(CNN) -- "Braced for Fate" believes that Jews control American media, financial institutions and government and that federal authorities plan to confiscate guns owned lawfully by American citizens. Those chilling beliefs are revealed in posts on a white supremacist Web site that the Anti-Defamation League says were made by Richard Poplawski, the man who allegedly ambushed and killed three Pittsburgh police officers last week.

The organization, which tracks anti-Semitic activity, says Poplawski posted on the Web site first under the username "Rich P" and more recently under the ominous username "Braced for Fate."

In one post, "Braced for Fate" describes the eagle tattoo he sports in a photograph taken from Poplawski's MySpace page before the page was taken down, calling it a "deliberately Americanized version of the [Nazi] Iron Eagle."

The Anti-Defamation League says that other posts match up -- "Braced for Fate's" comments about Wellington, Florida, where Poplawski lived a few years ago, some names and some common links.

"Braced for Fate" is not shy about his beliefs.

"ZOG (Zionist-occupied government) is," he wrote in a lengthy post on March 13. "One can read the list of significant persons in government and in major corporations and see who is pulling the strings. One can observe the policies and final products and should walk away with little doubt there is Zionist occupation and -- after some further research & critical thinking -- will discover their insidious intentions."

"Braced for Fate" made just 52 posts, but in a post late last fall, he wrote that he sees himself "probably ramping up the activism in the near future."

"He didn't like the Zionists controlling the media and controlling, you know, our freedom of speech," Eddie Petrovic, who described himself as Poplawski's best friend, told CNN. "He didn't like the control of the guns that was about to happen. He believed everything our forefathers put before us and thought that it was being distorted." Petrovic said that Poplawski received a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps for an incident during boot camp.

"He believed the Jews were coming, the Jews controlled society, you know, we're all under the thumb of Zionists and so on," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the movements of hate groups.

"Braced for Fate" referred to himself as a "skinhead" in some posts, and urged his compatriots to fight for the "ultimate victory for our people" by "taking back our nation."

"A revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first, their ideas dismissed as fantasy," he wrote on November 1.

He feared that a total collapse of all order in the country was "inevitable," but, he wrote, that might be a blessing in disguise.

"If a total collapse is what it takes to wake our brethren and guarantee future generations of white children walk this continent, if that is what it takes to restore our freedoms and recapture our land: Let it begin this very second and not a moment later," wrote "Braced for Fate."

In another post, answering a question about what weapon he'd like to have if he were allowed only one, he said, "I guess I'd have to say my AK. Which is nice because it doesn't have to fall from the sky -- it's in a case within arms reach."

Police believe Poplawski, wearing a bullet-proof vest, fired more than 100 rounds at officers on April 4 with an AK-47, another rifle and pistol. Poplawski himself was wounded in the four-hour stand-off with police and is hospitalized.

Police initially responded to a 911 call for a domestic disturbance call from his mother. But a dispatcher's error kept police from learning there were guns in the home.-


How long will the U.S stand by and let these criminals go before they are branded terrorists. You've got the same motives, Anti-Jew stances, talk of Zionest, hoping for the downfall of America, amassing arms, plotting attacks, and ending in tragic blood shed. They bave the same beliefs. They too have carried out mass killings, they too have bombed places of worship, They to have the goal of causing fear in America and ethnicly purging it. Now I'm all for free speech, but when a group or member thereof acts, it becomes a terrorist, or terrorist sponsering group. Everyone who has been in the U.S.A military has had the briefing about hate groups that set up shop right outside of post because they are looking for people with military training. These people are taken to thier "camps" or compounds and used to train other "militia" militants. How many Synagouge bombings, Lynchings, and Immigrant killings will it take.

In closing I'd Like to draw some parallels to what was for a long time the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

"McVeigh spent more time on the gun show circuit, traveling to 40 of the 50 states and visiting about 80 gun shows in all. McVeigh found that the further west he went, the more anti-government sentiment he encountered, at least until he got to what he called "The People's Socialist Republic of California"

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight ... Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."

In 1993, he drove to Waco, Texas during the Waco Siege to show his support. At the scene, he distributed pro-gun rights literature and bumper stickers, such as "When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw." He told a student reporter:

“ The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.

Sound familier?

How ironic. Parnoid nutcases like this man are the best argument for gun control I've ever read.

I don't fear Joe Public with a gun, I fear twisted hatemongers like this guy with a gun.

The FBI is searching for 20 Somalis who went off and joined the Taliban, desperately afraid they'll get back into the country and blow things up; thanks to Mexico, Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the world; the UK busts an active plot for multiple mall bombings in Easter; and CNN thinks 12 wingnuts in a trailer park is a major threat?

To quote the Immortal Bard "ers please."

Good to see CNN now views people concerned about their 2nd amendment rights as potential terrorists. ers.

Petrovic said that Poplawski received a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps for an incident during boot camp.

Score +1 for the Marine Corp. psych evaluation team then.

It's really odd ( and depressing) how people like this fixate on the Jews being behind "everything".

...how many "wingnuts" "concerned" about their "rights" did it take to blow up Oklahoma ?

Still on the plus side seeing as they're terrorists they don't get a trial and can just be locked up or shot right ? Or are they not terrorists when you have some sympathy with them then ?

US Citizens get the justice system if they are in the US. US citizens or dern ferners fighting on the side of the enemy on foreign shores get the cap and ball.

The FBI is searching for 20 Somalis who went off and joined the Taliban, desperately afraid they'll get back into the country and blow things up; thanks to Mexico, Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the world; the UK busts an active plot for multiple mall bombings in Easter; and CNN thinks 12 wingnuts in a trailer park is a major threat?

To quote the Immortal Bard "ers please."

Good to see CNN now views people concerned about their 2nd amendment rights as potential terrorists. ers.

US Citizens get the justice system if they are in the US. US citizens or dern ferners fighting on the side of the enemy on foreign shores get the cap and ball.

Nothing you're saying has anything to do with this topic. Go rant somewhere else.

Police believe Poplawski, wearing a bullet-proof vest, fired more than 100 rounds at officers on April 4 with an AK-47, another rifle and pistol. Poplawski himself was wounded in the four-hour stand-off with police and is hospitalized.

I'm pretty sure I got shouted at by trench raider because he didn't use that AK47. Insane neocon detective work at its best.


This guy is the worst kind of scumbag, the kind with a viewpoint not built off of the suffering of those around him but idiocy, ignorance, and selfishness. At least the insurgents have the excuse that over 1 million have died in Iraq (even if largely their own ethno sectarian warfare is to blame), this guys got nothing but his own paranoid hate.

Ah the intern speaks.

No he shouted at you because you don't know what an assault rifle is. Helps to know what the things are you would like to ban.

Frazzled wrote:Ah the intern speaks.

Good to see crazy neocon moderator that doesn't do his job well is up on my current nickname.

No he shouted at you because you don't know what an assault rifle is.

Frazzled wrote:The FBI is searching for 20 Somalis who went off and joined the Taliban, desperately afraid they'll get back into the country and blow things up; thanks to Mexico, Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the world; the UK busts an active plot for multiple mall bombings in Easter; and CNN thinks 12 wingnuts in a trailer park is a major threat?

You think any of those things are major threats? One incidence of terrorism is almost completely irrelevant in terms of security. Its the aggregated affect of multiple terrorist attacks that become problematic. And yes, 12 wingnuts in a trailer park are potential terrorists.

Frazzled wrote:
Good to see CNN now views people concerned about their 2nd amendment rights as potential terrorists. ers.

There's a massive difference between being concerned about 2nd amendment rights, and being an avowed skin-head with Neo-Nazi sympathies.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Good to see crazy neocon moderator that doesn't do his job well is up on my current nickname.

Mmm... sorry I'm impervious to flattery today Shuma.

How do I not know what an assault rifle is? He never posted anything but "your dumb" and you haven't supported anything more.

Ok you have me a bit. I only vaguely know of the thread you are referring to, other than closing it. I didn't know you and Trenchie were in a tiff. You'll have to ask him not me.

How do I not know what an assault rifle is? He never posted anything but "your dumb" and you haven't supported anything more. I know exactly what an assault rifle is, I posted links pertinent, I have fired them before, and I've been playing videogames since I was 6. Everyone knows what a fething assault rifle is. An AK-47 is an assault rifle, a civilian single shot modified version is a modified version of an assault rifle. Removing the weapons ability to fire on full auto doesn't suddenly turn it into a different god damn weapon, and given the weapons poor automatic performance anyway it doesn't do a tremendous amount to lower the effectiveness of the gun. But then have you ever shot one before?

Wow you've played video games. I'm impressed.
Yea making it semi auto means its no longer an assault rifle. Its just a really reliable but highly inaccurate semi auto carbine at that point.
Yep shot a few guns in my time.

And you probably shouldn't side with domestic terrorists over foreign ones without stated cause or reason. It just makes you look kind of racist.

What is this directed at me? Because I believe in the Bill of Rights I'm a terrorist? I guess we're all terrorists then unless you're against freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. etc. Yep 300MM terrorists.

Nuts.

Now I'm confused Dogma. You're not concerned about the Somalis, one of whom has already blown himself up with two more on the internet espousing their cause, but you're concerned about 10 guys who have in aggregate probably the same amount of teeth between them?

There's a massive difference between being concerned about 2nd amendment rights, and being an avowed skin-head with Neo-Nazi sympathies.

Skinheads/NeoNazis are the purview of the FBI. They've been watched and dealt with for years, along with the Klan. They are so frustrated because they moment they get enopugh evidence the FBI nails of few of them. The rest are already in jail (see Aryan nation jail gang).

What more are you proposing be done Dogma?

Wow you've played video games. I'm impressed.
Yea making it semi auto means its no longer an assault rifle. Its just a really reliable but highly inaccurate semi auto carbine at that point.
Yep shot a few guns in my time.

That makes no sense. For one thing firing singles doesn't reduce the accuracy of the gun. You're putting a 7.62 down a rifled metal tube, removing the recoil issues brought to the fore by the poorly designed recoil placement of the ak47 makes it vastly more accurate. It's a pretty damn easy gun to hit with when you're not just holding down the trigger and screaming.

As for it being a carbine... I really don't think you know what a carbine is, given that they are typically lower calibur short stock variations of standard military rifles with generally preffered use in CQB engagements.

Here, learn something you could have googled yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine

What is this directed at me? Because I believe in the Bill of Rights I'm a terrorist?

Umm.. No. I didn't say that. Here I'll say it again.

And you probably shouldn't side with domestic terrorists over foreign ones without stated cause or reason. It just makes you look kind of racist.

When you go off the handle and promote support for the rights and freedoms of a "domestic terrorist" while supporting the torture, holding, and kidnapping of "suspected" terrorist abroad it makes you seem somewhat racist, or confusingly patriotic. Though I don't think thats a particularly sensible form of patriotism, more likely stemming from a sense of nationalist superiority. Otherwise place of birth wouldn't be an issue when considering human rights.

ShumaGorath, I don't understand what you mean by "racist".

Edit: Sorry Shum, the quote box had dissappeared when I asked the question.

Edit2: Good lord you're quoting yourself. I give up.

Zip Napalm wrote:ShumaGorath, I don't understand what you mean by "racist".

I mean it in the sense that "american" is a race I guess. Or I'm just implying that Fraz thinks that downhome whitefolk freedom fighters deserve more consideration than the brown guys from the desert.

It's the first one. Fraz hasn't really shown anything particularly racist, just a confusing form of nationalism tied up with human rights and considerations. I'm not entirely sure how to word it. Strike the racism from there I guess, it's not really accurate without considering Americans to be a race.

Edit2: Good lord you're quoting yourself. I give up.

I was quoting myself because he had stated I was calling him a terrorist. I hope the above explanation explains what I meant. I apologize to fraz, racist was the wrong word and definitely implied the wrong message.

Wow, Shuma's calling me a racist I love it. Have to report that one.

Then just say nationalistic. It makes things easier.

edit: spelling

Zip Napalm wrote:Then just say nationalistic. I makes things easier.

My point is that
1. There are bigger issues out there than the trailer park trash
2. Said trailer park are already being watched, so problem solved
3. I take issue when a network links everyone who Believe in a Key Right under the Bill of Rights to terrorists
4. I take issue with being called a racist because I have a concept of priorities. CNN is worried about a few losers when there is an open war on the border.

Zip Napalm wrote:Then just say nationalistic. I makes things easier.

Except nationalist is the wrong word too. Neither term fits. Fraz thinks that Americans deserve human rights considerations because they are american, thats not a nationalist viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Wow, Shuma's calling me a racist I love it. Have to report that one.

I already apologized for using the wrong term. Go back to saying I don't know gun terminology when you don't know gun terminology.

Frazzled wrote:

My point is that
1. There are bigger issues out there than the trailer park trash
2. Said trailer park are already being watched, so problem solved
3. I take issue when a network links everyone who Believe in a Key Right under the Bill of Rights to terrorists
4. I take issue with being called a racist because I have a concept of priorities. CNN is worried about a few losers when there is an open war on the border.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

4. I take issue with being called a racist because I have a concept of priorities. CNN is worried about a few losers when there is an open war on the border.

A war that has been going on for years while fox news talked about the taleban invading us by buying our ports. Seriously, you need a little bit of perspective on this one. It's not exactly a new issue, and this article doesn't mean CNN hasn't been covering the border issue like its the OJ simpson of the new millennium. This whole me calling you racist stems from the fact that it's totally unrelated and you're just trying to redirect the topic away from someone committing multiple cop killings because of his far right beliefs. Comment on the topic and post a new one with your somalian story. Don't just hijack this one.


Also I'm still waiting for a comment about the carbine thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Macro Tribalism?
Not trying to be flip, just seeking elucidation.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:Then just say nationalistic. I makes things easier.

Except nationalist is the wrong word too. Neither term fits. Fraz thinks that Americans deserve human rights considerations because they are american, thats not a nationalist viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Thats calling me a racist.
I believe US law applies to US citizens. I believe the job of the US government is to protect US citizens. Foreign citizens do not have the rights of US citizens under US law when they are not themselves in the US.

I already apologized for using the wrong term. Go back to saying I don't know gun terminology when you don't know gun terminology.

Will do as soon as you do. Sorry, info you learnesd from playing Pacman doesn't count.

But lets go back to whatever beef you seem to have, intern. What do you propose the government do that it is not doing now?

EDIT: Now you're saying I support a copkiller? And that would be because I shut down a thread where you and Trenchie were having an argument. I believe you may have been the one reporting the thread. So what you're really saying is I am evil because I acted on your report? Thats interesting.

Or are you saying I support copkillers because you don't know what the definition of an assault rifle is. Wow, just wow. Do you shout down speakers at your college too Shuma?

I think CNN is worried because domestic terrorism is better news. Unless you live near the border, or in a fairly major city, the Mexican drug war or international terrorism are probably not going to personally affect you. If you live in a small town in the heartland, militias and the like are a big deal.

I agree with the larger point that casting aspersions on all 2nd Amendment activists is improper, the idea that there are people who feel their rights are so infringed that they need to commit violence is, perhaps, a bit troubling. But it's just a good old fashioned moral panic, these things run out of steam after a while. CNN has a lot of time to fill.

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Macro Tribalism?
Not trying to be flip, just seeking elucidation.

Macro tribalism fits pretty well actually, yeah. Is that a common term?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Macro Tribalism?
Not trying to be flip, just seeking elucidation.

Macro tribalism fits pretty well actually, yeah. Is that a common term?

No, I made it up.

Thats calling me a racist.
I believe US law applies to US citizens. I believe the job of the US government is to protect US citizens. Foreign citizens do not have the rights of US citizens under US law when they are not themselves in the US.

Which is why I'm saying its an incorrect term.

Will do as soon as you do. Sorry, info you learnesd from playing Pacman doesn't count.

No, but Americas Army has a few things in it relating. Also I've been a military nut my entire life, I love guns and explodey things and lasers and tanks. Also address my damn point, stop using ad hominem to redirect away from the fact that you have an indefensible position. A single shot ak47 variant is not a carbine, it doesn't fit any criteria of a carbine and it goes well against the concept. Lrn2gun.

ut lets go back to whatever beef you seem to have, intern. What do you propose the government do that it is not doing now?

Nothing. I'm sure the guy will be tried by a court of his peers and will be found guilty. He will likely be locked up for the rest of his life, and given his celebrity status will probably be killed in prison.

I guess if I want anything changed in this cycle it would be better security in prisons and more of an emphasis on rehabilitation. But thats got nothing to do with anything and I would personally like to see a bullet put in him. I've never really been against capitol punishment.

Oh, and a total banning of all firearms accompanied with a law that makes it a crime to carry. Half assing gun laws does nothing. I want guns in the hands of cops and soldiers, people whose job it is to use those guns in a controlled fashion. No one else.

Polonius wrote:I think CNN is worried because domestic terrorism is better news. Unless you live near the border, or in a fairly major city, the Mexican drug war or international terrorism are probably not going to personally affect you. If you live in a small town in the heartland, militias and the like are a big deal.

I agree with the larger point that casting aspersions on all 2nd Amendment activists is improper, the idea that there are people who feel their rights are so infringed that they need to commit violence is, perhaps, a bit troubling. But it's just a good old fashioned moral panic, these things run out of steam after a while. CNN has a lot of time to fill.

Agreed there. The concept that someone is going to shoot it out with police over something that the governemnt MIGHT DO is patently not sane. Thats what the political process is for. Admittedly I don't know much about the referenced case other than it started with an argument between the nut and his mom or someone over his dog? That sounds like a nut gone nutjob.

Frazzled wrote:Good to see CNN now views people concerned about their 2nd amendment rights as potential terrorists. ers.

No, CNN doesn't view people concerned with their 2nd amendment rights as terrorists. CNN thinks that among the gun community there are some folk harbouring dangerous fantasies that can and have led to violence, which is really a very obvious thing. Your effort above in pretending the other side was saying something very different is lazy and cheap, and exactly the reason there continues to be no meaningful dialogue on this issue.

It is exactly the same as when someone suggests 'there are problems in the Islamic community with extremists' and the response comes back 'not all Muslims are terrorists you bigot'.

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ethnic nationalism is the closest I could really find to describe it within the umbrella term, but that still implies a distinct form of racism, rather than simply treating the nation itself as a race.

Macro Tribalism?
Not trying to be flip, just seeking elucidation.

Macro tribalism fits pretty well actually, yeah. Is that a common term?

No, I made it up.

Curse, I a disappoint.

So to Shuma the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. Thats scary. When that whole illegal searches and seizures thing gets inconvenient, are you ok with getting rid of that too?


An aside an AK IS a carbine. Thats the whole point.
short barrel
round with range less than a conventional rifle. An AK is definitely less range worthy than your average crapped out Nagant.
Its as accurate as a donut. If you've shot one you'd know that. Shooting on full auto or even keeping to the 4 round limiter makes it highly inaccurate at anything over submachine distance.

Polonius wrote:I think CNN is worried because domestic terrorism is better news. Unless you live near the border, or in a fairly major city, the Mexican drug war or international terrorism are probably not going to personally affect you. If you live in a small town in the heartland, militias and the like are a big deal.

Policemen being killed in an ambush is going to grab headlines, regardless. In this case it's resulted in a few articles talking about something that gets under-reported; the US produces a lot of domestic crazies.

I agree with the larger point that casting aspersions on all 2nd Amendment activists is improper

Except no such aspersion was made, that was just Fraz making stuff up.

The point I was trying to make in this thread is, Are the Islamic terrist and the "Active" Anti-Jewish hate groups two sides of the same coin. Both blame the American goverment and Zionist for thier plight, both have launched attacks inside the us border, both have set up camps and train militants, and then armed them to carry out attacks.

sexiest_hero wrote:The point I was trying to make in this thread is, Are the Islamic terrist and the "Active" Anti-Jewish hate groups two sides of the same coin. Both blame the American goverment and Zionist for thier plight, both have launched attacks inside the us border, both have set up camps and train militants, and then armed them to carry out attacks.

Oh when you put it like that, sexiesthero is right.



Sebbie-extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! (translation I don't watch CNN so only saw the verbiage and am ardent in defense of all 10 amendments).

So to Shuma the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. Thats scary. When that whole illegal searches and seizures thing gets inconvenient, are you ok with getting rid of that too?

I believe that the parts in it concerning basic human rights are quite important. Just not the parts in it ensuring that people get to run around with human killing devices. Parts of the document are outdated.

An aside an AK IS a carbine. Thats the whole point.

Except its not.

short barrel

Define short barrel.

round with range less than a conventional rifle. An AK is definitely less range worthy than your average crapped out Nagant.

Which has less range than plenty of other single action rifles. That doesn't make the AK a carbine.

Its as accurate as a donut. If you've shot one you'd know that.

I don't think donuts shoot things. And if you had fired one (and could shoot worth a damn) you would be able to semi reliably hit 1'x1' targets at 300 meters (which I could).

Shooting on full auto or even keeping to the 4 round limiter makes it highly inaccurate at anything over submachine distance.

I'm glad you agree with my posts. Strange how I suspect that you haven't read them.

Mikhail Kalashnikov began his career as a weapon designer while in a hospital after being wounded during the Battle of Bryansk.[4] After tinkering with a submachinegun design, he entered a competition for a new weapon that would chamber the 7.62x41mm cartridge developed by Elisarov and Semin in 1943 (the 7.62x41mm cartridge predated the current 7.62x39mm M1943). A particular requirement of the competition was the reliability of the firearm in the muddy, wet, and frozen conditions of the Soviet frontline. Kalashnikov designed a carbine, strongly influenced by the American M1 Garand, that lost out to the Simonov design that would later become the SKS semi-automatic carbine. At the same time, the Soviet Army was interested in developing a true assault rifle employing a shortened M1943 round. The first such weapon was presented by Sudayev in 1944; however in trials it was found to be too heavy.[5] A new design competition was held two years later where Kalashnikov and his design team submitted an entry. It was a gas-operated rifle which had breech-block mechanism similar to his 1944 carbine and curved 30-round magazine.
Kalashnikov's rifles (codenamed AK-1 and -2) proved to be reliable and the gun was accepted to second round of competition along with designs by A.A Demetev and F. Bulkin. In late 1946, as the guns were being tested, one of Kalashnikov's assistants, Aleksandr Zaytsev, suggested a major redesign of AK-1, particularly to improve reliability. At first, Kalashnikov was reluctant, given that their rifle had already fared better than its competitors; however eventually Zaytsev managed to persuade Kalashnikov. The new rifle was produced for a second round of firing tests and field trials. There, Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947 proved to be simple and reliable, under a wide range of conditions with convenient handling characteristics. In 1949 it was therefore adopted by the Soviet Army as '7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK)'.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

What's hilarious is the Nagant is closer to a carbine then the ak given the fact that it was turned into one before it lost the bid.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

This is a carbine.

In 1979 a shortened variant of the AKS-74 was adopted into service – the AKS-74U (U – Ukorochenniy) carbine, which in terms of tactical deployment, bridges the gap between a submachine gun and assault rifle. It is intended for use mainly with special forces, airborne infantry, rear-echelon support units and armored vehicle crews. The rifle's compact dimensions, compared to the AKS-74, were achieved by using a short, 210 mm (8.3 in) barrel (this forced designers to simultaneously reduce the gas piston operating rod to an appropriate length). In order to effectively stabilize projectiles, the barrel’s twist rate was increased from 200 mm (1:8 in) to 160 mm (1:6.3 in). A new gas block was installed at the muzzle end of the barrel and a new conical flash hider was used, which features an internal expansion chamber that alleviates gas pressure generated during firing. The flash suppressor locks into the gas block with a latch placed on the right side. The forward sling loop was relocated to the left side. The front sight is integrated into the gas block.
The AKS-74U also has a different sight system arrangement with a U-shaped flip sight instead of the standard sliding notch sight. The rear sight has two settings: “P” (fixed for firing at 350 m) and “4-5” (used for firing at distances up to 400–500 m). The rear sight is housed in a semi-hooded shroud that is riveted to the receiver top cover. This top cover is connected with the gas tube cover and is hinged, pivoting forward when opened. Both the gas tube and handguard are also of a new type and are shorter than analogous parts in the AKS-74.

Should I be posting pictures here too?

Sebbie-extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

Extremism is a vice in all things.

Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

So now Shuma has agreed that in his world only what parts fo the Constitution are convenient for him should apply. Wow.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I agree with the larger point that casting aspersions on all 2nd Amendment activists is improper

Except no such aspersion was made, that was just Fraz making stuff up.

Well, I don't doubt you could find at least one piece that implies that link. Of course, you can find pieces that imply a link between any of the following and terrorism: islam, pro choice, pro life, liberalism, atheism, fundamentalism, etc. etc.

I hesitate to use the term extreme, but it's the proper term.

Extreme or radical viewpoints are almost always an embarrassment and a detriment to those people with more mainstream views. Supporting 2nd Amendment rights through financial support, electing pro gun officials, lobbying, and other forms of activism are all fine and dandy. Thinking that the "guvment is gonna come take all my guns" is an extreme view point, just as (in the US at least) thinking that the government SHOULD ban and confiscate all guns is an extreme viewpoint. Acting in a radical fashion (killing a bunch of people) over an extreme viewpoint is a black eye to the mainstream movement.

If you don't think think that there are people that want to use this incident to accelerate gun control on areas far removed from the actual problem, then you're very naive.

On the other hand, at the end of the day the 2nd amendment exists to allow for the sort of armed rebellion that most people consider extreme.

There is no link between what the news media (whether, it's fox, cnn, or the 'zionists who control everything') covers and what matters in the world. What's more important - Mexican drug cartels kidnapping US citizens, American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Britney Spears having a meltdown at some concert? Which one did I hear about on the ride into work this morning?

I support the right to bear arms.

I do not support the right to gun down three law enforcement officers, for any reason.

Supporting the right to bear arms doesn't make you a terrorist.

Not supporting the right to bear arms doesn't make you a terrorist.

Shooting cops doesn't make you a freedom fighter supporting the Constitution, it makes you a scumbag who shouldn't be allowed back into society. Ever, whether it's a lethal sentence or not.

I still don't get how the Zionists are supposed to be controlling everything. Do they have secret meetings? A secret radio network giving them instructions at night? Is it like Eddie Murphy on SNL when he dressed as a white guy - they just know each other, don't have to pay for the newspaper, and get loans for as much as they want? And in 200 years, none of them have ever written a tell-all book (and since they're all greedy Hebrews, they'd jump at the chance to make a pile of money even if it meant selling out their own co-conspirators - right?).

Whether you class an AK-47 as a carbine or assault rifle, it doesn't matter. It fires a rifle cartridge. It's a cheap, mass produced weapon designed to put as many rounds down range as quickly as possible. It's not a freaking deer rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader, or pistol, which are the only weapons someone in Pennsylvania should own.

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

So now Shuma has agreed that in his world only what parts fo the Constitution are convenient for him should apply. Wow.

This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

Guess which one is which!

Polonius is accurate on all points, again.

Wait, I'll admit to be wrong on things, but not the AK thing.

Used by a nut-if that copkiller used it, yea I'd say that was a nut.
An AK is accurate to 300 yards? not on planet earth it aint.
Is an AK a carbine-yep. Are most assault rifles automatic carbines? yep. You want to reach the level of a full on rifle you have to get into the FN/HK/M1A range.

Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

Tell that to the rocks I killed when shooting from one side of an open quarry to another (no good firing ranges in Maine). As for the gun I stated in the last thread it was a single fire civilian legal variant of a chinese red army variant of the ak (less accurate, cheaper construction).

So now Shuma has agreed that in his world only what parts fo the Constitution are convenient for him should apply. Wow.

And I take it you were for the Iraq war despite it not being approved and enacted in the methods described by our founding fathers? Your not a constitutionalist fraz, and you pick apart the documents depending on what's convenient no less than anyone else.





Now stop picking and choosing my points when they suit you. You're not debating anything your just whining, dodging and using ad hominim.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

So now Shuma has agreed that in his world only what parts fo the Constitution are convenient for him should apply. Wow.

This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

Guess which one is which!

Well I'm not the wrong one here, so I must be the person thinking everyone arguing against me is an idiot.

Actually given that he's ignored every link I've posted, posted non sensical material himself, and keeps dodging points It could be that your post wasn't even meant to be insulting.

Polonius wrote:This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

I'd go more for:

Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot, argue with a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

But, the irony is, being a heated debate on the internet, we'll all becoming dumber for participating or even just reading this.

dietrich wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

I'd go more for:

Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot, argue with a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

But, the irony is, being a heated debate on the internet, we'll all becoming dumber for participating or even just reading this.

Yes, and when the troll brigade steps in to comment everything gets sooooooooo much better.

Polonius wrote:

This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

Guess which one is which!

Your observation gets funnier with every comment.

The point is that it's pretty obvious to everyone in the peanut gallery that you two are talking past each other. You both have a track record that shows that when things get heated, the quality of your posts... dips.

dietrich wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is fun. Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong argue with a guy that assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

I'd go more for:

Watching a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot, argue with a guy who would refuse to admit he's wrong and who assumes everybody arguing with him is an idiot.

But, the irony is, being a heated debate on the internet, we'll all becoming dumber for participating or even just reading this.

Too late, I've already infected you Dietrich! Don't look in the mirror, one day you too will look like this

(Frazzled, after he's cleaned up by the missus)

Polonius is proving more resilient to our attempts at intellectual degeneration, but we'll get him. oh yes we will buahahah

Wait did you just say I had some quality in my posts (initially). I just stepped up in the world.

OK. I'll admit I went berserk when Shuma posted. I'll admit a civie Ak, in addition to being a classic carbine, is a semi auto version of the full on assault rifle.
But hitting a man sized target with any accuracy at 300 yds. No way jose... You would have to shoot a lot before you could hit something.
I officially invite Shuma to a shoot if he ever comes down to Texas, but make no promises about not force feeding you Tex Mex after.
Sorry for calling you an intern Shu...

Polonius wrote:The point is that it's pretty obvious to everyone in the peanut gallery that you two are talking past each other. You both have a track record that shows that when things get heated, the quality of your posts... dips.

Says the man that snipes people with flamebait every time a topic is posted. I'm not taling past fraz. I am talking to him, he just happens to be a wall. I've posted a dozen links this thread, apologized for comments that were non sensical, and I've attempted to get him to reference at least one of my posts in a way that isn't just a single sentence pulled out of context then flamed.

I'm sorry you think this is two sided, but honestly you're not helping anything.

If you want to avoid the trolls, then stick to PMs.

Sorry, I can't seriously accept any debate that has, in a relative handful of posts, has degenerated into a debate about whether AK-47s are inaccurate enough to be considered carbines or not. So, going from comparing homegrown terrorists to the proper classification of a Pact weapon....

Further, I can never tell if Fraz is being serious about some of this, or if there's a twinkle in his eye that I can't see over Al Gore's invention.

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

Frazzled wrote:Too late, I've already infected you Dietrich! Don't look in the mirror, one day you too will look like this

(Frazzled, after he's cleaned up by the missus)

My first thought was, "damn, how'd he a picture of me from last Christmas?" Then, I realize it was really your picture. My lip hangs to my left, not the right.

Further, I can never tell if Fraz is being serious about some of this, or if there's a twinkle in his eye that I can't see over Al Gore's invention.

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

Thats advice I think I'll start following. Fraz seems to love pulling my comments out of context then running into a semantics debate. Like the fool I am I always follow him there, but I suspect now that he just does it to derail threads. I'm not innocent here, but I do certainly need to avoid trolls better.


As a mod shouldn't he not do that? Doesn't that set a horrifying example and break forum rules?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Polonius wrote:The point is that it's pretty obvious to everyone in the peanut gallery that you two are talking past each other. You both have a track record that shows that when things get heated, the quality of your posts... dips.

Says the man that snipes people with flamebait every time a topic is posted. I'm not taling past fraz. I am talking to him, he just happens to be a wall. I've posted a dozen links this thread, apologized for comments that were non sensical, and I've attempted to get him to reference at least one of my posts in a way that isn't just a single sentence pulled out of context then flamed.

I'm sorry you think this is two sided, but honestly you're not helping anything.

You know, this is the second time you've accused me of sniping, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. I asked you, politely, in another thread to PM me the comments I've made that are actually flamebait or otherwise out of line. You didn't, and maybe you didn't see it, so I didn't make a deal.

I, believe it or not, take my posting here fairly seriously. I post fun bits now and then, and this thread is one of them, but I'm pretty generally regarded as one of the more level headed and fair minded posters here. If I've posted improperly, show me the evidence and I'll either explain my actions or apologize for taking a cheap shot. If you can't or don't, then I'm going to ask you to refrain from calling me out, as it's rude, misleading, and an ad hominem attack. Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

As for this debate, even if you were right, Fraz wasn't going to admit it. Arguing with a wall doesn't make you wrong, you're just a dude yelling at a wall.

dietrich wrote:If you want to avoid the trolls, then stick to PMs.

Sorry, I can't seriously accept any debate that has, in a relative handful of posts, has degenerated into a debate about whether AK-47s are inaccurate enough to be considered carbines or not. So, going from comparing homegrown terrorists to the proper classification of a Pact weapon....

Further, I can never tell if Fraz is being serious about some of this, or if there's a twinkle in his eye that I can't see over Al Gore's invention.

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

What I'm always serious, especially when I'm discussing using early 1800s frigates against pirates.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Further, I can never tell if Fraz is being serious about some of this, or if there's a twinkle in his eye that I can't see over Al Gore's invention.

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

Thats advice I think I'll start following. Fraz seems to love pulling my comments out of context then running into a semantics debate. Like the fool I am I always follow him there, but I suspect now that he just does it to derail threads. I'm not innocent here, but I do certainly need to avoid trolls better.


As a mod shouldn't he not do that? Doesn't that set a horrifying example and break forum rules?

I'm only a mod when I state I'm posting as a mod. I was a rouble rousing democrat way before then

OK. I'll admit I went berserk when Shuma posted. I'll admit a civie Ak, in addition to being a classic carbine, is a semi auto version of the full on assault rifle.

Yes, it fits the old definition of carbine (not really the new working one, but its a bad term so lets drop the whole thing). And yes, it's a semi auto version of an assault rifle.

But hitting a man sized target with any accuracy at 300 yds. No way jose... You would have to shoot a lot before you could hit something.

I wasn't hitting a man size target, I was hitting several small rock sized targets (it was a quarry, remember?) and it was at roughly 900 feet from one bank to the other. We were shooting down an incline, and it was a single shot civilian variant (though during the session the firing pin warped and it began shooting several shots per trigger pull because of the bounce, we ended it shortly after that).

I'm not exactly a bad shot.

officially invite Shuma to a shoot if he ever comes down to Texas, but make no promises about not force feeding you Tex Mex after.
Sorry for calling you an intern Shu...

I love tex mex and I like shooting. So sure, and sorry for all the whatever I was saying bad back. You're still my favorite insane neocon.

This has turned into such a fantastic thread. All we need now is me saying something that pisses someone off and one of us getting banned and all will be right in the universe.

ShumaGorath wrote:As a mod shouldn't he not do that? Doesn't that set a horrifying example and break forum rules?

Shrug. No idea. "It's good to be the king."

Frazzled wrote:What I'm always serious, especially when I'm discussing using early 1800s frigates against pirates.

Arrrrrrrgh!

I, believe it or not, take my posting here fairly seriously. I post fun bits now and then, and this thread is one of them, but I'm pretty generally regarded as one of the more level headed and fair minded posters here. If I've posted improperly, show me the evidence and I'll either explain my actions or apologize for taking a cheap shot. If you can't or don't, then I'm going to ask you to refrain from calling me out, as it's rude, misleading, and an ad hominem attack. Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

As for this debate, even if you were right, Fraz wasn't going to admit it. Arguing with a wall doesn't make you wrong, you're just a dude yelling at a wall.

Saying he would never admit being wrong and saying I believe everyones an idiot is simple flamebait. You know it is. Also I didn't realize I was debating a wall until I was already in there. Either way, your comments didn't serve the discussion particularly well (except perhaps by ending it, which I suppose was actually a benefit). I'll PM you from now on when I see such things, and no I didn't see the previous post about doing so.

ShumaGorath wrote:Saying he would never admit being wrong and saying I believe everyones an idiot is simple flamebait.

He isn't saying that you actually think everyone is an idiot, just that you act like you think everyone is an idiot. It's a subtle distinction but an important one.

Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

Be careful what you wish for

ShumaGorath wrote:

I, believe it or not, take my posting here fairly seriously. I post fun bits now and then, and this thread is one of them, but I'm pretty generally regarded as one of the more level headed and fair minded posters here. If I've posted improperly, show me the evidence and I'll either explain my actions or apologize for taking a cheap shot. If you can't or don't, then I'm going to ask you to refrain from calling me out, as it's rude, misleading, and an ad hominem attack. Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

As for this debate, even if you were right, Fraz wasn't going to admit it. Arguing with a wall doesn't make you wrong, you're just a dude yelling at a wall.

Saying he would never admit being wrong and saying I believe everyones an idiot is simple flamebait. You know it is. Also I didn't realize I was debating a wall until I was already in there. Either way, your comments didn't serve the discussion particularly well (except perhaps by ending it, which I suppose was actually a benefit). I'll PM you from now on when I see such things, and no I didn't see the previous post about doing so.

It would be flamebait if it weren't true. There comes a point in a discussion where the tenor and tone of comments can be addressed. The comment was also made to both be funny and to alert the two of you that your discussion probably wasn't going to have value. I'm sorry if you took offense, but frankly you tend to argue from a pretty entrenched position and seldom admit to being wrong, or even that you could possibly be wrong. Maybe it's just the threads I see, I apologize if there are threads full of you conceding points, admitting possible weaknesses in your position, and speaking in a generally confident but not obstinate tone. From what I've seen of your posting you tend to get pretty adamant about your position.

Frazzled wrote:

Hell, feel free to start the "Polonius is actually a troll" thread in OT so everybody can discuss.

Be careful what you wish for

I'm just an attention whore. Why do you think I post carefully thought out, well reasoned arguments? It's the only way to stand out here.

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

Polonius wrote:

It would be flamebait if it weren't true.

This, I like!

edit

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe if we're nice he'll forward some pics of Prom Troll, followed by Wage Slave Troll.

My actual visage is horrifying in the extreme, so I wouldn't hope for that...

ShumaGorath wrote:

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

No, it's your actions. If you think that blowing up abortion clinics is ok, you're a radical, and maybe a sympathizer, but not really a terrorist. You have to actively support or carry out the acts to actually be part of that club.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

I would say action that exists outside of legitimate political measures, and much more specifically unlawful actions. The political wing of hamas is not a terrorist organization, however its militant wing is. One is going about things the "right way" the other is most certainly not. Though given the political branches actions it's not really very cut and dry there.

Probably a better example would be the IRAs political side vs its militant past. An extreme position doesn't make you a terrorist, extreme and unlawful actions do. Also you have to do something with the intent of causing terror (or at least thats what it once meant).

Polonius wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

No, it's your actions. If you think that blowing up abortion clinics is ok, you're a radical, and maybe a sympathizer, but not really a terrorist. You have to actively support or carry out the acts to actually be part of that club.

I would argue that if you by your words are convincing other to carry out your manifesto you have walked beyond that line.

If by telling someone that you, as the voice of God tell someone that violence should be done and convince to follow that course of action you can pass into that hellowed realm.

Of course then again I believe any US and Canuck who gave money to the IRA over the course of the Troubles was a terrorist.

But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

ShumaGorath wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up)

You become a terrorist through actions, not opinions. You can't blow up an abortion clinic by wanting too.

Well duh, but what drives the actions are the opinions/ideas.

sexiest_hero wrote:But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

Yes, but being labeled a terrorist and actually being one are not the same. The term is a brand catchall that these days basically means "anyone the western world opposes" and even then it can be used even more generally.

The term has been diluted to the point of uselessness.

Well duh, but what drives the actions are the opinions/ideas.

But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

sexiest_hero wrote:But isn't simply being a part of member of a group(like Al qaeda) enough tho have you branded, Nomatter what your role, if any.

Well, I'd argue that if you join a group whose goal is terrorism, than you're probably supporting terrorism at least a little bit.

As for simply encouraging terrorism: must like rallies, political speech, even that speech that encourages violence, is protected behavior in the US. In other countries you might be able to charge them, but this is one of those times when the 1st amendment steps in and prevents any real prosecution. This is fairly recent, in the WWI Eugene Debs did time in prison for simply encouraging others to dodge the draft.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

ShumaGorath wrote:But opinions and ideas are not illegal in any way. You can believe whatever you want as long as you understand and follow the societal contract.

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Ahtman wrote: All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

I think when you think of how to enact your ideology. You can hate group 'x' passionately, but once you start to think of ways to "end" group 'x' you have crossed a dangerous line. I would add that dwelling too much on your hate of group 'x' will naturally led to a 'solution' so it is the start of the fall.

Frazzled wrote:
Now I'm confused Dogma. You're not concerned about the Somalis, one of whom has already blown himself up with two more on the internet espousing their cause, but you're concerned about 10 guys who have in aggregate probably the same amount of teeth between them?

I'm not really concerned about either. Terrorism as a whole concerns me, and that's why I believe that all potential terrorists should be scrutinized, but no one potential terrorist concerns me more than any other. And individual terrorists don't concern me at all.

Frazzled wrote:
Skinheads/NeoNazis are the purview of the FBI. They've been watched and dealt with for years, along with the Klan. They are so frustrated because they moment they get enopugh evidence the FBI nails of few of them. The rest are already in jail (see Aryan nation jail gang).

What more are you proposing be done Dogma?

Nothing. I'm simply proposing that history bears out the notion that domestic terrorists are just as much a problem as international ones.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

While the US supports free speech, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. There's limits. Generally, inciting violence and/or a riot falls into the 'it's not protected' category, whereas making a porno based on a certain female VP candidate is allowed (thank you, Larry Flynt).

George Carlin had some great routine about how he would commit nine sins trying to feel up a girl in high school. It was a sin to want to, a sin to plan to, a sin to figure out where he could, etc.

I think being a 'terrorist' is something of the same (yes, I'm comparing fundalmentalist islam to the man who had the seven dirty words). Now, just because you want to blow up an abortion clinic, the federal building, or something American, you're not a terrorist. But, if you're taking actions to do something violent, whether it's you doing it yourself or helping or aiding others to do it - you're a terrorist.

It is one thing to call an abortion clinic a bunch of murderers, it's another to sit on the sidewalk peacefully, another still to hand out literature to women going there (in a non-conforntational manner). It's another to shove women going there, murder doctors, and set a bomb in the building.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

Would you consider early american slave owners to be terrorists or radicals though? Marxist revolutionaries? Nazis? The gay rights movement? The gun control movement? Where do you decide the point as which someone is a terrorist or radical in that sense? That seems much too open ended to me, there would be billions of radicals on this planet if the definitions are that loose.

dietrich wrote:I support the right to bear arms.

I do not support the right to gun down three law enforcement officers, for any reason.

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

What constitutes an action? Do political rallies count as action? Attempting to pass radical legislature? Terrorist (of all stripes) like to change local laws to make their world view the only view.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

But attempts to modify law (via courts or misleading legislation) are action. It is attempting to cause misery for the masses to push your own agenda forward. That is terrifying! (And thus should fall under the word terrorism)

Then shouldn't horror movies be a form of terrorism? I believe the biggest point is that you have to act outside the constraints of law along with pushing an agenda and taking action for that agenda that is based largely off of causing anger, outrage, sadness, fear, and pain to a large portion of a population.

But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

Would you consider early american slave owners to be terrorists or radicals though? Marxist revolutionaries? Nazis? The gay rights movement? The gun control movement? Where do you decide the point as which someone is a terrorist or radical in that sense? That seems much too open ended to me, there would be billions of radicals on this planet if the definitions are that loose.

Were that the sole qualifier, then you'd be right. But at the same time, one man's terrorist is another's hero. Early slave owners were 'normal men' of their day. I'd bet slaves were a little terrified. Marxist revolutionaries were definitely terrorists if you were a doctor or a business man. Nazis... I can't touch that. Gay Rights has some (note- Some) who threaten to force it down the throats of others (doesn’t sound nice). Gun Controllers who use every bullet fired in anger to strip rights and freedoms away from others (and the protection of homes with it) >last one was a stretch<

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But by changing laws (gun control, marriage, religion-based courts, lashing women in public for driving a car, etc) then you can act within the confines of the law to do horrible things. It was once legal to kill Mormons in some states. No bueno! But legal.

That's really what the law is about though. Not necessarily preventing horrible things from occurring, but acknowledging those circumstances under which horrible things can be permitted. Its meant to structure society so that any given individual can (in theory) understand where his attention must be paid.

reds8n wrote:

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

I look at guns as:
1. A Hunting Tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can shoot for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have them.

Why should I be limited in any of those areas?

A car/motor vehicle is

1. A mode of transport that is quick and efficient--if you haven't bought domestic anyway
2. A fun thing to drive and own.
3. Protection from otehr motorists and something that enables one to have greater economic indepenence in many cases.

Do you think people should have unrestricted access to cars as well then ? Regardless of proficiency, age etc ?

reds8n wrote:A car/motor vehicle is

1. A mode of transport that is quick and efficient--if you haven't bought domestic anyway
2. A fun thing to drive and own.
3. Protection from otehr motorists and something that enables one to have greater economic indepenence in many cases.

Do you think people should have unrestricted access to cars as well then ? Regardless of proficiency, age etc ?

I think there would be a big problem if the government told me, "You can't own a truck. Trucks are not for normal driving and you have no need for a truck as you live in the city." OR "That muscle car has the potential to break the speed limits. For the greater good, we are making it illegal to own."

EDIT- as a side note... you can buy a car without a license. If you pay cash anyone can get any car, regardless of age, mental health, etc. Driving it is different.

reds8n wrote: Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

I want a weapon to hunt bambi, because venison tastes good. The idea of having an armed militia preventing tyrants from taking over is out-dated. 100 rednecks with M-16s don't stand up well against a squad of the United States Marine Corps.

While I personally do not own a sidearm for self defense, I do not oppose the idea. As long as you are responsible with it - as in, don't leave it laying around where you kid can find it and play with it. Some people really do need one for self defense, but I'm not one.

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem isn't in preventing some guns from being owned, it's in preventing certain people from owning guns. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortuantely, it's hard to legislate how to keep morons from owning firearms. So, instead, we outlaw the more dangerous firearms and that makes everyone sleep better at night because at least 'something' was done about it. Even though it accomplishes very little.

Did anyone think the whack job in Pittsburgh legally bought an assault rifle, er carbine, er...gun that shoots really fast?

The paranoia about 'dem Democrats takin' 'way ur gunz!' is ridiculous. It'll never happen. They may take away guns that shoot a lot in short amount of time, but not sidearms for self defense and hunting weapons. It might be harder to buy them, but I don't know that is a bad thing. It's used to be harder to buy a house than a rifle.

And don't call me Mr. Dietrich, that's my father. And don't call me sir either, I work for a living. Well, except when I goof off at work all day by posting on dakka.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I think there would be a big problem if the government told me, "You can't own a truck. Trucks are not for normal driving and you have no need for a truck as you live in the city." OR "That muscle car has the potential to break the speed limits. For the greater good, we are making it illegal to own."

Don't they already do that though ? I assume you have what we call Heavy Goods Vehicles licenses for lorries etc. And there's all sorts of restrictions on cars to do with safety, what they can and can't do etc. NOt to mention the whole license thing yes ? No license no driving...legally anyway.

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem isn't in preventing some guns from being owned, it's in preventing certain people from owning guns. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortuantely, it's hard to legislate how to keep morons from owning firearms. So, instead, we outlaw the more dangerous firearms and that makes everyone sleep better at night because at least 'something' was done about it. Even though it accomplishes very little.

I agree 100%..... as I've said before I find it baffling there's no form of proficiency test at least or similar.

The idea of having an armed militia preventing tyrants from taking over is out-dated. 100 rednecks with M-16s don't stand up well against a squad of the United States Marine Corps.

Again I agree... but there's a lot who don't and they are the peope arguing for onwership of the BLASTOMATIC 8000 etc.

Did anyone think the whack job in Pittsburgh legally bought an assault rifle, er carbine, er...gun that shoots really fast?

I believe the news over here reported it to be legally owned... but... *shrugs*

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Is the former there though not specifically to enable you to do the latter when tyranny reigns/the zionists make thier move/Obama is revealed to be a muslim after all/bugbear of your choice.

Whilst not directed at Mr. Dietrich here specifically I hasten, there does seem to be some weird dichotomy in the US about you needing guns to kill people in case ( or as and when according to a lot of people it seems) but this at the same time being "wrong" in some fashion.

Yes.... so do many religious groups... are we going to do the prop 8 gay rights/abortion/whatever dance in this thread too ?

I look at guns as:
1. A Hunting Tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can shoot for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have them.

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

Why should I be limited in any of those areas?

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

If he legally bought the AK-47, then making it fire at a rate beyond semi-automatic (pull the trigger and fire one round) was an illegal modification. To be honest, I haven't read too much about the event (despite it being in my hometown), but when I hear "AK-47" and "police shooting" together, I'm assuming it was not a semi-automatic.

Isn't this debate a little academic in the US? The Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that people have a right to own guns. That separates it from other types of property, in that any restriction needs to satisfy a compelling state objective and be narrowly tailored.

Given that a healthy plurality of American's own guns, it's unlikely that there will be an amendment covering that any time soon.

Polonius wrote:Isn't this debate a little academic in the US? The Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that people have a right to own guns. That separates it from other types of property, in that any restriction needs to satisfy a compelling state objective and be narrowly tailored.

Given that a healthy plurality of American's own guns, it's unlikely that there will be an amendment covering that any time soon.

Certainly true, though I believe its still worth hashing over the concepts behind gun ownership and the reasons for believing it should be banned in a civil society, if only because perhaps far down the road after we've solved the energy crisis, the environment, war, hunger, ensured freedom across the globe, and we're working on crime we'll have a good understanding of what to consider.

Polonius wrote:Isn't this debate a little academic on the internet on a Friday night. HAIL SATAN.

Don't think we're not onto you Mr. !

Given the somewhat considerable problems facing America/the entire world at the moment anyway, does anyone who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat actually think that the GOvt is likely to make any major changes in this area.

...unless.... damn it.. the pullout from Iraq! IT's a sign !

ShumaGorath wrote:

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

Wow. Take a deep breath. It is going to be okay.
1. Hunting is not pointless. You may not like it. But you don’t get to decide everything.
2. Here is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting, when the rules are followed. Just like driving. Just like swimming. Etc.
3. Criminals who want to have guns will always have guns. There are ways to get guns illegally. If you make all guns illegal, there will still be guns, but only in the wrong hands. I'd prefer that every citizen be training to shoot a gun rather than none of them. (In a 'perfect world', LOL)

Well, democracy in the US has always been a bit different than elsewhere, due to the generally wider suffrage through out history, a tradition of self rule even before independence, and our own myth/history of the noble yeoman farmer, carving his fields out of the forest, defending himself from savages, the french, and finally the King's Men with his trusty rifle.

I'm one of the people that believes that as long as there are enough guns in the US, the government knows it needs to tread a little more carefully. Sure, no rag tag militia could stand up to the full American war machine, but there's no way martial law would be fun for anybody in this country if the populace were fully roused.

Additionally, the Constitution is essentially the sacred touchstone of the American civilization. While blind obedience to it is foolhardy, it's really important to not chip away at any part of it without thinking it through.

Are guns dangerous? Of course. I think that requireing a full Conceal and carry course and registration before buying a handgun is a great compromise. Hunting weapons should be freely available to those of age and competency. Military weapons are a grey area, but I think there are ways to license and regulate this stuff instead of banning it.

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

ShumaGorath wrote:The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

It is worth it.
It holds its worth in that I want to live in a place where people are held responsible for their actions. Ultimately, the risk you seek to ban, also absolves responsibility.

Polonius wrote:

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

That was very intelligent and well put. Thank you.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I look at dynamite as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting Gear (yes, you can blow things up for the fun and skill of it)
3. Protection against others who have dynamite

I look at slaves as:
1. A hunting tool
2. Sporting gear (yes, you can shoot for fun and the skill of it when you don't have to carry all that heavy equipment yourself)
3. Protection against others who have slaves


1. Everything can help you kill something in the woods.
2. Everything can be used recreationally in some way.
3. When someone else having something is a threat having that same thing reduces the threat in almost all situations.


Number one is pointless in modern society and is little more than a sport.
Number two is a sport.
Number three only works if guns are still on the field. You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

The question should be why should your sport and recreation be limited by the safety concerns inherent in owning devices made for the specific purpose of killing. Is it worth the recreation to run the risk of crime and accidents inherent (this is an argument for banning all guns, rather than limiting access mind you)?

Wow. Take a deep breath. It is going to be okay.
1. Hunting is not pointless. You may not like it. But you don’t get to decide everything.
2. Here is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting, when the rules are followed. Just like driving. Just like swimming. Etc.
3. Criminals who want to have guns will always have guns. There are ways to get guns illegally. If you make all guns illegal, there will still be guns, but only in the wrong hands. I'd prefer that every citizen be training to shoot a gun rather than none of them. (In a 'perfect world', LOL)

Aside from the fact that hunting is pointless given the ability of any american to travel a few minutes and pick up several pounds of meat without hunting you missed the point of my post. There is nothing dangerous about the sport of shooting with the exception of the fact that the guns are still there when you are done shooting. Criminals who want to have guns will have guns in the current system. Half assing gun laws doesn't do much. For criminals to not have guns would take the removal of guns. Guns are an expedient method of killing people, that has been their general point ever since farming made hunting into little more than a sport. If all gun ownership is banned and gun possession becomes a crime then gun crime will drop significantly, and it will drop quickly.

However.

Like polonius said given the world as it is that will not happen. Even ignoring the foolish perception that gun ownership somehow reduces your chance of being shot (when statistically it increases it due to the incidence of accident and the relative lack of noticeable change in your chance of being shot criminally) there are too many guns out there to be removed quickly and without major societal upheaval. People are too fixated on the romantic perception of guns as tools of power and rightmaking. It is too heavily ingrained in our society that shooting can be fun and killing is a passtime to be enjoyed and followed (action movies, books, videogames, tabletop games).



In a perfect world guns wouldn't exist. People wouldn't all be training to kill eachother. Your perfect world is broken and illogical, mine is a childs fantasy.

The #1 reason to not ban guns? Banning things that many American's like has never ever worked. It failed in prohibition, it's failing now in the War on Drugs, and it would fail in a gun ban.

The war on drugs is working and has worked. Usage rates when the substances were considered acceptable and now are quite different. The war on drugs shouldn't be called a war. Wars have a finite objective. The war on drugs is a struggle that can't be won, but can most certainly be lost.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Oh my, Shuma and I are in agreement.
Everyone has thoughts, but attempting to destroy thoughts is often, not always, a mark of the oppressor. Besides much of what has been described is actually an act. You need the evidence of the act.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well now it makes sense. You don't understand the question. You could have just said so. No one has said anything about sanctioned and unsanctioned thinking. As you said wanting to bomb an abortion clinic isn't the same thing as bombing it, but you to bomb it you have to want to first. It is nice that you seem to think that people have ideologies (opinions) but will never act on them out of courtesy. All these acts are driven first by the mind before they become actions. People don't commit the acts and then have the idea to commit them. So the question is at what point does extreme (ok but odd) become radical (not as ok).

Actually the point is when one becomes a terrorist because of those opinions. As long as someone is following the societal contract then they are not acting in a terrorist fashion. That was my point. That belief and act are two separate things.

You kind of jumped on the whole me not understanding thing kind of quick...

Oh my, Shuma and I are in agreement.
Everyone has thoughts, but attempting to destroy thoughts is often, not always, a mark of the oppressor. Besides much of what has been described is actually an act. You need the evidence of the act.

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

See, and here I thought we were discussing this all along.

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up?

Glad to know we weren't because you say so.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's easy to agree when you are talking about something that isn't being talked about. No one is talking about banning any types of thoughts anywhere. We were, on the other hand, talking about the process from which radical becomes extreme. I think it's nice that you both agree that we shouldn't police thoughts, hell, i don't think so either, but it wasn't the point of the conversation.

See, and here I thought we were discussing this all along.

1. You kept talking about us banning thought or telling people they shouldn't think one way or the other, which was never brought. How could we be talking about the same thing when we were talking about different things. You were discussing that all along maybe, but you were the only one and it was off-topic for what the rest of us were discussing. It's not that hard to follow, but your troll-fu is strong.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Back on topic, IS the point where one becomes a terrorist when one's views go from extreme (blocking a abotrion clinic) to radical(blowing it up?

Glad to know we weren't because you say so.

Nice that you don't put who the original posters on the quotes and then attribute one to me, but that aint my quote. It's funny that the biggest "well I say so" person on the OT board would accuse others of it. Again, your troll-fu is strong.

ShumaGorath: Great Dakka troll or Greatest Dakka Troll?

1. You kept talking about us banning thought or telling people they shouldn't think one way or the other, which was never brought. How could we be talking about the same thing when we were talking about different things. You were discussing that all along maybe, but you were the only one and it was off-topic for what the rest of us were discussing. It's not that hard to follow, but your troll-fu is strong.

Bizarre then, how I was communicating and discussing it with several other people while you were being generally ignored. Lets see, scrolling through general lee responded to you once. Really. Who is this "we" you are talking about? I'm pretty sure I know what I was posting about, and I'm fairly certain that others in this thread know the same.

I think you may want to reconsider who is off topic here.

Nice that you don't put who the original posters on the quotes and then attribute one to me, but that aint my quote. It's funny that the biggest "well I say so" person on the OT board would accuse others of it. Again, your troll-fu is strong.

That quote was the gensis of the current line of conversation. If I had attributed it to you then that would mean you were correct and that we should be discussing what you are discussing. However I didn't attribute it to you. You didn't say it. It was the genisis of the current line of conversation. And you appear to be terribly lost, especially given the fact that more of your posts on this discussion are aimed at calling me a troll then actually discuss this topic.

ShumaGorath: Great Dakka troll or Greatest Dakka Troll?

Yes. I am the troll.

Well if it helps for the arguement.

Since a nutjob killed lots of kids in Dunblane twelve years ago handguns have been banned outright.

However the amount of handguns has increased, though you will need to wait a long time before our junta to release honest figures about gun crime. It's rife and getting worse.

What is needed are psychologicalm controls not outright bans.

Congratulations on all your success SG!

I can't tell if you're trolling me, or if you're actually serious here.


Polonius, what is your opinion on this situation?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Polonius, what is your opinion on this situation?

I have no clue what anybody is talking about.

It seems that Ahtman is going a little out of his way to bait you, on the other hand he has a valid point in that you included a quote from a new poster under his quote without changing the names, implying that you were responding to him, which is if nothing else a faux pas. In addition, you responded in a pretty inflammatory fashion. I know, you have a policy of acting like the people you are responding to, but all that does is make you as big a jerk as the biggest jerk you're talking to....

Well given that the quote was the focal point of the conversation and I don't know the bb code to include names I didn't see fit to site it. Though I probably wouldn't have anyway, laziness and all.

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

You haven't shot as many AK's as you profess. I've hit targets @300 yards, my friends have hit targets @300 yards. All with DIFFERENT AK's. Are AK's EFFECTIVE @300 yards? Just BARELY. But the accuracy is there.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You don't need a gun to protect yourself when the other gunman doesn't have a gun.

So.... HOW exactly do you keep criminals from having guns? Seriously. They still can't do it in Britain and Australia. All they've done is disarmed the honest citizenry, so that the criminals (with OR without guns) have an easier time victimizing them.

We do not have a serious gun crime problem in the UK. A lot of the gun crime actually happening is crim on crim.

One reason is that since ordinary citizens do not have guns, criminals do not need guns to threaten them. The penalties for carrying out crimes involving guns are quite severe, so they only tend to be used when they are really needed and the rewards are high, for example, in bank jobs.

That said, the same experience can't be transferred to the USA. For one thing, if the government did manage to get the 2nd Amendment amended, how many guns would citizens turn in? Loads of citizens would keep their guns illegally, and the problem would be doubled.

The basic point about crime is you usually can't stop people doing it if they are determined. You have to make them not want to do it.

Orlanth wrote:
However the amount of handguns has increased,.

and you know this because... ?

Ask the police.

Orlanth wrote:Ask the police.

Of course ! Hearsay and anecdote, how could I forget.

Nothing like a well proven and trusted explanation.. and that is nothing like a proven and trusted explanation for an entirely baseless claim.

I agree that the legislation was kneejerk and ill thought out, but there's no way of telling whether there are more guns now than 20 odd years ago or whether the law influenced this total at all.

I would suggest that the ban did in fact reduce the number of guns around as most people are, essentially, law abiding/honest ( to a point anyway).

reds8n wrote:

Of course ! Hearsay and anecdote, how could I forget.

I haved not forgooten your stubborn resilience to truth either. Look around you, open your eyes, ask.

One thing is for certain, you wont get the truth from government figures.

As for your hearsay and anecdote 'defence' well you could add that to anything outside of pure science. Actual proof is something diffiicult to come by in politics. Is an economic policy working/not working for example: any dimwit can sqwawk 'hearsay' if they dont want to listen to the evidence on the subject and for even transparent issues you will get differences. Add a blatantly lying government like the one we have at the moment and a subject where a lot of the real info is concealed it gets even harder to find the truth.

You are better off searching yourself than relying on stats or the media, and far better than if you bury your head in the sand and dont listen at all.

reds8n wrote:

I would suggest that the ban did in fact reduce the number of guns around as most people are, essentially, law abiding/honest ( to a point anyway).

Post Hungerford changes needed to be made, they were sufficient. Dunblane occured because the wrong operson had a licence. The Gun clubs warned the police about Hamilton but the police did nothing.

The kneejerk post Dunblane (at least you admit it was a kneejerk) hurt because by closing the Gun clubs are removing legal access to handguns the people were divorced from the once source by which gun control could be implemented by education.

It is one thing to say 'gun is wrong'. But that wont educate a teenager.

The trajedy is that pre 1997 teenagers could go to gun clubs learn about guns (they could not get a licence until they were 18+ and passed police vetting) but they could handle guns as a guest. The first thing a gun club would do was educate any bad attitude out of the potential gun owner before they got hold of a gun. The gun club internal eduication worked this is why despite apparently lax gun laws Britain had a good record regarding gun abuse. Hungerford and Dunblane were aberrations not symptoms of decay or guin crime out of control.

In a very real way sweeping gun ownership into the shadows has only helped to increase gun related offences and legal avenues for gun ownership have been removed or sequentially marginalised.

Lordhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

You haven't shot as many AK's as you profess. I've hit targets @300 yards, my friends have hit targets @300 yards. All with DIFFERENT AK's. Are AK's EFFECTIVE @300 yards? Just BARELY. But the accuracy is there.

I think we're looking at different levels when we say "accuracy." Can you hit a mansized target after lotsw of shooting and sitting and muck about? Eventually. Can you hit them center mass with a half decent scope with an AK on shot one-no way Jose. When I say accuracy, thats what I am thinking of.
All of that is generally irrelevant as shooting across a quarry at rocks sounds like epic fun. I miss the days in Cali similarly open area shooting. Lugging out car doors and wat heaters and generally going berserk.

To the different topic of not needing a gun if the criminal doesn't have one, thats hogwash. I don't want to be equal to the criminal. I want to stop the cirminal in his tracks. If the criminal is on drugs, is a nut, or generally bigger, I need a gun. Ask the woman about to be raped by two guys if she needs a gun. As the old saying goes, never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Going back to the OP.

I was in Pittsburgh over the holiday weekend. Was passed by the funeral procession returning from Indiana, PA to Pittsburgh from the funeral of one of the officers. Very humbling.

The Saturday paper had a few tidbits:
1. The authorities did not know where the shooter obtained the AK-47.
2. The shooter's mother called 911 saying that her son was abusive and wanted him evicted. She did not mention that he had firearms in the home.
3. The two officers that responded to the call were in the home when they were shot. The first officer did not get to react. The second officer put three rounds in the shooter - one in his leg and two into his bulletproof vest. Yes, that's correct, the shooter was wearing a bulletproof vest when the police initially responded, so this was clearly an ambush by him.
4. The shooter made it up to the second floor, exchanging gunfire with police. After he 'had enough' he told police that he was laying down his weapon, and that he was wounded and they needed to come get him.
5. The shooter's grandmother handcuffed herself to the fence in front of the home on Friday. She claims that police stole $3,000 in cash out of her purse and that the police used excessive force in apprehending her grandson. As my father commented, if she had $3,000 in cash, it was from something illegal. Nevermind that no one believes her. The police chief commended the arresting officers for showing restrait. I would not shed a tear for the scumbag if he had been shot 'during apprehension' and police left a drop weapon next to him. Yes, it's wrong and illegal, but I also think this guy deserves to die and wouldn't mind the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania avoiding the legal fees of a trial.