 |
|
In 100 years, maybe there will be no more need to fight over resources. Maybe no one will need to hunt to feed their family, and crime will be so scarce that no one feels the need to protect their home. If you're focused on a 100 year cultural shift, then by all means do what you can. What I think is far less likely to succeed is going house to house and rounding up all the guns. There isn't a national registry, so good luck finding them. Americans right now aren't going to give up their guns to a government that was caught giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels.
|
|
|
|
|
Sentenryu wrote: i think you (as in "you, americans") should make this amendment more clear.
I think it's perfectly clear. Like I said, foreigners don't have a say, so your comments are pointless.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Like I said, foreigners don't have a say, so your comments are pointless.
That's what Gaddafi and Saddam and lot of other people who had no respect for the international community used to say.
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sentenryu wrote: as it says bear arms and not bear any type of arm
The term "bear arms" is not limiting in any way.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
well, it also do not specify witch types you can hold, so as long as you can have at least one type of gun, the statment holds true, no? 
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
It means that you should be able to keep and bear battlefield-capable arms, meaning ANYTHING that can be used on a battlefield. Back then, civilians even had their own cannon.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Sentenryu wrote:
even if you were only allowed to have muskets, this right would still be
granted, as it says bear arms and not bear any type of
arm
Incorrect. That is not how a 'right' works in the US.
Your argument would be similar to saying that free speech is allowed but only as long as one does nothing but talk about sports teams. Thus free speech about religion, politics and sex (among others) would all be forbidden.
Sentenryu wrote: you can bear Pistols, shotguns, SMGs, RPGs, Nukes, whatever, just not Assault
rifles.
Also incorrect. Rights are not absolutes. There can be reasonable regulation despite the fact that it does infringe on a right. Which is exactly why one cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.
|
|
|
|
|
A bunch of towel-heads living in caves seem to fare quite well, and they're using 100-year-old weapons.
Did you miss my evaluation of the 2nd Amendment (posted last weekend).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: towel-heads living ...... they're using 100-year-old weapons
Hahahahahaha,I know quite a few "Towel Heads", most of them are using American Assault rifles acquired (somehow) from the US Army in Iraq. My missus used one hunting hares with some Bedouin. Christ knows why they thought that was a good idea, I would assume it would blow the hare apart if the hit it. Oh and they had AK-47s too, at least with that there was 0% chance of hitting the thing.
Towards the end of the hunt, it all went a bit Benny Hill, the bedioun used my wife & her friend as a "beater" to chase the hare out down a narrow valley (the men were on the edge firing down). Much hilarity ensured as the hare fled the gun-fire and double backed towards the missus, brining the gunfire with it queue much waving and the Yakety Sax theme. I'm glad this was before we'd met, though hunting hare sounds fun, and the meat is fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
Anything you kill yourself tastes better - just ask Hannibal Lecter. 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: And if you want to use them in a war against the US when it turns commie or fascist, you think we stand a chance given the money we let them spend on the military? Please.
The military are Americans just like the rest of Americans. They are people who have feelings and their morale would be non-existent if they were to obey orders to kill Conservatives, gun owners, and Constitutionalists.
It would be particularly devastating to their psychological well-being knowing they are serving the most corrupt and dangerous institutions carrying out atrocities on the American people.
|
|
|
|
|
I think they'll try to make something happen: that being the case, I was expressing the hope that it should be at least carried out objectively. Ridiculous, I know.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I still think it is at least a two fold problem. One is the power and style of firearm we can easily get here. Yes this time around he did not own any. However his mother did and he got to them. The other is mental health care and mental health awareness.
I'm an owner and user of firearms, stress relief through target practice and competition shooting as well. My pistol holds 17 rounds, all the competitions I have been at use a 10 round maximum. One of my rifles could hold 100+ if I bought a drum for it. Currently it holds 20 or 30 depending on which magazine I use. Would I be heart broken or somehow violated if the government passed a ban on all magazines with more than a 10 round capacity? Not one bit.
How we treat people who are mentally ill in this country is a joke. In this case, people had apparently told his mother not to turn her back on him, he was dangerous, etc etc. So I believe she bears some of the responsibility for having the guns she did where he had a remote chance of getting them. There are no asylums anymore in this country and prisons are turning into the largest mental health institutions around. I'm all for protecting medical health records, doubly so for mental health problems. There is still a massive stigma against them. But when it comes to buying guns, mental health should play a role. In this case, it helped. He was unable to purchase a fire arm. But his mother facilitated his gaining access to them.
Long post short : The core problem is the person pulling the trigger. The fact that it is possible to get your hands on a firearm which can fire 30+ rounds without reloading makes it easier to hit that many more targets in a shorter period of time.
The link to the recent Chinese attack is moot in my opinion. Yes, the guy was mentally unstable just like the individual here, but unlike here all 22 injured in that attack will survive. It is much harder to kill scores of people in a short period of time with a knife than with a gun. It is also much easier to defend against a knife, and much easier to disarm someone with a knife. Having spent time practicing martial arts, I still have not discovered a technique that will disarm someone with a gun from 10 yards away.
|
|
|
|
|
RJOberg wrote: It is also much easier to defend against a knife, and much easier to disarm
someone with a knife.
Only with the correct training and assuming that the attacker has no knife skills at all.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I will have the gun and you can have the knife - we start 10 yards apart - let's see who disarms the other first!
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...
|
|
|
|
|
Huh??? I think you entirely missed the point: I was trying to say it would be very difficult to disarm someone holding a knife unless you had training to do so.
On the other hand, have you seen the Magnificent Seven? Britt (James Coburn) could throw a knife quicker than most men could draw a gun. I also think it may have been Bruce Lee (?) who said something along the lines of "you can't outrun a bullet".
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: On the other hand, have you seen the Magnificent Seven? Britt (James Coburn) could throw a knife quicker than most men could draw a gun. I also think it may have been Bruce Lee (?) who said something along the lines of "you can't outrun a bullet".
You do know they weren't documentaries?
|
|
|
|
|
The Reincarnation wrote: You do know they weren't documentaries?
Seriously? That's real question? Elephanting hell: beam me up, there is no intelligent life left down here.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: beam me up,
That's not going to happen either as that's a Film too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Been out of town and heading out again shortly.
Are you comparing a fictional character who throws knives to a real person's philosophical thoughts? A lot of the stuff in Bruce Lee's movies are based on his thoughts and beliefs. I couldn't find anything attributing that quote to him, but if he did say it, etc.
Also if you throw a knife, first it takes a lot more training to throw it accurately and lethally than it does to defend against one with say.... a broomstick. Secondly, you have just disarmed yourself the moment the knife leaves your hand.
It isn't very difficult to disarm an untrained person who is wielding a knife. Get a couple of people, tackle them.
It is more difficult to disarm an untrained person who is wielding a gun. People tried to tackle this one, they died. In the Arizona shooting, he was tackled after his pistol was empty and he was reloading. He could not actively shoot anyone at that time. In Connecticut he had multiple weapons. If you waited for him to reload one, he had two more ready.
And as you yourself put it, you can't outrun a bullet. However people can run away from a crazy person with a knife. You don't even need to disarm them, you just have to run faster than they can. When you have someone with a gun, you might run faster than they can but you can't run faster than their bullets travel.
Again, comparing the two as if somehow the Chinese tragedy means that we don't need gun control because if we don't have assault rifles or high cap mags, (again, I'm not for banning all guns. I own plenty) people will just get a bat or a knife and kill just as many people is a bad comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow: you people really do take yourselves far too seriously.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
RJOberg wrote: The link to the recent Chinese attack is moot in my opinion
No it isn't. It's a miracle that none of those kids were killed. It's not because he was using a knife. Many of those kids should be dead.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Did Jack the Ripper use a gun?
Did Roberta Flack use a gun when she was Killing me softly[^] with her song?
Point is you don't need a gun to kill if you're disturbed enough to commit the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Point is you don't need a gun to kill if you're disturbed enough to commit the crime.
But it makes it a helluva lot easier.
No one is calling for a complete ban on guns. And would an assault weapon ban keep the drug cartels and gangs and other criminals from getting them illegally? Probably not in most cases. But in cases like this, the nutjob essentially took something that should be reserved only for WAR into an elementary school.
Excuse the hyperbole for a moment, and wait for my point: If normal people could get ahold of tactical nukes, should those be legal for law abiding citizens to get? I think we all agree "no"... what about RPG's? I think most would agree "no." A tank? A private jet equipped with bombs and rockets? So there is a line, somewhere, that has to be drawn between weapons of war and weapons that are legal for normal citizens to own. There are kinds of guns that are illegal. I believe assault rifles should be on the other side of that line. If they were, there probably still would have been a tragedy, yes, but maybe a dozen fewer grieving families. People that do this use what they can get easily, they do not have the know-how to obtain illegal weapons.
There are other ways, sure, the worst (which the media has ignored for some reason) being in 1927, when a member of the school board blew up half a school, killing 38 kids and 7 adults. He meant to destroy the entire school, but half his explosives didn't go off. (Look up Bath, Michigan for the grim details.) He spent a year or so sneaking explosives into the school, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. The only "note" he left behind was a crude sign that said, "Criminals are made, not born" or something like that. He committed suicide when he drove to the school (after the initial explosion) and set off his truck as a car bomb, killing a few more.
Ok, end tangent... my point really is that I think the people on either side of this debate are a lot closer to each other than either side will admit (of course there are fringe elements on both sides that make a lot of noise too), but the political posturing and ludicrous "We're dug in, don't give an inch no matter how wrong we are!" philosophy is probably going to end in nothing getting done. With anything, not just gun control.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: No one is calling for a complete ban on guns.
You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the news.
David Kentley wrote: would an assault weapon ban keep the drug cartels and gangs and other criminals from getting them illegally? Probably not in most cases
I think you can safely predict that it would have no effect whatsoever.
David Kentley wrote: But in cases like this, the nutjob essentially took something that should be reserved only for WAR into an elementary school.
So a bolt action hunting rifle, or even a semi-automatic varmint rifle would have been okay top take into a school?
David Kentley wrote: If normal people could get ahold of tactical nukes, should those be legal for law abiding citizens to get? I think we all agree "no"... what about RPG's? I think most would agree "no." A tank? A private jet equipped with bombs and rockets? So there is a line, somewhere
The line isn't "reasonable thought processes", the reason is MONEY. That stuff is super expensive, and "normal people" simply can't afford them. On the other hand, drug cartels have tanks, armored personnel carriers, RPGs, and armed aircraft. Why? Because they can afford them. I saw a youtube video today of a guy that mounted a sub-machine gun on a civilian drone.
David Kentley wrote: People that do this use what they can get easily,
Which means ANY gun could have been used. Do you see the slippery slope yet?
David Kentley wrote: he political posturing and ludicrous "We're dug in, don't give an inch no matter how wrong we are!" philosophy is probably going to end in nothing getting done.
Next to the total de-funding of the BATFE, that's the optimum outcome with regards to the current topic.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Actually if we legalized all drugs it would probably save many, many lives. Although we might lose a few extra due to overdoses these would be more than offset by the reduction of the drug cartels and their gun-culture.
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: No one is calling for a complete ban on guns.
What what? Many people are calling for a zero gun America. And that;s the kind of thinking we DON'T need.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: If they were, there probably still would have been a tragedy, yes, but maybe a
dozen fewer grieving families
So the number of people killed each time should make the difference?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: I also own a hunting knife, and a set of tools like hammers. Does that make me a "knife nut" or "hammer nut"?
No. Knives, hammers and bolts are ok to own.
But if you had a collection of nuts, you would be a "nut nut". 
|
|
|
|
|
Why do I feel like this happens in the US *a lot* more than anywhere else? Is that really the case or do I feel that way because I've been manipulated by media / interest groups / someone else? I suspect it does happen a lot more in the US. If it does and it's not caused by easy access to guns then why?
Why do so many Americans seem to think that gun control is a conspiracy?
If you have 1000 crazy people are you give them each a loaded gun to walk around with there's a chance one or more of them will 'snap' and kill someone. If only 500 of those same 1000 crazy people have a gun then surely the chance of one of them killing someone with a gun is reduced by 50%? Of those that 'snap' without a gun many of them would calm down by the time they'd armed themselves with a hammer, knife etc. And even if they didn't the chance of them inflicting so much damage in such a short time is remote.
Any why do people on the pro-gun side think that anything less than a complete end to violent deaths is a waste of time? I don't think anyone would suggest that making gun ownership illegal would prevent violent deaths. But would you give up your guns to save one kid? two? three? just how many dead people is that gun worth? I'll tell you how many - zero.
I don't think many Americans realise just how different your culture is in so many ways to other western countries. You all need to get out more!
I think it's sad you keep killing each other in this manner but if that's want you want, go for it! Personally I'm happy to live in a society where I don't feel the need to keep a gun. Am I a sheep? a blind lemming? Possibly, but like they say - ignorance is bliss
And one more thing, you're a bunch of pussies with your automatic rifles and hand guns. If I was going to arm myself I'd have a f***ing Abrams tank and an Apache chopper. And even then I wouldn't be able to defend myself against the tyranny you're all so paranoid about.
PS - I completely get the interest in guns, of themselves they are fascinating devices and shooting is fun but I wouldn't want one in my house.
modified 19-Dec-12 23:05pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, just maybe, if the media concentrated a little less on talking about the perpetrator(s) and more on the victims in these events we'd see fewer of them... just a thought.
Can't say what it's like in the USA, but at least in the UK we've been bombarded with images and details about the sad little shite that carried out the latest atrocious shootings, where as on the victims side the only single individual I can identify (from mainstream media) is the British boy whose family had moved for a better life. I just don't see the need to know so many details about the people who do these things and even from across the pond the gun ownership issue seems, at best, secondary to the effect of the media in these repeated events. Hell, I could get my hands on a gun if I really wanted to over here, and in pretty short order, so whether these people can do the same legally or illegally is just irrelevance though it does seriously mask the effect of mainstream media...
[edit]Though I don't, and don't intend to, own any guns myself at the current time, I am ex-military and have been trained in their proper use and care. The reality, as far as I can see it and I could be wrong, is that with the US Constitution as it stands US politicians can do one of two things; Change the Constitution or accept that gun ownership isn't going away and find a way of addressing the root cause of events like this. The sad reality however is that they'll likely pick their own path and just continue to run around like headless chickens, chasing ratings points and soundbites until something shinier catches their attention.[/edit]
Rhys
"If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the Universe"
modified 20-Dec-12 3:05am.
|
|
|
|
|
I note that the right to bear arms is in an amendment to the constitution, but not in the original. I presume that amendments can be amended too,
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
No, but the amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights were a necessary condition to gain the support the Constitution needed. And yes, amendments can be amended, as evidenced by the 21st amendment essentially canceling the 18th (prohibition). Still, you'll have about as much luck cancelling the 2nd amendment as you would cancelling the 1st. At least if we cancelled the 1st everyone would finally shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems very strange that the right wing nutters we often see on TV here in the UK believe firmly in the 2nd amendment, but fiercely oppose the 16th amendment (the right of the federal government to levy income taxes) - I assume that the constitution and amendments should not be a pick and choose menu?
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
The nutters on both sides tend to say a lot of things that are contradictory. I have to admit though, I haven't heard anybody attacking the right of the government to collect income taxes, just looking to limit how much they collect. Even Herman Cain's crazy 9-9-9 plan included an income tax. Which nutters are saying this? I should enjoy the laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
My own take is that all the legislation in the world will not change things one bit. Instead of gun control by legislation, people should be thinking gun control by education. In no way am I saying that gun owners are not educated. In fact, if you go and read numerous posts by Kevin, JSOP and others who are ardent users of guns, you will see that they are extremely responsible and advocate responsible gun ownership. That is just one aspect of education that has to begin and be practiced by more gun owners.
A number of gun owners are also prideful of the fact that they carry all the time and can defend themselves within an instant. While I do not deny them of this right or privelege, I do believe it is a sad commentary on the society that they live in, that they feel this need to be able to defend themselves in such a manner. Guns are only one component of self defense, but I'm surprised that self defense has to be such a large part of one's life. The biggest decision I make daily about self defense, is whether I'm going to lock the front door of my house when I leave for the day. There are lots of times I don't and there are lots of times, even while sleeping at night, my home is not locked up.
Okay let me have it with both barrels now.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: Look at the middle east. Car bombing and backpack bombings are a daily occurance.
Do you consider Middle East to be a good example for Americans? You're supposed to be civilized, they aren't.
Kevin Marois wrote: The problem isn't the gun,
Depends on the gun. It would be difficult to kill 26 persons with a gun that needs to be manually loaded.
Kevin Marois wrote: Does that make me a "knife nut" or "hammer nut"? Why not, haven't people been killed with them before. Don't think so, look here[^].
None of them died. You can kill people with chair if you want, but it would be very difficult to perform mass killing.
The problem is the kind of weapon used, which allows a single person to should hundreds of bullets in a short period of time.
I don't think there will be a ban on guns, just restricting automatic weapons more. Do you need an automatic weapon to go shoot with your son?
|
|
|
|
|
Le Gauchiste wrote: Do you consider Middle East to be a good example for Americans?
The point was that there are mass murders happening all the time, and they don't always involve guns.
Le Gauchiste wrote: Do you need an automatic weapon to go shoot with your son?
No. But here is where many people are misinformed. The shooter here didn't use an automatic weapon. It was semi-automatic. Same action as a pistol, where each bullet fired requires a single pull of the trigger. All this talk about the assault weapons ban keeps coming up now, and he didn't use an assault weapon. Again, just an irrational, emotional response.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Are you of French Canadian ascent? Your last name is quite common here. It is our Prime Minister's last name, also.
|
|
|
|
|
My grandparents on my mother's side were Parisian french, while my grandparents on my father's side were Canadian french.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised you're on the pro-gun side of this, knowing the French propensity for discarding their weapons so they can run away faster.
(just kidding)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
And here I was ready to buy you a Christmas gift. (scribble, scribble - crossing John off the list).
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind mentally stable people owning guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Boy, that's a load off MY mind...
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Americans (as a general rule) aren't really concerned with other people's level of comfort regarding their keeping and bearing of arms.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
However, the phrase 'well regulated militia' would indicate to me that an assault weapon was precisely the kind of weapon envisaged by Congress in 1791.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. Civilian ownership of "battlefield-capable weapons of the time" is the ONLY way the 2nd Amendment comes even close to being viable. If they manage to permanently ban "assault rifles", we become subjects or slaves as opposed to free citizens.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
As an interesting historical footnote, after Pearl Harbour the more gung-ho Japanese generals were thinking of an invasion of the US West Coast. Admiral Yamamoto, already aware that they had 'awakened a sleeping giant', managed to dissuade them, on the grounds that every American citizen was armed, and there would be a 'sniper behind every tree'.
As a compromise, Yamamoto arranged to build the world's first aircraft-carrying submarine, to enable bombing of the West Coast. Each was capable of carrying three aircraft, and three were built, but never saw action (other than their own sinking). One survived the war, but after examination by the US was scuttled, so the Russians couldn't get to see it - a fore-runner of the nuclear submarine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Rant 
Admin