The problem is that the Russians know how valuable those are, and are asking ridiculous money for them, sight unseen, as a result. Nobody in their right mind is going to take such a chance right now.
Future of Milsurp Availability
- Thread starter LocknLoad
- Start date
That makes a lot of sense.
The hardest and steadiest fighting was on the Ostfront, so that's where all the real goodies got sent: MKb-42(H), MKb-42(W), G/K-43, MP-43, MP-43/1, MP-44, StG-44.
All the ones I REALLY want to have and can't find.
And Uncle Joe got them ALL!
I'm gonna cry!
The hardest and steadiest fighting was on the Ostfront, so that's where all the real goodies got sent: MKb-42(H), MKb-42(W), G/K-43, MP-43, MP-43/1, MP-44, StG-44.
All the ones I REALLY want to have and can't find.
And Uncle Joe got them ALL!
I'm gonna cry!
purple, your advice is priceless!! I'll save that for reviewing from time to time. Thanks for sharing!
Around 1978, I bought a 1908 Brazilian from Ken MacLeod at Moosomin. It had fired three shots in 1913. It came with a matching bayonet. He couldn't find the matching target, and offered to trade me for one with a target. I liked this one, so I declined. I came fairly close to getting beaten over the head with it, as it cost $200, a fair bit of money to a young couple just getting on their feet. Now, whether that rifle has been a good investment or not matters not to me. I liked the rifle then, and still like it. It is truly a beautiful rifle.
After I croak, I have serious doubts if it will matter to me whether the price goes up or down. I own a whole pile of nice old rifles, way more than the average bear owns. That's my business, and I appreciate other peoples' tastes in firearms. I take great pleasure in handling these rifles, cleaning, firing, talking about them, and just plain having them.
Someday, they will be in someone else's possession. Hopefully not the friggin' UN.
Around 1978, I bought a 1908 Brazilian from Ken MacLeod at Moosomin. It had fired three shots in 1913. It came with a matching bayonet. He couldn't find the matching target, and offered to trade me for one with a target. I liked this one, so I declined. I came fairly close to getting beaten over the head with it, as it cost $200, a fair bit of money to a young couple just getting on their feet. Now, whether that rifle has been a good investment or not matters not to me. I liked the rifle then, and still like it. It is truly a beautiful rifle.
After I croak, I have serious doubts if it will matter to me whether the price goes up or down. I own a whole pile of nice old rifles, way more than the average bear owns. That's my business, and I appreciate other peoples' tastes in firearms. I take great pleasure in handling these rifles, cleaning, firing, talking about them, and just plain having them.
Someday, they will be in someone else's possession. Hopefully not the friggin' UN.
Yeah, it's about time we got rid of the bloody UN.
Look at the world today: half the governments are run by demented bureaucrats and plain dictators. THESE are the guys who want the REST of the world disarmed. The UN considers ALL of these to be legitimate governments and the vicious b*ast*rds who run them all are classed as "Internationally Protected Persons".
If Adolf Hitler was alive today, he, also, would be an "Internationally Protected Person" like Jomo "Mau-Mau" Kenyatta, Robert "Smilin' Bob" Mugabe and all the rest. Idi Amin, fergawdssakes, was an Internationally Protected Person! Emperor Bokassa was an "Internationally Protected Person", even after they found the Leader of the Opposition in his FRIDGE, in little pieces!
And THESE are the people who demand that WE give up OUR guns!
Let's get real, folks!
Talk to your local politicians. Get them to see what lunatics are behind this 'gun-control' BS. Sure, it was Canadian Liberals who ramrodded it through the UN in the first place, along with those smiling nonviolent Japanese. But the Liberals are history now and the japanese, sooner or later, are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they come from a very sick society, all flower-arranging aside. Any society which could conceive of Bushido is sick.
Time we got away from the One-Smiling-Unarmed-World crowd and had our OWN society. It might not be up to their standards, but it will be quiet, it will be polite, and there will be very little crime an the taxes will be low.
Worth thinking about?
I think so.
Look at the world today: half the governments are run by demented bureaucrats and plain dictators. THESE are the guys who want the REST of the world disarmed. The UN considers ALL of these to be legitimate governments and the vicious b*ast*rds who run them all are classed as "Internationally Protected Persons".
If Adolf Hitler was alive today, he, also, would be an "Internationally Protected Person" like Jomo "Mau-Mau" Kenyatta, Robert "Smilin' Bob" Mugabe and all the rest. Idi Amin, fergawdssakes, was an Internationally Protected Person! Emperor Bokassa was an "Internationally Protected Person", even after they found the Leader of the Opposition in his FRIDGE, in little pieces!
And THESE are the people who demand that WE give up OUR guns!
Let's get real, folks!
Talk to your local politicians. Get them to see what lunatics are behind this 'gun-control' BS. Sure, it was Canadian Liberals who ramrodded it through the UN in the first place, along with those smiling nonviolent Japanese. But the Liberals are history now and the japanese, sooner or later, are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they come from a very sick society, all flower-arranging aside. Any society which could conceive of Bushido is sick.
Time we got away from the One-Smiling-Unarmed-World crowd and had our OWN society. It might not be up to their standards, but it will be quiet, it will be polite, and there will be very little crime an the taxes will be low.
Worth thinking about?
I think so.
- Location
- Not really sure.
Yepp gun owners need their own country, and it would be the best god damn country on the planet guarenteed.
But instead I'd be just as happy with taking everyone in the U.N. and booting them in the ass with a steel toe until I can't kick anymore and then cut off all their funding.
The problem is that "eventually" can be awfully expensive. Hitler fell "eventually" and it cost 10 million German lives, 20 million Russian lives, a whole big bunch of British and Canadian and American lives and God alone knows how many cities bombed to rubble and enough bombs and tanks and 'planes to bankrupt (among others) the British Empire.
I am thinking that steady pressure on our pols and the RIGHT KIND of propaganda (based on absolute truth, mind you: if you tell it right, the truth is quite enough in this case) could get us to pull out of that particular cesspool before another load of crap hits it.
The PROMISE of the UN was wonderful, but it has turned into the world's most expensive debating society for Political Science majors and would-be bureaucrats.
I went to University in Brandon and Winnipeg. We had a LOT of foreign students, especially in Brandon, many from Africa. ALMOST without exception, they were taking Political Science courses so they could all be big-shots when they went home again. NONE were taking courses that would help their countries to industrialise and advance into a 20th Century economic world. And now we're in the 21st Century and they are all big-shots and we still are ladelling out the foreign aid at ever-increasing amounts.
We send foreign aid to many, many countries, including INDIA. India still has people starving to death in the streets. Yes. But India ALSO has THREE aircraft carriers (2 of them nuclear), it has nuclear weapons and an extensive nuclear program, it has intermediate-range ballistic missiles, it has a space program, it MAKES MiG-29s and has at least two TANK factories.
But we continue sending them foreign-aid money because they have people starving to death in the streets.
This is sheer insanity.
They shold feed their people. Maytbe they might even get rid of some of their older weapons (they still have warehouses full of SMLEs, Vickers-Berthiers, Lewises and all sorts of other fun toys), thus putting something useful onto the MILSURP market for us to play with.
To me, at least, that makes SOME sense.
I am thinking that steady pressure on our pols and the RIGHT KIND of propaganda (based on absolute truth, mind you: if you tell it right, the truth is quite enough in this case) could get us to pull out of that particular cesspool before another load of crap hits it.
The PROMISE of the UN was wonderful, but it has turned into the world's most expensive debating society for Political Science majors and would-be bureaucrats.
I went to University in Brandon and Winnipeg. We had a LOT of foreign students, especially in Brandon, many from Africa. ALMOST without exception, they were taking Political Science courses so they could all be big-shots when they went home again. NONE were taking courses that would help their countries to industrialise and advance into a 20th Century economic world. And now we're in the 21st Century and they are all big-shots and we still are ladelling out the foreign aid at ever-increasing amounts.
We send foreign aid to many, many countries, including INDIA. India still has people starving to death in the streets. Yes. But India ALSO has THREE aircraft carriers (2 of them nuclear), it has nuclear weapons and an extensive nuclear program, it has intermediate-range ballistic missiles, it has a space program, it MAKES MiG-29s and has at least two TANK factories.
But we continue sending them foreign-aid money because they have people starving to death in the streets.
This is sheer insanity.
They shold feed their people. Maytbe they might even get rid of some of their older weapons (they still have warehouses full of SMLEs, Vickers-Berthiers, Lewises and all sorts of other fun toys), thus putting something useful onto the MILSURP market for us to play with.
To me, at least, that makes SOME sense.
The original idea of the UN was/is good, but sadly it has turned into a failed institution which is beyond any meaningful reform. I did 7 UN tours, but will never join the UN Peacekeepers Assn and wear it's powder blue coat or carry the UN flag. I still wear my UN medals on Armistice Day, but no longer wear a blue beret. Back in 1992 when the UN monument was being dedicated in Ottawa, I was asked to command troops in the parade. I declined. The whole exercise seemed rather artificial and much too late. Suddenly after the Nobel prize was awarded to peacekeepers in 1988, peacekeeping had become cool and peacekeepers were embraced. It was quite a contrast from my first UN tour when you got off the plane to be met by a barking dog and a surley customs agent. Besides, "lyin Brian" was taking the salute, and I was still PO'd with how he had responded to the first Gulf War.
I've had a lot of dealings with the UN, both as a troop trying to make things happen in the field and from the national position. By and large UN HQ is populated by a bunch of ineffective and idle bureaucrats. There are some good people there, but manning of the UN is done on a representative basis from all the member nations, so you are stuck with whatever scruff various $hit-bird countries choose to cough up and send there. Promotion in the UN is not based on merit, but rather on nepotism and national representation. I was once offered a job in the UN, but turned it down because it would have proven much too frustrating.
Current peacekeeping operations are pretty ineffectual due to poorly crafted mandates and the lack of professionalism among current troop contributors. The ongoing imbroglio in Sudan/Darfur is a shining example of how not to do things. I gave a talk on peacekeeping to a local group 3 yrs ago when this mission was being organized and identified several fatal flaws, which have sadly been proven out. In the first case, the Force commander and senior UN rep were mandated to co-ordinate all of their actions with the approval of the despot who rules Sudan-ONE AND THE SAME BUGGER WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGINEERING AND DIRECTING THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE MINORITIES IN DARFUR IN THE FIRST PLACE. I don't think that the UN has yet declared that there is a genocide in Darfur because that would compell some drastic intervention by the major players-something they are careful to avoid since Rwanda. Also China, who is a member of the Security Council and has a major interest in protecting it's Sudanese oil supply, was careful to avoid alienating the ruler of Sudan when drafting the crippling mandate for the peacekeeping mission. Lastly, the troop contributors are mostly African countries who have deployed a horde of unprofessional troops to the mission. I think Africa should be sorted out by the Africans, and keep the rest of us out. And now Canada is shopping around for a bigger role in the Congo-an ongoing disaster since the first UN mission there in the early 1960s. Vote "NO" on this one!
Lefty Canadian diplomats, like "landmine" Lloyd Axworthy, Stephen Lewis, and Louise Frechette have been active in initiatives like small arms control. One of the great ironies is that these folks were instrumental in having the UN adopt the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine where the UN can vote to intervene in a case of genocide without the approval of a sovereign government. Kind of a nice idea which seemed to fit Rwanda, but the UN is very careful to not declare a genocide which would then require some action to stop it. One of the ironies with this Canadian devised R2P policy is that it might well become a double-edged sword to be used against us. I can conceive of some tongue clucking Swede or moralizing Japanese UN diplomat musing about the injustices which the aboriginals are suffering at the hands of the Canadian Government and suggesting that it might just be appropriate for the UN to invoke the R2P doctrine and step in to sort things out. What ho, talk about being hoisted on your own petard!! Be careful what you wish for.
I've had a lot of dealings with the UN, both as a troop trying to make things happen in the field and from the national position. By and large UN HQ is populated by a bunch of ineffective and idle bureaucrats. There are some good people there, but manning of the UN is done on a representative basis from all the member nations, so you are stuck with whatever scruff various $hit-bird countries choose to cough up and send there. Promotion in the UN is not based on merit, but rather on nepotism and national representation. I was once offered a job in the UN, but turned it down because it would have proven much too frustrating.
Current peacekeeping operations are pretty ineffectual due to poorly crafted mandates and the lack of professionalism among current troop contributors. The ongoing imbroglio in Sudan/Darfur is a shining example of how not to do things. I gave a talk on peacekeeping to a local group 3 yrs ago when this mission was being organized and identified several fatal flaws, which have sadly been proven out. In the first case, the Force commander and senior UN rep were mandated to co-ordinate all of their actions with the approval of the despot who rules Sudan-ONE AND THE SAME BUGGER WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGINEERING AND DIRECTING THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE MINORITIES IN DARFUR IN THE FIRST PLACE. I don't think that the UN has yet declared that there is a genocide in Darfur because that would compell some drastic intervention by the major players-something they are careful to avoid since Rwanda. Also China, who is a member of the Security Council and has a major interest in protecting it's Sudanese oil supply, was careful to avoid alienating the ruler of Sudan when drafting the crippling mandate for the peacekeeping mission. Lastly, the troop contributors are mostly African countries who have deployed a horde of unprofessional troops to the mission. I think Africa should be sorted out by the Africans, and keep the rest of us out. And now Canada is shopping around for a bigger role in the Congo-an ongoing disaster since the first UN mission there in the early 1960s. Vote "NO" on this one!
Lefty Canadian diplomats, like "landmine" Lloyd Axworthy, Stephen Lewis, and Louise Frechette have been active in initiatives like small arms control. One of the great ironies is that these folks were instrumental in having the UN adopt the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine where the UN can vote to intervene in a case of genocide without the approval of a sovereign government. Kind of a nice idea which seemed to fit Rwanda, but the UN is very careful to not declare a genocide which would then require some action to stop it. One of the ironies with this Canadian devised R2P policy is that it might well become a double-edged sword to be used against us. I can conceive of some tongue clucking Swede or moralizing Japanese UN diplomat musing about the injustices which the aboriginals are suffering at the hands of the Canadian Government and suggesting that it might just be appropriate for the UN to invoke the R2P doctrine and step in to sort things out. What ho, talk about being hoisted on your own petard!! Be careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
angrysoldier
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- under your bed
purple we think too much alike. you scare me.llololol
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
The U.N. has been just as effective as the "league of Nations" In other words, WORTHLESS.
True enough, John.
And another way they are alike: WE pay for THEIR play.
The amount of money that Canada alone has put into the UN verily screams for some proper answers and some decent solutions.
And America has put in about as much as the rest of the world combined.
We all are being shafted by a bunch of dithering clowns in morning-coats and very expensive ties..... which we get to pay for.
The people are saying "Enough is enough!"...... but how much longER will it take for our respective Governments to listen to us?
Likely until there's a hockey game in Hell.
And another way they are alike: WE pay for THEIR play.
The amount of money that Canada alone has put into the UN verily screams for some proper answers and some decent solutions.
And America has put in about as much as the rest of the world combined.
We all are being shafted by a bunch of dithering clowns in morning-coats and very expensive ties..... which we get to pay for.
The people are saying "Enough is enough!"...... but how much longER will it take for our respective Governments to listen to us?
Likely until there's a hockey game in Hell.
The hard part is that we really do need an international organization, like the UN or League of Nations, but we do not need all of the expensive bureaucracy and programs that have grown like fungus since the UN was established 65 yrs ago.
Meaningful reforms seem impossible and starving the beast with the hope of forcing reform, like the US has tried to do by witholding contributions, has'nt worked either. All that happened was that it cut it's programs to conserve funds for it's bureaucratic core. I think the only way ahead is to take a hard look at the original UN Charter from 1945, re-validate it and modify it as necessary for the future, and then zero base build an organization and a budget that relates directly to the execution of what is in the charter. Everything else is reduced to zero. Maybe the time is right for this given the state of the international financial situation.
On the peacekeeping business, there was a comprehensive study done by the UN to sort out the management of peacekeeping operations and the standards required of national peacekeeping contingents in the light of some of the failures in Africa and the Balkans in the 1990s- the Rwanda mess, and black marketeering and ###ual abuses by various national contingents,etc. The recommendations of this report are quite good, yet they have never been implemented. So the floundering continues.
Just because the original purpose of the UN is worthwhile, does'nt mean that everything it does is good or necessary. Yet Canadians are so enamoured with the Peacekeeping image that they seem willing to buy into anything that happens under the name of the blue flag-no questions, no protests, no dissent. Some of the stuff that we buy into is way out of line. To re-visit the Sudan and genocide in Darfur; ARROO-gha, ARROO-gha, there is a genocide in Darfur with some 400,000 killed or displaced, yet the UN will not call it what it is, nor will they invoke the Canadian designed R2P doctrine to stop it. Why not? Well it's easy, the Chinese will veto it in the security Council to protect the access to the Sudanese oil, and besides, there is no western appetite to intervene after the mess in Somalia. Not a peep on this from Canada.
We just had our Governor-General go to Rwanda and deliver a "mea culpa" to them because we did'nt save them from themselves in 1994. WTF kind of thinking is that? There is room for a lot of apologies in Rwanda, but they should come from the Rwandans to themselves for what they did. We have now made Romeo Dallaire a saint and a Liberal senator and a great enough personage to wear a white gown and light the Olympic flame in recognition for what he did in Rwanda. The fact is he was the wrong man for the job and failed miserably at it. He was a UN virgin with no previous experience in the realities of the UN business until he arrived as a 2 star force commander. People choose to admire him as a great humanitarian for his efforts. That may well be the case, but as a military commander he had niether the mandate nor the resources to do what he attempted to do. The Belgiques still want to hold him to account for losing a number of their troops and I think they should have a go at it.
By contrast we had 2PPCLI go force on force and do an amazing job of stopping the Croats and their genocide on the Serbs in the battle of the Medak Pocket around the same time, yet the DND and government response was to put a lid on it for years because it was'nt politically acceptable that our Peacekeepers had actually used their weapons and killed some bad guys. Where were the accolades for their success? They eventually came years later, but too little, too late. We do live in a bizarre country.
Meaningful reforms seem impossible and starving the beast with the hope of forcing reform, like the US has tried to do by witholding contributions, has'nt worked either. All that happened was that it cut it's programs to conserve funds for it's bureaucratic core. I think the only way ahead is to take a hard look at the original UN Charter from 1945, re-validate it and modify it as necessary for the future, and then zero base build an organization and a budget that relates directly to the execution of what is in the charter. Everything else is reduced to zero. Maybe the time is right for this given the state of the international financial situation.
On the peacekeeping business, there was a comprehensive study done by the UN to sort out the management of peacekeeping operations and the standards required of national peacekeeping contingents in the light of some of the failures in Africa and the Balkans in the 1990s- the Rwanda mess, and black marketeering and ###ual abuses by various national contingents,etc. The recommendations of this report are quite good, yet they have never been implemented. So the floundering continues.
Just because the original purpose of the UN is worthwhile, does'nt mean that everything it does is good or necessary. Yet Canadians are so enamoured with the Peacekeeping image that they seem willing to buy into anything that happens under the name of the blue flag-no questions, no protests, no dissent. Some of the stuff that we buy into is way out of line. To re-visit the Sudan and genocide in Darfur; ARROO-gha, ARROO-gha, there is a genocide in Darfur with some 400,000 killed or displaced, yet the UN will not call it what it is, nor will they invoke the Canadian designed R2P doctrine to stop it. Why not? Well it's easy, the Chinese will veto it in the security Council to protect the access to the Sudanese oil, and besides, there is no western appetite to intervene after the mess in Somalia. Not a peep on this from Canada.
We just had our Governor-General go to Rwanda and deliver a "mea culpa" to them because we did'nt save them from themselves in 1994. WTF kind of thinking is that? There is room for a lot of apologies in Rwanda, but they should come from the Rwandans to themselves for what they did. We have now made Romeo Dallaire a saint and a Liberal senator and a great enough personage to wear a white gown and light the Olympic flame in recognition for what he did in Rwanda. The fact is he was the wrong man for the job and failed miserably at it. He was a UN virgin with no previous experience in the realities of the UN business until he arrived as a 2 star force commander. People choose to admire him as a great humanitarian for his efforts. That may well be the case, but as a military commander he had niether the mandate nor the resources to do what he attempted to do. The Belgiques still want to hold him to account for losing a number of their troops and I think they should have a go at it.
By contrast we had 2PPCLI go force on force and do an amazing job of stopping the Croats and their genocide on the Serbs in the battle of the Medak Pocket around the same time, yet the DND and government response was to put a lid on it for years because it was'nt politically acceptable that our Peacekeepers had actually used their weapons and killed some bad guys. Where were the accolades for their success? They eventually came years later, but too little, too late. We do live in a bizarre country.
I'd love to know how some of these dealers manage to find these long forgotten caches of surps overseas in the first place.
I mean im sure the paperwork on the export/import is hard, but im sure just finding a source is the hardest. They must spend a lot of time overseas.
I mean im sure the paperwork on the export/import is hard, but im sure just finding a source is the hardest. They must spend a lot of time overseas.
