View Full Version : Yet Even More Vintage Gun Ads...
Ok, so I decided to give SOF (great as it is) a break this time around and I will be showcasing ads from it's illegitimate cousin Warriors magazine. While SOF is ostensibly a mercenary periodical with a heavy focus on firearms, Warriors is more of a martial arts publication with a heavy firearms/law enforcement slant. Basically it was made for every 12 year old who loved Bruce Lee and machine guns. And for what it is, there was actually some remarkable focus, even if the conclusions were hardly up to the Peter Kokalis standard.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001a1.jpg
The issues sampled run from the late 70s to the very early 80s.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/P1003071.jpg
So how did this martial arts magazine feel about guns?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001p.jpg
For example here is a cool article about a new law enforcement tool known as a "taser" whatever the hell that is.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001c1.jpg
The army had some new crazy gadget called MILES gear.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001b1.jpg
The Army was talking about replacing the 1911 but changed their mind.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001n.jpg
With Reagan in office people were actually predicting the end of ATF.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001f1.jpg
Despite this expectation ATF was still telling us what guns we could and couldn't have.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001r.jpg
And even back in the 80s, HK could be dicks. Their policy to not provide dealer samples to SOTs would later be reversed.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001d1.jpg
But HK did have some other cool toys for sale.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001v.jpg
And there was talk of some revolutionary HK weapon that was going to change everything.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001o.jpg
And even though you couldn't get a dealer sample HK, you could get an Uzi SMG if you were a SOT. Regular folks could get a closed bolt carbine version.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001e1.jpg
Later there was even a Mini Uzi.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001h.jpg
And there were some solid gun articles.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001s.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001i.jpg
Even if there was "some" exaggeration.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001q.jpg
The survivalist movement started during the Carter years was in full swing.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001x.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001t.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001m.jpg
And my how times have changed, take a look at these prices.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001j.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001k.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001l.jpg
Don't you wish you bought one of those $235 M-16s and aren't you glad you didn't buy one of those $4,100 Night Scopes.
And if you thought clip vs. magazine was born on the internet, think again.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001g.jpg
And just like SOF you ran into the same advertisements. Goddamn I wish I had some more of those Dolan's Sports nunchaku.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001u.jpg
And even here you could learn the "secrets" of the Ninja, but don't tell anybody.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001w.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPyhmwjH7II :big_boss:
This is funny as hell! :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPyhmwjH7II :big_boss:
And there were some solid gun articles.
And my how times have changed, take a look at these prices.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001k.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001l.jpg
Don't you wish you bought one of those $235 M-16s and aren't you glad you didn't buy one of those $4,100 Night Scopes.
I'm liking the M16s at $235
5.56 Ball at $140
M2 60mm Mortor at $3,500
60mm Mortors at $18
My home fortress would be complete.
Strangely $235 adjusted for inflation works out to $866 so they cost about the same as an AR-15 now heh
montanadave
05-11-11, 08:17
So how did this martial arts magazine feel about guns?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/SteyrAUG/0001p.jpg
When did we slip into the abyss where common sense, moderation, and compromise became anathema and cooperation became synonymous with capitulation?
From the op-ed piece: "In our new community-- we might call it Moderation, Ky.-- every citizen would be required by law to practice the virtue of common sense above all others. The penalties for resorting to rhetoric and engaging in blind obstinacy would be severe."
If only Congress could be held to the standard highlighted in the previous passage. :rolleyes:
When did we slip into the abyss where common sense, moderation, and compromise became anathema and cooperation became synonymous with capitulation?
When people on the right started reading what is written by people on the left and realized that the left was continually moving the "middle" further to the left a little bit every year through the Hegelian dialectic.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
The article shown is an example of synthesis between wrong (left wing pro gun control thesis) and right (pro gun antithesis) that I don't agree with. We ought to try to control guns so they don't end up in the hands of those who would do harm with them? No. We ought to control people who have proven they would do harm. We ought to more strictly enforce laws already on the books instead of passing new laws? No. Many of the laws currently on the books are unjust and illogical and ought to be repealed.
PS I didn't see a price for the 57mm recoilless rifle. That would be a nice addition to any collection!
The article shown is an example of synthesis between wrong (left wing pro gun control thesis) and right (pro gun antithesis) that I don't agree with. We ought to try to control guns so they don't end up in the hands of those who would do harm with them? No. We ought to control people who have proven they would do harm. We ought to more strictly enforce laws already on the books instead of passing new laws? No. Many of the laws currently on the books are unjust and illogical and ought to be repealed.
Did you happen to read the second to last paragraph?
Did you happen to read the second to last paragraph?
Yeah I read the whole article and specifically mentioned which parts I disagreed with.
Yeah I read the whole article and specifically mentioned which parts I disagreed with.
Ok, I've clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say then.
It was my belief you disagreed with the article "The Trouble With Gun Laws" and thought it advocated controlling guns rather than controlling criminals.
As I didn't see that advocated anywhere in the editorial, I must have misunderstood what you are referring to.
Catch me up.
QuietShootr
05-11-11, 16:50
Ok, I've clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say then.
It was my belief you disagreed with the article "The Trouble With Gun Laws" and thought it advocated controlling guns rather than controlling criminals.
As I didn't see that advocated anywhere in the editorial, I must have misunderstood what you are referring to.
Catch me up.
He's saying (and I agree) meeting in the middle is a losing strategy for us, because they keep shifting the middle toward the left.
It was my belief you disagreed with the article "The Trouble With Gun Laws" and thought it advocated controlling guns rather than controlling criminals.
As I didn't see that advocated anywhere in the editorial, I must have misunderstood what you are referring to.
Maybe you need to read the article again then? It clearly said "common ground" on the gun control issue should be to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."
Is that even possible? Probably not, even with a massive police state, which makes it bad public policy unless the massive police state part is part of your end goal (which is my personal belief). Second, who decides who "the wrong hands" belong to? Isn't that where we are right now with ever broadening categories of Prohibited Persons?
The article also stated they would be against enacting more gun laws, but be for more strictly enforcing laws already on the books. Well, many of our laws already on the books are unjust and don't work. Why should we enforce bad law? I don't think we should.
The article tries to strike a middle ground where no middle ground is possible. One side wants to maintain liberty and accept the consequences inherent, the other side wants to destroy it. Everytime we compromise with them they move the chains and start pushing for the next round of restrictions. After 100-150 years of this kind of process you end up... where formerly Great Britain is.
This thesis, antithesis, synthesis process applies to everything else in our society as well where there is a conflict of ideas on how things ought to be. Economics, Health Care, Education, you name it.
An Undocumented Worker
05-11-11, 17:04
Ok, I've clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say then.
It was my belief you disagreed with the article "The Trouble With Gun Laws" and thought it advocated controlling guns rather than controlling criminals.
As I didn't see that advocated anywhere in the editorial, I must have misunderstood what you are referring to.
Catch me up.
The article mentioned keeping illegal guns illegal, why should any gun be illegal?
He's saying (and I agree) meeting in the middle is a losing strategy for us, because they keep shifting the middle toward the left.
I agree with that. But I think the article was written when meeting in the middle meant "go after the bad guys, not the guns."
Maybe you need to read the article again then? It clearly said "common ground" on the gun control issue should be to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."
I think you are letting the words "common ground" scare you. If you and Obama think Charles Manson is a bad person, that is "common ground." It doesn't mean you are making concessions to agree with Obama on every issue.
And I don't see anything wrong with "keep guns out of the wrong hands." So long as that can be attempted without infringement on ordinary citizens (which was the "big picture" part of the article) it is a good thing. Obviously such attempts only accomplish so much but that doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be made.
The problem is when you continue to "meet in the middle" AFTER you have already done everything reasonable.
The article mentioned keeping illegal guns illegal, why should any gun be illegal?
In 1981 I think the context of "illegal guns" would be those in the hands of criminals. It is possible it means things like guns without serial numbers and but the article doesn't specify what they mean.
To me the editorial says "control criminals, not guns" and we should work together for that effort. I also think it is possible to take a single part and focus on it and make that the primary message when it is not.
We should also remember this wasn't specifically a firearms publication and they probably weren't as well versed in second amendment issues and history as some other publications like SOF.
I think you are letting the words "common ground" scare you.
I think you are claiming the article doesn't say what it clearly does because you have some kind of nostalgic emotional attachment to the magazine it was printed in.
I have read similar articles on gun control in other non gun related places and many of them take a similar fence walking non position and they are never very well informed or well stated.
And I don't see anything wrong with "keep guns out of the wrong hands."
Same problems as another big government solution to a social problem: the drug war. Doesn't seem to work at all, is destructive of liberty, costs lots of money, and justifies big government.
Guns should be kept out of the wrong hands and indeed there are sensible boundaries as to who those wrong hands belong to. Even as an oppressed N.J. resident I realize this fundamental necessity in order to maintain a civil society in 2011.
Just because there have been poor political compromises in conjunction with necessary gun laws doesn't mean there should be no laws at all.
Guns should be kept out of the wrong hands and indeed there are sensible boundaries as to who those wrong hands belong to.
...Just because there have been poor political compromises in conjunction with necessary gun laws doesn't mean there should be no laws at all.
If the compromise happens between currently accepted and their current goal we eventually all lose our gun rights.
We currently have statutory and regulatory creep that is expanding prohibited persons categories at state and federal level over a number of years. We (in the gun rights movement) need to move our position back to reducing categories of prohibited persons and making it easier to have gun rights restored once lost if we have any hope of even maintaining the status quo.
Regardless the question was asked and I answered why we can't compromise and be reasonable. In short some of us realize what the left does and what it is called and how it transforms our country. Hegelian dialectic. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.
I think you are claiming the article doesn't say what it clearly does because you have some kind of nostalgic emotional attachment to the magazine it was printed in.
And I think you are failing to take into account the context of when it was written and the source of the article. I don't agree with every single word, but I do agree with the overall message that "criminals and not guns are the problem."
QuietShootr
05-13-11, 17:30
Guns should be kept out of the wrong hands and indeed there are sensible boundaries as to who those wrong hands belong to. Even as an oppressed N.J. resident I realize this fundamental necessity in order to maintain a civil society in 2011.
Just because there have been poor political compromises in conjunction with necessary gun laws doesn't mean there should be no laws at all.
<nevermind>
And I think you are failing to take into account the context of when it was written and the source of the article.
Actually just the opposite. 30 years of reasonable compromise in many areas getting us from there to here is the context to me
polymorpheous
05-14-11, 10:02
I'd be very interested in reading the article about Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu.
Heavy Metal
05-14-11, 11:01
The reason there is no compromise on gun control is the left has time and time again acted in bad faith on the issue. Demonizing gun owners and manufactures at every turn, saying this gun law will do the trick, if you support us, it will solve the problem and then come back later with more laws and then bans. Like the Hughes Amendment, a solution to a total non-problem and proof the left is Anti for the sake of being anti when crime is a total non-issue.
No, we can't neogtiate with Dracula, but is it looking more and more we might be able to drive a stake in his heart and be done with him completely.
The left had their chance and they blew it with their duplicitous nature. Like Kirk at the end of ST III with Kurge, it is time to kick it into the firey abyss and move on.
to funny I remember reading those 3 survivalist articles :) that brought back memories :)
1981 was 17 and quite the survival mode :)
I remember adds in the shotgun news for Hungarian and other AKs for less than $300 a pop:sad:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.