Originally Posted by globetrotter
let me tell you this, I have a half smile on my face now, because that is a good question. I honestly have to say that there are some very fantastic pre-industrial or early industrial weapons out there. there are also a hell of a lot of weapons - like the brown bess, like the springfield rifled musket, like the Garand, that have had such an important part of history that they are very deserving collectors items.
I am still torn about it.
I have gone over this many many times on these boards, and in discussions. I am really of the opinion that we shouldn't glorify weapons. I would like to say that that is a hard fast unchangable rule, but it isn't. if you offered me a english lowgbow arrow head from the 14th century, I would pounce on it, for the historic value. from that, it is easy to reach an M-1 Garand, so it is hard for me to be totally unequivicably tied down to my position.
does that make sense?
I totally see where you're coming from. My interest is largely historical too, hence the milsurp.
Also, as someone who's been in combat, you probably have a much better perspective than I, who've been neither in the military nor (knock on wood) a real life or death situation.
That said, there is some part of me that is attracted to weapons for what they are, that wants to be a badass. Maybe this is some sort of immature male Freudian thing, maybe it's socially imprinted. Personally I think the perverse glorification and even love of violence is one of those fundamental ironies, even tragedies, of the human condition. Intellectually, I know that this view of combat is delusional, yet viscerally I can't help but feel it.
Like so many things, it seems that in this case our biological evolution has yet to catch up with our technological and social development.