The ethics of buying rations

kellywmj · Post by **kellywmj** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:18 am

I only wish my government had the balls to get into the war on terrorism like we should have. Americans and Canadians combined are an awesome machine. We have the same goals, we are brothers.

Post by **kman** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:51 am

Hi guys - looks like I'm a little late to a great discussion so I'll just chime in with a couple of thoughts: Mirage took the words out of my mouth. Selling MREs doesn't appear to be clearly illegal - but at the same time, it doesn't appear to be clearly legal - it seems to have fallen in a gray area where it's tolerated up to a point - a point right now where individual resale is ok but commercial (Surplus Store) resale is actively discouraged (talk to a Surplus Store owner about visits from CID).

Twobravo · Post by **Twobravo** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 am

kellywmj wrote:Don't get me wrong here. I enjoy this forum, and kmans website is most enjoyable, arguably the best ration resource site on the net . My problem is this. I never bought a ration in my life. Had many issued to me, over 6 years in the infantry, but never bought one. They should not be for sale. I honestly think its part of the experience of being a soldier. And, this may be a minor point, but rations were never meant to be sold to the public, they are government property, like M 72's and 50 cal barrels. It bothers me to see so many cases of obviously stolen rations(British, Canadian and American) for sale on Ebay, and elsewhere. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Does the word "surplus" mean anything to you? I should be able to buy old 1911A1 pistols that were replaced by the M9 too.

Twobravo · Post by **Twobravo** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:57 am

kellywmj wrote:An M2HB has no place in civvie land, I know IMPs are never sold as surplus, thay are either issued, or if past expiry, destroyed. MREs are clearly marked, "Govt Property, not for resale".

An M2HB has a very good use in "civvie land" oh liberal wonder. It's use is to keep "civvie land" from becoming "govvie land".

As long as no crime is being commited, why would you care if I own an M2HB?

Twobravo · Post by **Twobravo** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:01 am

kellywmj wrote:A 50 cal, either as a Barrett, or M2, or any other incarnation, has no place other than in the hands of a soldier. There is no other practical purpose for it!

There's no practical purpose for a Corvette either. It has no place other than in the hands of a professional race car driver and it must be used only on a closed race track. Right?

Mirage · Post by **Mirage** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:38 pm

The thread started to drift off-topic to some serious degree.

From a discussion on the ethics of buying rations which are clearly legal to gun ownership restrictions and then on to government terrorist policies.
Once the REAL source of rations was explained, that topic seemed to have been dropped immediately and we drifted on to the other tangents.

kellywmj · Post by **kellywmj** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:14 pm

Hey, if you want to buy some beat to shit surplus M1911A1 that has had 40,000 rounds run through it, be my guest. As far as 50 cals go, unless you are some whack job fending off BATF agents as they storm your doomsday bunker, they have no legitimate use in society.

DangerousDave · Post by **DangerousDave** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:01 am

They mostly come at night! Mostly!!

DangerousDave · Post by **DangerousDave** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:32 am

I've gone completely BONKOs from eating MRE's. It's not my fault some Americans like to talk about Firearms and Ammo. I did'nt start it. Relax, and have a Fosters Lager!

Post by **kman** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:32 am

(A part of me screams, "No! Don't post this! Stay out of this thread!" but the other part of me types...)

So where does it stop kellywmj? If you don't think .50cals don't have any legitimate use in society, should we ban them? Does this mean we should ban everything that doesn't have a legitimate use? Like twobravo said, what about Corvettes?

Or are we only going to ban illegitimate things that are dangerous? Aren't guns in general pretty dangerous? Sure, a .50cal round is a pretty nasty thing when it hits a human, but how many civilians in the US have been killed by a .50cal round since it was invented? According to what I can find, only one in the history of the .50cal. So I'm pretty sure you can save many more lives by banning other calibers - .223, 7.62x39, 45mm, 9mm, etc. Why not pick one single caliber (.22?) that's "legitimate" and just ban the rest?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with you - I'm genuinely interested in where you see the limit. Or, if you're really only concerned with banning one single caliber and nothing else, why only that one?

I ran across this web site that seems to cover .50cal issue (from the anti-ban side):

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=2762

For now, I'm going to let this thread run its course. Just please...everyone be civil to each other or I'll shut it down.

The ethics of buying rations

Re: The ethics of buying rations

Agreed

Well, Minute of Angle

Hey Mirage