a Friday and/or Saturday bender/booty-call planned. Seemed like a fine plan.... Until a fist fight broke out early in Saturday morning because some conscripts couldn't hold their liquor when they returned from town. Righty, one man short, one at the gate, one on the timed patrol so I had to get out of bed again before getting any sleep, throw some weight around, lock one up, get the other to the infirmary, spend quite some time calming the non-combatant-but-close-to-becoming-combatant-friends of the involved, take reports, and ah.. my time to do the patrol. So my buddy got to sleep a little while the security officer did paperwork... Now would you believe me if I told you that THE EXACT SAME THING happened early Sunday morning? Yup. This time my buddy insisted that I got his sleeping slot (all of two hours) because I "got hit twice". So at 10AM on Sunday I got up, feeling about as fresh as raw sewage, and did my 1.5 hours patrol round, thinking that I just had to hang in there until noon when we would be relieved, while drinking some 700mils of absurdly strong coffee while I walked. Walking in the ice cold light drip, while drinking bean based tar, did wake me up. Or so I thought. At 9:43, according to the security log, I was taught differently.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@soudadmaouas7058 Oh, I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that human beings are so soft that at normal combat range (up to 200m) the 5.56 is plenty powerful enough to make them incapable of fighting after a torso shot. Despite being a smaller round it has a higher velocity (the bullet weight to gun powder amount is much better on the 5.56) so it reaches the target quicker on close range making it easier to hit moving targets. You need to shoot at targets 250-300 away before the 7.62 "catches up" because it doesn't lose velocity as fast as the 5.56
Obviously the 7.62 has a much better penetration on harder targets, but that's the thing: unless you're fighting idiots who think a small wooden shed is actual cover, then it doesn't matter. Brick, concrete and tamped dirt structures are enough to stop it. Armored vehicles stop it. Normal cars, however, are not enough to stop a 5.56 either, so there it doesn't matter.
As I've said, I've used both on multiple deployments, and having the LMG guy on 7.62 is obviously a nice backup, but I do prefer the lighter rifle with a 30 round magazine when trotting around at ground level in dense environments because the benefits of the 7.62 never really comes into play there. Now if I'm at an elevated position doing over watch with great visibility I'd obviously prefer the extended range... but at the end of the day, once you put a bullet in the target the caliber doesn't really matter. They either die or get pulled away screaming. Both of which means you don't have to worry about them any more. Sometimes the screaming can actually be of benefit: It occupies someone else for a while.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was issued the G3 first and the M16 6 years later, and I have shot several .308/7.62 hunting rifles. The G3 has a pleasant "distributed" recoil compared to a bolt action in the same caliber. If I had to go to war (again) and was given the choice between the Swedish AK4 update of the G3 and the latest iteration of the M16 I would chose the former without even blinking. Sacrificing 10 rds per mag and about a kg of extra weight in exchange for a rifle that hits a human sized target all the time, every time, in adverse weather conditions at 500-600 meters, and has the oomph to go through civilian cars, garden sheds, shallow ditches, etc, is an easy choice to me. Those of my buddies who were less good shots liked the M16, but it never won me over. The correct NATO cartridge change (as the US is figuring out now with the .277 Fury) would have been 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser. The 7.62 was too powerful and the 5.56 was too weak....
Oh, and that you put locking in quotes means you don't understand the mechanics. The bolt head stays in place until the bolt carrier has moved 7mm. The easiest way to think of it is to compare it to balls on a pool table. The "ping" from the cartridge sends energy through the bolt head to the wedge so it starts moving (like two touching pool balls being hit), which pushes the bolt carrier backwards until there is enough space that the rollers can retract, at which point the bolt head starts following the bolt carrier. It's as much a locking system as a rotating bolt head. It's just two different mechanisms that actuate the unlocking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I once fashioned a cork gun from a bicycle pump, a piece of wood, various nails, screws and brackets and a spring from a telescoping lamp. It gave a mighty good pop exactly three times before something came lose and the end cap and spring shot me in the face. Granted, I was just 14, but I'm still impressed that someone with only hammers, pliers, files, clamps, home made drill bits, a furnace and something very vaguely resembling a lathe can make a rifle that will at least test fire a few 8mm Mauser cartridge without instantly turning into a very elaborate pipe bomb.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
... now I'm a bit of a weasel when it comes to words: What's the precise legal definition of "infringed"?
According to the usual law sites it's something akin to "An infringement is a violation, a breach, or an unauthorized act."
So basically the second amendment is null and void so long as gun regulations are authorized by the government that the same constitution ratifies. Had the wording been "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is unlimited and inalienable" we'd be a lot closer though. But that opens the possibility of tampering with whom "the people" constitutes. So another section would have to add "The people constitutes any person residing in the USA above 18 years of age, either natively born, or possessing a permanent visa, fully regardless of status or standing. This includes, but is not limited to, political orientation or identification, criminal record, religious conviction or lack thereof, level of sanity as perceived by health professionals or others, gender, ethnicity, or any other distinguishing factor defined by law or otherwise".
There. Now everyone can own a machine gun. Also the ones we don't want to own machine guns. Like Hells Angels members and special forces war vets with severe PTSD and advanced Alzheimer combined....
1
-
@kimdearrington258 I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, as I'm not even a US citizen, nor resident. I just poked fun with the words because I'm keenly aware that "naturally spoken English" and "legal language English" are two very different animals indeed. The reason why you see statements such as "including but not limited to: x,y,z" instead of "such as, for example: x,y,z" is because some asshat some time got a court convinced that it was not clear that the list was not exemptive, and now that ruling takes legal presidency. You have to get that particular ruling over turned by the supreme court before you can use the term "for example" legally in the way that normal/sane/non-weasel people naturally think of that term.
So while you think of the word "infringe" to mean "meddle with in any way/restrict or regulate/cause alterations to" or something very similar, the annoying reality is that that is not the current legal definition of the word, and there are probably a few shit tons of rulings that need to be overturned before you can even begin to make an argument based on that interpretation in court.
Or said a bit more tongue-in-cheek:
Legalese, n:
A perverted and convoluted form of communication where the words don't mean what they usually mean. Typically only conducted by vile creatures, known as lawyers, only to line their own pockets, but to the detriment of the sanity of common folks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ismellmandude6401 It is a possibility. And I quite often choose to just shrug. But when someone starts calling someone else's religion "fake" it is my moral obligation to respond.
Either you accept that some people need religion in their lives, and what they belive in has a 1:0.9999 relationship with what their parrents belive in, so you extend your own freedom of religion to every one else, or you keep your bullshit to yourself.
Because if you begin with the whole "my imaginary friend is the right one, and yours is wrong" I WILL point out to you that your imaginary friend is just an imaginary friend.
If you say "Having a close personal relationship with $DEITY brings me so much joy in life, and it makes me a better person" I will ALWAYS either mind my own business and scroll by, or say "That sounds nice. Good for you".
There can be no two ways about this: Freedom of religion, political orientation, sexual identity, taste in food, music, clothes and whatever is extended to EVERYONE. If you only want to extend those to yourself I will be your personal problem each and every time. Because I want those freedoms too, and I will defend anyone who isn't getting them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1