Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outsideTabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
Lordhat wrote:Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
I have my doubts. If this actually were hypocritical one would have expected the citation of a specific piece of legislation which banned the possession of firearms for the purposes of home defense. Supporting the regulation of firearms does not mean that you oppose the ability to possess firearms.
First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?
Second up, this story has been around a while now and I've never seen anyone provide a single piece of legislation that Soles promoted a restriction on keeping a firearm in the house for personal protection? If not, how is he a hypocrit? Is this just a case of Democrat shoots a guy therefore hypocrit am I right fellow true thinking Americans yeah he's a hypocrit wait what's a fact no I don't have any of those but I've done fine so far without them.
However, "sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me)" is just plain awesome. Turns out Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig were Democrats all this time.
sebster wrote:Is this just a case of Democrat shoots a guy therefore hypocrit am I right fellow true thinking Americans yeah he's a hypocrit wait what's a fact no I don't have any of those but I've done fine so far without them.
Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.
Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.
So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.
Fateweaver wrote:Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.
Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.
So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.
Look, here it is straight... what you've posted there is drivel. You start out with a vague complaint about Liberal control of the MSM... I don't know why. There was no complaint about right or left coverage of this issue... in fact there was no comment on media coverage at all. Bizarre.
Then you go on to claim that 'anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports'. The first problem is that's nonsense, as there are many, many different approaches to gun control depending on what individuals believe are the primary dangers. This is why gun control within the US and in comparison to other countries varies so much... the left is not a monolithic block.
The second and bigger problem is that you haven't in any way established that Soles supported any of that. You haven't provided any gun control legislation at all, let alone a piece that would actually restrict his ability to fire on an invader as he did.
So far, all you appear to have is 'Democrat' and 'shot a dude'.
I'm pretty sure Fateweaver was responding to this Sebster.
sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?
Anyway, as far as I can tell Soles doesn't have half bad marks from the NRA.
Fateweaver wrote:Ah yes. Because the MSM is run by the Conservatives so every story gets skewed to be anti-left........errr wait, last I checked the Liberals controlled majority of the MSM.
Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.
So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.
Look, here it is straight... what you've posted there is drivel. You start out with a vague complaint about Liberal control of the MSM... I don't know why. There was no complaint about right or left coverage of this issue... in fact there was no comment on media coverage at all. Bizarre.
Then you go on to claim that 'anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports'. The first problem is that's nonsense, as there are many, many different approaches to gun control depending on what individuals believe are the primary dangers. This is why gun control within the US and in comparison to other countries varies so much... the left is not a monolithic block.
The second and bigger problem is that you haven't in any way established that Soles supported any of that. You haven't provided any gun control legislation at all, let alone a piece that would actually restrict his ability to fire on an invader as he did.
So far, all you appear to have is 'Democrat' and 'shot a dude'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:wat
Exactly!
I don't know of any Liberals that aren't against stricter gun laws. There might be a few but I'm sure I can safely say majority of liberals are anti-gun (or pro-making it hard as feth to get guns) and most, if not all, conservatives are for tightening up the laws we do have without limiting people and their 2nd amendment rights but that there are probably some conservatives who agree with liberals on gun control. Though I see those people as a stain on conservative thinking.
Sad truth is the most anti-gun people I've seen are liberals/democrats and so therefore overshadow any liberal that isn't anti-gun legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote:I'm pretty sure Fateweaver was responding to this Sebster.
sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?
Anyway, as far as I can tell Soles doesn't have half bad marks from the NRA.
Yeah, just noticed that. Kudos to him for having a pair of balls (and I'd say this if he was anti-gun). Even more kudos for being a liberal that values our Amendment rights (not many of them out there either).
Fateweaver wrote:
Anyone supporting gun regulation supports the gak that the liberal side supports (registering, stricter laws, limited guns, limiting assault weapons (which is funny as uneducated liberals think a semi-auto pistol is an assault weapon) which ultimately is an excuse to make gun ownership impossible for non-militants)). I've even heard as much from the more liberal (or extreme liberal) posters here on dakka.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't mean anything beyond "some liberals don't know things about weapons, and blindly fear them." Some, not all. That's not a difficult distinction to make.
Fateweaver wrote:
So yes, it is in a roundabout way hypocritical for someone all for making it harder for the average citizen to defend himself and his home to be defending HIS use of a handgun to defend himself.
No, it isn't hypocritical at all. Simply being liberal does not mean that you support all things supported by all people who label themselves as liberal. That is a massive fallacy which borders on willful ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:First up, why is this being reported as news? It happened in August. Have you only just read this story, as it slowly worked its way through rightwing blogs and chain emails?
Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today. Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.
I'm all for the right to own weapons for self-defence and hunting and what not, but what practical purpose is there for allowing citizens to have sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc?
It's quite hard to write a tight definition of an assault rifle or sniper rifle which might not include some other innocent weapon like a high power, scope equipped hunting rifle.
Not to mention that a lot of Americans want to have guns to defend themselves against their government, in which case you need the best weapons you can get.
Most crimes are probably committed with pistols anyway -- just a guess, I don't have any figures on it.
ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outsideTabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
Very loaded OP. There is a huge middle ground between 'ban-all-guns' and a 'crapshoot free for all'. Many anti-gun lobbyists want guns restricted rather than outright bans. A gun in your home, fair enough, but when every trigger happy redneck has a 'right' to a gun its something else. Some people should not be armed. The police and local authorities should have the right to refuse gun licenses to at risk persons and certain types of weaponry should be outlawed. Gun lobbyists hide behind the US Constution which was written at a time which didn't envision the current age. Back then there was an adjacent native population and a slave community that didn't count as citizens, and had no rights under law, no matter what the founding Fathers claimed to say, but they did count as potential hostiles. They were also concerned about Redcoats appearing over the horizeon and needed an armed populace out of self interest. To compound this the right to bear arms accounted for single shot weaponry with a low rate of fire. If assault rifles existed back then, or even envisioned there might well have been different wording. Because the text is regarded as sacred people forget we are not in the 18th century anymore. Its time to move on.
I am glad the UK has resisted calls for a written constitution and relies instead on common law it allows for a greater degree of flexibility.
Lordhat wrote:
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion
You can have a heavy machine gun (because its your right), but not a black water pistol, that is the hypocrasy.
RustyKnight wrote:I'm all for the right to own weapons for self-defence and hunting and what not, but what practical purpose is there for allowing citizens to have sniper rifles, assault rifles, etc?
I understand the basis of your statement,the thing is a 30-06 with a good scope (a hunting rifle) could easily be used for a sniper rifle,and the term "assault rifle" has become some what meaningless in definition in so much as it seems to encompess "any wepon seen in an action movie",when in fact that is not the case.
However,I do agree that living in a country where everyone (hypotheticly) would be packing an Ak-47 isn't high on my "things to do "list.
On topic, I agree with those saying that there is a big middle ground in views on this issue. Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference from "regulate" and "ban". Also, you have to remember that when that constitution was made the US was still under threat from invasion from Canada, or other wars at home, such as the previously mentioned indians.
Off topic,
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.
Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.
Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?
I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.
(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)
The happy reaper wrote:
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.
Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.
Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?
I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.
(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)
Again, it's hard to make distinctions between civilian ports of tactical rifles and hunting rifles legalistically.
Furthermore, the idea with something chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 is that, unlike a 9mm or some similar, you don't have to drain the mag to take down your target. 3-4 rounds of 5.56 at 20ft will take down anyone, same with 2-3 rounds of 7.62. If there are multiple assailants, this leaves you with plenty of ammunition to continue the engagement with immediately. With a 9mm pistol, you'd have to put about half a clip into someone to down them immediately. Then you'd have to do it again to a second assailant. Then you'd have to reload. Then possibly repeat. This takes a lot longer than a few simple 3 round bursts to high center mass, time that matters when people with weapons are running around in your house.
And anyone who keeps their weapon(s) sitting around loaded is an idiot. No one should ever come across a loaded weapon in a house-it's just an accident waiting to happen.
The happy reaper wrote:
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.
Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.
Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?
I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.
(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)
Again, it's hard to make distinctions between civilian ports of tactical rifles and hunting rifles legalistically.
Furthermore, the idea with something chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 is that, unlike a 9mm or some similar, you don't have to drain the mag to take down your target. 3-4 rounds of 5.56 at 20ft will take down anyone, same with 2-3 rounds of 7.62. If there are multiple assailants, this leaves you with plenty of ammunition to continue the engagement with immediately. With a 9mm pistol, you'd have to put about half a clip into someone to down them immediately. Then you'd have to do it again to a second assailant. Then you'd have to reload. Then possibly repeat. This takes a lot longer than a few simple 3 round bursts to high center mass, time that matters when people with weapons are running around in your house.
And anyone who keeps their weapon(s) sitting around loaded is an idiot. No one should ever come across a loaded weapon in a house-it's just an accident waiting to happen.
If a 9mm bullet does not have stopping power, why are most special forces armed with mp3 submachine guns?
Because, a 7.62mm round will go through multiple targets, a danger in a hostage situation (i.e the robber grabs one of your family etc.).
It obviously has enough power to disarm and stop terrorists, why not an intruder?
It's not (really) the 9mm round that's the problem, it's the 9mm pistol.
An MP5 has an 8.5 inch barrel. A 9mm pistol will have about a 4-5 inch barrel, depending on manufacturer, etc.
Longer barrel length = more bullet energy = greater effect on target.
The quasi-problem with the 9mm round is that it's a pistol round, which is inherently less powerful due to shape and grain.
One of the reasons SF teams are often armed with MP5s in that the MP5SD (the silenced version) is one of the quietest weapons in the world, and there's an operator familiarity issue.
All in all, an MP5 will have to put out more rounds to drop someone than an M4 or similar.
And in a hostage situation, if you need to shoot, it's one round, one kill. 5.56 or 7.62 increases your chances of this.
Of course, you can always teach your family some practical martial art (MCMAP, Krav Maga, etc) that includes hostage pistol and knife disarms
EDIT: BTW, SF and LEOs are moving away from the MP5 to the MP7. The MP7 is chambered in 4.6x30mm, a tactical-rifle style round, to give it more power and effect on target.
ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.
News at 11.
Shuma trolls.
News at 10.
Kindly take a look at my post saying that I retracted my initial observation when it was pointed out he can't be anti-gun as the NRA gave him a good grade as far as gun legislation.
Also, as far as infotainment trash I'll watch CBS or NBC or The Daily Show if I want to watch biased tv (left wing biased tv anyway). Liberals lie more than any other political platform, people believe it because if Jon Stewart says it's true or NBC says it's true than it must be true.
ShumaGorath wrote:Lord hat posts an old, contrived, non sensical, doggedly biased, and utterly trashy conservative infotainment article he got in his email box today.
Fateweaver defends on thin poorly thought out grounds.
News at 11.
Shuma trolls.
News at 10.
Kindly take a look at my post saying that I retracted my initial observation when it was pointed out he can't be anti-gun as the NRA gave him a good grade as far as gun legislation.
Also, as far as infotainment trash I'll watch CBS or NBC or The Daily Show if I want to watch biased tv (left wing biased tv anyway). Liberals lie more than any other political platform, people believe it because if Jon Stewart says it's true or NBC says it's true than it must be true.
Shuma doesn't always read the whole thread before posting and Jon Stuarts show is on comedy central and has more cred than O'Rielly.
Catch the rest of the story on asiacast, podcasts from around the world!
Saying a guys a hypocrit for using a gun to defend himself even though he supports better gun regulations is rediculous. there is a big difference in saying 'why do we allow people to own AK47, uzis and military level assault rifles' and 'ban all guns'.
the 2nd amendment says you have a legal right to a fire arm, not a legal right to any type of fire arm. you only need to/could have
shotgun-for hunting
rifle-for hunting
hand gun- home defence
you don't need an assault rifle or machine gun cos no matter how dangerous the streets of detroit can be you don't live in Uganda, the wild west or the western front during WW2
On topic, I agree with those saying that there is a big middle ground in views on this issue. Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference from "regulate" and "ban". Also, you have to remember that when that constitution was made the US was still under threat from invasion from Canada, or other wars at home, such as the previously mentioned indians.
Off topic,
I honestly don't know why anyone needs a gun. Lets specify rifles (I.E long barrels and usually high power), what need do you have of a weapon like that when at most the range in your house (unless you have an obscenely large one) is around 20ft. The only reason I see for owning one is hunting, and even then, why not just rent one from the establishment? much safer than keeping it in your own home.
Now for assault rifles. This seems to say that any intruder into your home would be so well armed that you need to pump out 30 rounds from a 5.56 or 7.62mm weapon. That says a lot about the equipment available to these criminals doesn't it? Seems like you need to crack down on weapons in the wrong hands rather than put more weapons in the "right" (and I use that term loosely) hands.
Pistols, possibly. One at most, where it is accessible to use I could MAYBE agree with, if the ammo is kept next to it and not IN it. More than one just seems to be overkill. If a robber is coming into your home and searching drawers, do you really want him to find one of your weapons, loaded, in it?
I was on holiday in Florida, well away from miami etc, when a 2 yr old shot himself with his mothers gun. To me this epitomises the stress placed on guns in the US if a toddler can find and use one. I havent even SEEN a gun in the UK, and i would tentatively say most others havent either.
(I learnt most of what I know from textbooks and historical books on WW2, but afaik it still applies.)
The problem with regulation like that is that 1) It cannot be proven that such regulations will lower gun crime or gun-based homicides and 2) More regulation just means the anti-gun nut jobs are one step closer to getting what they want. Things like Columbine and V-tech did not happen because of your average everyday citizen obtaining assault rifles and sem-auto shotguns and owning more than one pistol. Those happened because those guns were most likely obtained illegally either through buying from an unlicensed gun dealer or through stealing them.
Read my sig. Stricter gun laws will make the criminals lives easier and their job safer. Who's safety should come first? A person sitting in their home watching tv or the douche bag junkie who feels he needs to steal from that homeowner for his next drug fix?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BluntmanDC wrote:Saying a guys a hypocrit for using a gun to defend himself even though he supports better gun regulations is rediculous. there is a big difference in saying 'why do we allow people to own AK47, uzis and military level assault rifles' and 'ban all guns'.
the 2nd amendment says you have a legal right to a fire arm, not a legal right to any type of fire arm. you only need to/could have
shotgun-for hunting
rifle-for hunting
hand gun- home defence
you don't need an assault rifle or machine gun cos no matter how dangerous the streets of detroit can be you don't live in Uganda, the wild west or the western front during WW2
Why stop at guns?
The average citizen does not need to own a Dodge Viper (fastest production car in the world) or a Lambo or a Ferrari. In the hands of an incompetent driver they are more dangerous than any gun in the world. I accidentally shoot myself in the leg or foot I probably will survive (odds are good). I hit somebody doing 140 in a Viper that person WILL NOT live, in fact they'll be no more than a blood stain on my windshield, hood and the pavement on the highway plus if I don't have experience driving a car that will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds the odds are good I'll kill myself.
Knives?
Most households only need 3 or 4 kinds of knives; butter knife, paring knife, butcher knife and maybe an all purpose knife. So lets make butterfly knives and rambo-esque knives and machetes illegal. I mean, afterall if the intruder is unarmed a simple paring knife should suffice shouldn't it?
The average citizen does not need to own a Dodge Viper (fastest production car in the world) or a Lambo or a Ferrari. In the hands of an incompetent driver they are more dangerous than any gun in the world. I accidentally shoot myself in the leg or foot I probably will survive (odds are good). I hit somebody doing 140 in a Viper that person WILL NOT live, in fact they'll be no more than a blood stain on my windshield, hood and the pavement on the highway plus if I don't have experience driving a car that will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds the odds are good I'll kill myself.
Prove to me that you can drive your gun to work or accurately shoot the leg off of a turkey for thanksgiving dinner and you're arguments will mean something.
Relapse wrote:Then there's the kind of mindset Rosie O'Donell has. She comes out against guns at every chance, but has armed bodyguards.
Objection: Irrelevant.
Perhaps irrelevent in the current discusion,but I do see the relevence in the "larger picture".
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.
However,not rellevant to the current discusion so....on with the show...
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.
Not entirely. It's a pretty black and white viewpoint when one can consider someone else a hypocrite for being pro gun control while having armed security. Do you view police who are pro gun control with the same level of hypocrisy? What about government officials? What exactly is hypocritical about utilizing professionals with registered weapons performing a lawful and often times necessary act while believing that the prevalence of guns in america is something to be worked against? Being against guns doesn't mean being against security, especially when you're a well known celebrity. I'm against trans fats, that doesn't mean I'm against eating food.
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.
Not entirely. It's a pretty black and white viewpoint when one can consider someone else a hypocrite for being pro gun control while having armed security. Do you view police who are pro gun control with the same level of hypocrisy?
I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.
A media personality grand standing about "banning guns" is a bit different than an officer recognizing the dangers of " an UZI in every hand".
But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.
If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.
Fateweaver wrote:But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.
If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.
Ok Fate,your messing with my money now,I make my living repairing those exact types of cars when some "unqaulified individule" bumps em a bit to hard.
Never mess with another mans livelyhood
Lord-Loss wrote:Your sig seems to think that guns make the world so round.
That's only a few of a list of things that I have that are anti-gun control.
Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.
If the average joe cannot buy an M16 or AK47 because a .45 is enough for defense than Lambos and Vipers should be illegal for anyone not a professional race car driver to own as a Ford Focus or Chevy Malibu is enough car to get the average joe to work and back.
Ok Fate,your messing with my money now,I make my living repairing those exact types of cars when some "unqaulified individule" bumps em a bit to hard.
Never mess with another mans livelyhood
Just pointing out the absurdity of being anti-assault rifle or anti-sniper rifle (I mean seriously, most 30-06's or .308's with high powered scope could be a sniper rifle and those are mainly used for deer hunting).
I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.
What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.
If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be.
But does the average working man need a Viper? It is more car than most people need so lets make them illegal to anyone that doesn't currently have a permit/license to drive high performance race cars on or off the track.
A viper is a high quality high performance car. Which is a vehicle.
A glock 18C is a high quality high performance machine pistol. Which is a deadly weapon which can not be utilized for hunting.
Vehicles: Legal Deadly weapons: Illegal
High performance vehicles: Fun, loud, expensive. High performance weapons: Deadly, effective, expensive.
Man, things that get you from one place to another and things designed to kill multiple people very quickly with no other use ARE EXACTLY THE SAME thank you for enlightening me.
Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.
Fateweaver: Hyperbolic, emotional, prone to extremism in opinion.
I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.
What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.
If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be..
Just pointing out the absurdity of being anti-assault rifle or anti-sniper rifle (I mean seriously, most 30-06's or .308's with high powered scope could be a sniper rifle and those are mainly used for deer hunting).
I agree here. Weapons functionally and practically incapable of semi auto or automatic fire really aren't a danger to the public. We've been calling them hunting rifles for years and one does the job as well as any other. The line between hunting and sniper rifles is very thin, and only recently did the crossover between the two begin to cease (most weapons functioning solely as sniper rifles being capable of semi or automatic fire).
Fateweaver wrote:Seriously, anyone thinking one Amendment should be abolished should be for abolishing them all. Take away one right you might as well take them all away.
Here... problem solved. You can have only this, and nothing else.
Instead of compounding this same exact conversation that has been had many, many, many times before on this board. I am just going to go with the flow... and add +1 to Shuma's post.
Shuma wrote:Fateweaver: Hyperbolic, emotional, prone to extremism in opinion.
+1
Crisis averted, go back to your activities citizens.
Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).
People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.
An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol. A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus. It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.
Fateweaver wrote:Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).
At the very least, we already have regulations on many dangerous 'weapons'. A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point. The effective lethality of a weapon is EXTREMELY important, and not a matter of 'what will suffice'. A bunch of napalm is bound to stop anyone in their tracks, in a very abrupt, and effective way... now have fun burning your house down... Except with an AK47, fully automatic, unloading through walls, into neighbors houses, your most definitely not the only one to be dealing with the consequences of your decisions.
gak... we should all just walk around strapped with freaking dynamite... NOW THAT... would be able to protect me from anything.
You cannot own dynamite, nor can you own any form of lethal missile in most situations. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to own a fully-automatic AK47. It is ludicrous to expect that to actually be effective at protecting anything. More AK47's, Tec-9's, and the like are in the hands of criminals, than average citizens (who are likely owning them completely illegally as well, making them criminals of a different sort).
Your brush is massive, tone it down, and people will take you more seriously.
People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.
Something I think you reuse to understand is that one is a status symbol while being a military assault rifle designed to kill multiple people over long distances. The other is a fast car.
An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol.
Well, the ak specifically is in fact more dangrous due to the much increased lethality of 7.62 over 9mm rounds and the ease over over penetration (making accidents both more likely and lethal). But thats not the issue. The issue is that in the hands of someone that does intend to kill they are VASTLY more dangerous than a standard pistol.
A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus.
Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).
It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.
Thats cool and all, but you're pastime is playing with deadly weapons designed to kill people as if they're toys and you're trying to draw a parallel to people that drive cars that can go fast. They aren't equal.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
Why am I even trying to have this conversation? You don't use logic or sense.
Shuma wrote:Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).
He countered his own argument with that statement.
If a sports car (AK47, Automatic), is the same for all demonstrable purposes, as a standard 4 seater (9mm, Semi-automatic), then there is absolutely no reason to get a sports car at all. Besides to run around like James Bond, or Rambo or something.
The right to protect your fragile, fragile egos... .
Fateweaver wrote:Point is Shuma, if we are going to class certain weapons illegal because you don't need an AK47 to defend your home (and really, most people will go for their pistol before reaching for their AK) due to them being "overkill" because a .45 or .38. or 9mm will suffice than Vipers and Lambos should be illegal because a Ford Focus will do the same thing as a Lambo, just not as fast nor will it get you laid as much (if at all).
At the very least, we already have regulations on many dangerous 'weapons'. A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point. The effective lethality of a weapon is EXTREMELY important, and not a matter of 'what will suffice'. A bunch of napalm is bound to stop anyone in their tracks, in a very abrupt, and effective way... now have fun burning your house down... Except with an AK47, fully automatic, unloading through walls, into neighbors houses, your most definitely not the only one to be dealing with the consequences of your decisions.
gak... we should all just walk around strapped with freaking dynamite... NOW THAT... would be able to protect me from anything.
You cannot own dynamite, nor can you own any form of lethal missile in most situations. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to own a fully-automatic AK47. It is ludicrous to expect that to actually be effective at protecting anything. More AK47's, Tec-9's, and the like are in the hands of criminals, than average citizens (who are likely owning them completely illegally as well, making them criminals of a different sort).
Your brush is massive, tone it down, and people will take you more seriously.
I'm more in agreement with Wrexs' view points here,while it would be great to live in a world where "home defence" wasn't an issue,I don't see any reason for owning an AK-47 or any other wepon of this type.
I don't support "gun grabbers" based on the slippery slope politics and lack of moderation in the "grab",ie: start with AK-47s and soon the only legal firearm to own is a musket.
However,if a competent and reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms where to appear I would more than likely support it.
I mean honestly,I own firearms to protect my family,so if by getting UZIs (etc) of the streets my family is safer,I'm all for it.
My main point is just that even if you are trying to 'even the odds' by owning ridicilous firepower, the fact that you are in a position to protect, rather than attack; puts you at a major disadvantage.
I'm no squid, I can make tough decisions, but shootouts with local gangs, using ever-increasing firepower. Well... that is just ridiculous to me. Handguns, Shotguns, Standard hunting rifles, all seem like viable options for home defense.
Anything that can penetrate two people with one shot... the math really isn't that complicated, that kind of situation involving a heavy fire-fight... usually ends in severe casualties in an even setting. Fighting in a house with anything besides a pistol and a freaking bat, I just don't understand.
Even shotguns appear to be far too unwieldy. Cross-bows on the other hand, well... I can dig that.
People with money to burn by Lambos and Vipers because they might be fun to drive and are a status symbol. People buying AK's and M1 Carbines are not buying them mainly for home defense. They buy them because they are fun to shoot.
Something I think you reuse to understand is that one is a status symbol while being a military assault rifle designed to kill multiple people over long distances. The other is a fast car.
An AK in the hands of someone not intending to kill with it is no more dangerous than a 9mm pistol.
Well, the ak specifically is in fact more dangrous due to the much increased lethality of 7.62 over 9mm rounds and the ease over over penetration (making accidents both more likely and lethal). But thats not the issue. The issue is that in the hands of someone that does intend to kill they are VASTLY more dangerous than a standard pistol.
A Lambo in the hands of someone with that kind of driving experience is no more dangerous than a Ford Focus.
Only if they are driven the same, in which case they aren't functionally different because they are going the same speed on the same roads. Sports cars are significantly more likely to be in accidents than standard sedans. It's one of the reasons they are expensive to insure (aside from their costs).
It's idiots that make Ak's deadlier than they have to be and punishing the non-idiots, the non-socio and psychopaths is not going to make the country a safer place.
Thats cool and all, but you're pastime is playing with deadly weapons designed to kill people as if they're toys and you're trying to draw a parallel to people that drive cars that can go fast. They aren't equal.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
Why am I even trying to have this conversation? You don't use logic or sense.
No, being a typical liberal you refute logic and common sense.
Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.
Fitzz, normally we agree on things but I have to reiterate the point that making AK's and Uzi's illegal will not get them off the streets. Marijuana is illegal for non-medicinal purposes (and medi-marijuana is a joke in and of itself) but you still see it on the streets. Same with any other drug that is not legal. Making something illegal will not make it go away. It was tried with alcohol and that failed. If people want something they will get it no matter the legality or not. I personally know at least a dozen people I could score Meth or Pot from. If a 40k nerd like me can score meth than that means someone with real interest in wanting to use it will score it even easier and/or knows more people they can score it from (or make it themselves even).
Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.
Laws make us all slaves. You heard it here first everyone. Seatbelts? Slave. Tax codes? Slave. Can't kill people you want to kill? Slave.
No, being a typical liberal you refute logic and common sense.
Post something with it and I'll give it a try. You're like some sort of grand theft auto parody of a person with posts like this.
FW wrote:Slaves were slaves because they had no control over their actions, someone else told them what they could and could not do. Removing someone rights (freedom of speech, right to fair trials, right to own a firearm, the right to not incriminate one self) you are in essence making them slaves.
Wow, you mean that there is no way for us to actually fight an advanced military, armed with the best weapons in this day and age? As in all we should be doing is running around hunting with clubs? Yes, that is what you are saying isn't it. I have a present for you, see the glory that is the TWO-HANDED spiked club.
@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.
FITZZ wrote:
Many media personalities who claim to dispise firearms would never dream of going out amonst the unwashed masses without armed security,and yes this is hypocricy.
Not really. There's no contradiction in despising guns, and recognizing their necessity in a nation in which they are easy to access. I could own 12 different firearms and still advocate stricter gun control on the grounds that I feel possessing 12 firearms should be excessive, rather than a perceived necessity.
FITZZ wrote:@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.
Isn't it California that's now coming up with a radical way of regulating heavier firearms by restricting the sales of ammunition and requiring registration, etc just to buy the stuff?
I see that as sort of comparing apples and oranges in so much as the police (pro gun control or not) have a job wich puts them in dirrect contact with dangerous elements,where celiberties don't.
What about political personalities? A senator is only different from a celebrity in so many ways, few of which truly pertain to the need for security.
If they didn't need it they wouldn't have it. Armed 24 hour security doesn't exactly come cheap, and being a politically vocal celebrity isn't the safest thing to be..
I do indeed see your point.
I sort of coverd this before Dogma. but yes,I see your point as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
FITZZ wrote:@ Fateweaver.
I definitly get that outlawing Aks,UZIs and such wouldn't take them out of the hand's of criminals.
By competent & reasonable bill for getting rid of certain firearms I basicly ment (and I certianly havn't worked all the kinks out of the idea),private citizens don't get AKs (etc) and criminals using them in their activities get to go away til their old and grey,for people who want to blast away with AKs and such for fun perhaps their could be a sanctioned "shooters club",where those wepons are held and one can go and pop off magizine after magizine all day.
I support the second amendment,I own Firearms ( a shotgun and 3 pistols) ,my political view is somewhere in the middle (left on some issues,right on others)...but I know theirs alot of firepower out there (New Orleans was the murder capital of America many years running,and Atlanta isn't much better) and alot of that firepower is in dangerous hands.
Isn't it California that's now coming up with a radical way of regulating heavier firearms by restricting the sales of ammunition and requiring registration, etc just to buy the stuff?
It's possible I suppose,it seems like the sort of idea that would come out of California government "looks good on paper..ultimatly won't solve much".
Alot of hunting ammo is the same as "assault weapon" ammo so theirs an issue there,also once again theirs the whole "crimanals don't obey laws" issue,so no amount of this type of legislation affects them.
Wrex wrote: A freaking piano is a weapon in the right hands, that is not the point.
Worker in Piano shop answers phone.
Man (On phone):Hello, I'd like to buy your most expensive Piano.
Worker: Im sorry sir, but all expensive piano's have been banned because you can no longer buy assault rifles.
Worker puts down Phone.
I think anything can be deadly weapon in some way.
A Viper isnt designed to be a deadly weapon. But it can kill, that doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to get one. But why should people be able to buy something which is built to kill, when you can buy a pistol, which is better at protecting you and your family. Thought It doesnt look as cool.
What it's built to do is really pretty irrelevant. A sword is built to kill people, while a shotgun is built to hunt. This doesn't make the sword more dangerous when both are used as weapons.
Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime.
You can't refute it but I can prove it won't as many things that are currently illegal are still obtainable by anyone, good person or bad person.
That statement is logical. I know you will try to refute it, probably even using the lame ass "90% of guns going into mexican drug cartels hands come from the U.S" which is a downright lie but a lot of left wingers believe it.
Fateweaver wrote:
Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime.
Look at the gun crime statistics in Japan. More importantly, if otherwise law abiding citizens do not have access to weapons they will be unable to commit gun crimes. Many people who are otherwise law abiding commit gun crimes. Therefore, no matter how you want to contort the issue, stricter gun control will reduce gun crimes.
Fateweaver wrote:
That statement is logical.
No it isn't. It might be reasonable (if you accept the evidence as sufficient), but it isn't logical.
A glock 18C is a high quality high performance machine pistol. Which is a deadly weapon which can not be utilized for hunting.
Vehicles: Legal
Deadly weapons: LEGAL
High performance vehicles: Fun, loud, expensive DEADLY.
High performance weapons: Deadly, effective, expensive, FUN.
Fixed that for you.
Also the Glock 18C is no longer in production, the only ones circulating are pre-cancellation of the Weapons program and are rare, very rare. So I'd chose a different weapon next time you need an example.
I'd also like to point out that most weapons are deadly weapons, even less than lethal can be lethal so have fun with that argument.
I'd also like to know where I get these High Performance Weapons, and what do they do? Do they kill faster or something?
Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime/
Yep.
You can't refute it but I can prove it won't as many things that are currently illegal are still obtainable by anyone, good person or bad person.
Yes, and I'm sure banning crack did nothing to dent it's spread and popularity either.
That statement is logical.
I don't think you know what that word means. That statement was contrived and used self evidence to prove a spurious point that had been been previously stated as truth and remained unsupported.
I know you will try to refute it, probably even using the lame ass "90% of guns going into mexican drug cartels hands come from the U.S" which is a downright lie but a lot of left wingers believe it.
Nope, didn't even have too. You used a fallacious argument that you didn't support. Though really, if you think those statistics are BS you should probably bring it up with the ATF, the guys saying it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed that for you.
Also the Glock 18C is no longer in production, the only ones circulating are pre-cancellation of the Weapons program and are rare, very rare. So I'd chose a different weapon next time you need an example.
I dunno, mac 10? Mp5? You can get p90s if you want to spend that much on ammo.
I'd also like to point out that most weapons are deadly weapons, even less than lethal can be lethal so have fun with that argument.
You're right, I should have specified "without use in hunting" or "military/police issue weapon". Stressing the difference between a gun designed as a tool and one designed solely as a weapon is important.
I'd also like to know where I get these High Performance Weapons, and what do they do? Do they kill faster or something?
Gunshows, auctions, foreign dealers. Friend of mine had an "antique" Ak variant used by the PLA, it was semi automatic but would be quite easy to convert to automatic. My friend was I believe 20 when he got the weapon legally. As for high performance? Do you really need me to explain the concept of performance and effectiveness in a deadly weapon as to it's capability of killing? Watch the military channel or something, you'll get an idea.
Meriam-Webster wrote:
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Word math, for those who've never gone through the pain.
The thing is though the ATF guys aren't saying it. I've seen many interviews where the ATF are saying the exact opposite. The head of the ATF shot down Sotemeyer and said the 90%, 1000's per day is a fallacy. If anyone knows that 90% number is a fallacy is the ATF.
AK's are coming from Russia, Central America, Argentina. The US does not make AK47's and you sure as hell aren't going to Walmart and buying them (not any Walmart I've ever been to at least).
Criminals do not get guns legally so how does banning guns lower gun crime? People buying guns for home defense aren't out shooting up their neighborhood and criminals are getting guns off the black market and through other countries or robbing gun shops.
Just because something works in one country does not mean it works for another. I mean spanking works for some kids to get them to behave, in other kids time outs or just a simple scolding works but the same scenario does not work with every kid on the planet.
So again, you can make a supposition declaring that banning guns in the U.S will lead to less gun crime based on other countries but until that happens it cannot be proven so again irrefutable based on hard evidence. Circumstantial I'll give you only to get you to shut up about it.
Fateweaver wrote:The thing is though the ATF guys aren't saying it. I've seen many interviews where the ATF are saying the exact opposite. The head of the ATF shot down Sotemeyer and said the 90%, 1000's per day is a fallacy. If anyone knows that 90% number is a fallacy is the ATF.
Context would be appreciated. I pay less attention to US politics than international.
Fateweaver wrote:
Criminals do not get guns legally so how does banning guns lower gun crime?
Gun crime has nothing, necessarily, to do with the legality of purchase. A person need not be a prior criminal in order to commit gun crimes.
Fateweaver wrote:
Just because something works in one country does not mean it works for another.
This level of differentiation surprises me, given your history. Good on you for learning.
I mean this with sincerity, though the internet does not allow me to show it.
Fateweaver wrote:
So again, you can make a supposition declaring that banning guns in the U.S will lead to less gun crime based on other countries but until that happens it cannot be proven so again irrefutable based on hard evidence. Circumstantial I'll give you only to get you to shut up about it.
Um, ok? Obviously specificity cannot be proven until the specific action is taken. The point was clearly rhetorical.
I dunno, mac 10? Mp5? You can get p90s if you want to spend that much on ammo.
Except the example you provide are not widely available in fully automatic. P90s you can buy also have extended barrels to prevent easy concealment.
You're right, I should have specified "without use in hunting" or "military/police issue weapon". Stressing the difference between a gun designed as a tool and one designed solely as a weapon is important.
Unlike you, I don't differentiate between a rifle or pistol being a tool or weapon. All firearms have their start in being weapons, I see and treat all as such.
Gunshows, auctions, foreign dealers. Friend of mine had an "antique" Ak variant used by the PLA, it was semi automatic but would be quite easy to convert to automatic. My friend was I believe 20 when he got the weapon legally. As for high performance? Do you really need me to explain the concept of performance and effectiveness in a deadly weapon as to it's capability of killing? Watch the military channel or something, you'll get an idea.
You see I've watched the military channel for sometime now, I also come from a family that has extensive military and firearms experience, never once have I heard a weapon described as "High Performance." A bolt action weapon can be used to greater effectiveness than a semi-automatic weapon depending on the situation. Sure they each have their own specific performance capabilities. I fail to see what your friend buying an AK has to do with performance issues.
@Dogma: a good example, in Japan only criminals and police have access to guns but gun crime is minimal. another good example would be Canada, a country that has more registered gun owners to citizens ratio, but a far lower gun crime rate.
@fateweaver: you seem to think criminals grow in pods under yellowstone, law abiding citizens become criminals and no one on this thread had said that all guns should be banned so stop going at it like a dog with a bone.
The banning of the domestic sale of firearms that have no use other than covering the fact that you a small in no way effects the 2nd amendment. As i have said all you could have need of is a hand gun, a rifle/compact bow, a shotgun. Owning an assault rifle serves no perpose for home use, it is designed to be a human killing devise not a devise for hunting or protection.
On the topic of cars as brought up by fateweaver, i think that for the first few years after gaining a licence a person should only be allowed to drive a 1.5 or below and for the driving of high-performance muscle/sports cars a secondary licence is required to show your competance, in the UK (i don't know about the US) i would need a heavy goods licence to drive a truck due to the competance required, the same should be said for high-performance cars. Driving isn't a right its a privaledge tha requires skill, alot of people forget that.
Alcohol kills thousands every year, either through alcohol poisoning or drunk-driving accidents or just stupid mistakes. Alcohol is a complete LUXURY, unlike an essential tool like an automobile.* However, this nation decided long ago that it was collectively willing to let people die due to alcohol in order for the rest of us to enjoy its positive benefits.
The same largely goes for firearms. Yes, some people will die, but the rest of us get to enjoy our weapons.
I'd also like to point out that many of the weapons mentioned in this thread (full-auto AKs, MAC-10, Glock 18c, etc.) require an FFL or Class 3 license to purchase/own. FFL holders are pretty much the most law-abiding citizens in the nation. As they are expensive and can be subjected to an ATF search without warning, only fairly-rich people who fly the straight-and-narrow bother to get such licenses.
Finally, there is the issue of cost-benefit. Regulating and enforcing firearms restrictions is expensive. This is partly because the infrastructure needed to manufacture weapons is minimal, so the capability to produce them is potentially prolific, therefore requiring constant vigilance to prevent. Also, there really aren't *that* many people killed in the US by firearms (especially compared to their sheer proliferation), so your net gain will be small. It could result in, say, spending $1 million to prevent each illegal firearm-related death.
In contrast, automobile production is capital-intensive, with only a few manufacturers and easily-identified production facilities. Mandating the installation of engine governors with a max speed of 75mph is a comparatively inexpensive endeavor, and could potentially eliminate high-speed road fatalities. Let's just say to the tune of $1 million preventing 2 deaths.
Until we reach conditions of post-scarcity, a government's resources are finite. If the government only has $1 mil, why should it legislate firearms to the tune of 1 death prevented when it can legislate automobiles to the tune of 2 deaths prevented, thereby maximizing its efficiency?
The thing is though people buying AK's and M16's and AR15's aren't buying them for home defense. Anyone knowing anything about guns knows they are unwieldy, in-discriminatory and generally too much gun for defense of your home.
People buying assault rifles are doing so to take them to a range or their own backyard and firing off $300 worth of ammo in 5 minutes time because they find it to be fun. If you never shot a gun you won't know what it's like. People that love shooting guns, for the most part relish the chance to shoot off an AK or an AR, maybe even a .50cal rifle.
People buying guns for home defense are buying shotguns or pistols. A .38 or a .45 will generally not hit a wall and exit the other side, even an internal wall (assuming the walls are not trailer house walls and actually have substance). I've shot an M16 and an AK and both were quite a thrill but as a home defense gun both suck at it actually.
Again, it's easy for the liberals or the pro-gun control moderates to say things like "banning assault rifles and semi-autos" will lower gun crime when I pointed out that just because something works in other parts of the world does not mean it would work here.
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S. Va. Tech and Columbine would have still happened even had the assailants used ONLY pistols and shotguns, you know those guns that the gun control lobbyists say would be the exception to any gun ban. Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed. If I walked into my local Tech school or University armed with 2 pistols, a shotgun, 6-8 clips and a belt of 10ga ammo I would kill a lot of people before killing myself or being taken out by the police.
So again, how would banning assault rifles make our schools and shopping centers safer? I may not be able to shoot 100 people in as many seconds with a .357 or a .44 but most likely anyone I hit is going to die. Same goes for a shotgun. It's slow to reload but if I walked into a packed classroom and opened fire I could kill a dozen students with 2 rounds and unless someone got brave I'd be able to reload and go to another classroom or keep shooting into the one I was in.
Most gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds). Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK. Liquor store robberies are committed usually by pistol or shotgun. I could go on and on. Banning assault rifles will not lower the amount of armed robberies or car jackings or home break-ins in the US by a large enough margin to justify more stupid provisions and laws. I'm all for enforcing the ones we have. The ones we have would work if those people in charge would concentrate on enforcing the laws we do have and quit worrying about demonizing law abiding citizens.
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them. Sotomayer and other democrats made up that 90% number (like every other fallacy the liberals have made up regarding guns since Slick Willy was President) just to have an agenda to take guns out of the hands of civilians. Congress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S.
I don't see how you can say that with any level of factual accuracy beyond your simple belief (something you don't seem to grasp, just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You need to actually back up arguments). A weapon doesn't need to be manufactured in the U.S. to be funneled through it or resold by it. For reference the mexican government, a body in full military action against cartel and organized crime in mexico also cites statistics concerning the flood of guns southward across the border. But I guess it's all sotomayor.
ost gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds).
True. But that doesn't have a particular relevance to the issue of banning military issue semi/automatics. If all gun crime was perpetrated by such weapons they would already be illegal or the numbers of gun deaths would be far higher.
Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK.
Aren't more rapes performed by knife wielding individuals or groups anyway? Not sure why you're even bringing rape into this considering it's part of the "gun crime statistic" you already mentioned, all it serves to do is emotionally energize the post a bit more.
Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed.
Well that and mall cops aren't trained in the use of firearms and do not have the professional standards to hold them accountable for their use. But hey, just rail on liberals some more. It's cool. As for schools, my high-school had several gun wielding cops. It was a waste of money and there was a fairly consistent fear that a student could always attempt to grasp one of the weapons and use it (as opposed to not having that chance at all). The addition of armed security in schools, especially inner city ones, may (MAY) slightly reduce the chance of gun rampages, but the overall number of gun deaths in schools would likely increase due to the increased presence of firearms in them. Putting more people with guns in schools might control crazy kids better, but those events are exceedingly rare and when you put tens of thousands of guns into the school system the number of accidents and events will increase dramatically, likely offsetting the amount of violence it prevents (this is also the same argument against the idea of "everyone having guns prevents gun crime").
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them.
No, but without the easily funneled-through gunshows or semi illicit auctions the sale and distribution of firearms would be much easier to track. It's harder to have an illegitimate face to a business when the business itself becomes illegal. Banning weapons will never stop them from existing, but it enables law enforcement to better control their flow.
ongress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF FLIGHT REGISTRATION LAWS CONCERNING SMALL PROP AIRCRAFT!
It's really sad that schools in america need armed gaurds. When I qualify, I'm interested in doing a bit of teaching somewhere in the states, to see what it's like. The idea of armed gaurds makes me tense as hell though.
Reading this thread makes me wish we weren't allowed use terms like liberal and conservative on dakka. It makes it way too easy to polarize arguments and tar people with one big giant brush.
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S.
I don't see how you can say that with any level of factual accuracy beyond your simple belief (something you don't seem to grasp, just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You need to actually back up arguments). A weapon doesn't need to be manufactured in the U.S. to be funneled through it or resold by it. For reference the mexican government, a body in full military action against cartel and organized crime in mexico also cites statistics concerning the flood of guns southward across the border. But I guess it's all sotomayor.
ost gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds).
True. But that doesn't have a particular relevance to the issue of banning military issue semi/automatics. If all gun crime was perpetrated by such weapons they would already be illegal or the numbers of gun deaths would be far higher.
Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK.
Aren't more rapes performed by knife wielding individuals or groups anyway? Not sure why you're even bringing rape into this considering it's part of the "gun crime statistic" you already mentioned, all it serves to do is emotionally energize the post a bit more.
Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed.
Well that and mall cops aren't trained in the use of firearms and do not have the professional standards to hold them accountable for their use. But hey, just rail on liberals some more. It's cool. As for schools, my high-school had several gun wielding cops. It was a waste of money and there was a fairly consistent fear that a student could always attempt to grasp one of the weapons and use it (as opposed to not having that chance at all). The addition of armed security in schools, especially inner city ones, may (MAY) slightly reduce the chance of gun rampages, but the overall number of gun deaths in schools would likely increase due to the increased presence of firearms in them. Putting more people with guns in schools might control crazy kids better, but those events are exceedingly rare and when you put tens of thousands of guns into the school system the number of accidents and events will increase dramatically, likely offsetting the amount of violence it prevents (this is also the same argument against the idea of "everyone having guns prevents gun crime").
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them.
No, but without the easily funneled-through gunshows or semi illicit auctions the sale and distribution of firearms would be much easier to track. It's harder to have an illegitimate face to a business when the business itself becomes illegal. Banning weapons will never stop them from existing, but it enables law enforcement to better control their flow.
ongress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF FLIGHT REGISTRATION LAWS CONCERNING SMALL PROP AIRCRAFT!
I've read and seen several video interviews of border patrol and atf disputing the claim by mexican officials (and please, most of the mexican cartels are ex-military for mexico and mexico's officials are so corrupt they'll say anything to reduce our capabilities of defending our borders and countries to forward their own agenda). Are there illegal assault weapons leaving the US into Mexico? Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
Obama intends to try to reenact the Brady Bill (or his version of it) sometime before he leaves office in the next 3 years so of course the liberals and anti-gun moderates will create numbers and fallacies regarding gun crimes and statistics to push their agenda and to hopefully have something go right for them, which it won't (see also HCR Bill).
So contrary to CBS, NBC, ABC, Daily Show, Letterman and any other MSM outlet reports the majority of guns going into Mexico are not, in fact, coming from the US. Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
I've read and seen several video interviews of border patrol and atf disputing the claim by mexican officials (and please, most of the mexican cartels are ex-military for mexico and mexico's officials are so corrupt they'll say anything to reduce our capabilities of defending our borders and countries to forward their own agenda). Are there illegal assault weapons leaving the US into Mexico? Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
Most? I think you severely underestimate the number of raised career gang criminals in mexico if you think the majority is ex military. Do you have anything to back that up (of course you don't)?
Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
The soviet union doesn't exist (are we still in the cold war?). So no, they aren't coming from there. Cuba is also not a tremendous nation of gun runners, and south africa is largely a point of resale and distribution (much of which heads to the u.s.). I think you largely underestimate how much illegal gun trafficking occurs within our borders, largely helped by lax enforcement of gun laws here.
Obama intends to try to reenact the Brady Bill (or his version of it) sometime before he leaves office in the next 3 years so of course the liberals and anti-gun moderates will create numbers and fallacies regarding gun crimes and statistics to push their agenda and to hopefully have something go right for them, which it won't (see also HCR Bill).
Obama is much more likely to wait until his second term to attempt that. His hands are already full with health care and maintaining the economy to attempt another big push through the senate and house. It looked possible at the outset, but the same polarizing factors that damaged the healthcare debate would hit gun control just as hard.
So contrary to CBS, NBC, ABC, Daily Show, Letterman and any other MSM outlet reports the majority of guns going into Mexico are not, in fact, coming from the US. Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
You really need to learn that just because you say it doesn't mean it becomes true. You have to back up arguments with a factual basis when you are arguing against institutions that provide that basis as part of their mission statement.
Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF TIRE PRESSURE BLOWOUT STANDARDS WITHIN THE TIRE INDUSTRY.
Mexico claims to have recovered 29,000 guns in 07 and 08. 11,055 were submitted for tracing. 95% of those came through/from the US.
So, 9950 guns out of 29,000 SUPPOSEDLY recovered (knowing mexican officials it's a lot more but nobody but the mexican gov't knows for sure). 9,950 is 34%. 34% =/= 95% (not in my world anyway).
That is assuming it was 29,000 those 2 years. If it was 58,000 than that would put the percent of guns going into mexico from the US at 17%.
So all knowing Shuma. Since I just proved that 90% number is a fallacy please explain to me that if 34% of fire arms going into Mexico from the US where, oh were are they getting the other 66%? Walmart in Tx. Oh wait, Tx is part of the US so I guess you can't fall back on that argument.
FYI, Obama won't get a second term but this isn't the thread for it.
Fateweaver wrote:FYI, Obama won't get a second term but this isn't the thread for it.
People originally predicted he wouldn't get a first term. Let's not try and pretend we speak for 300 million people shall we? Maybe he will, maybe he won't. We won't know until it happens. Unless you were using tarot cards, then you can trust your prophecy.
BluntmanDC wrote:@Dogma: a good example, in Japan only criminals and police have access to guns but gun crime is minimal. another good example would be Canada, a country that has more registered gun owners to citizens ratio, but a far lower gun crime rate.
Interesting. I'll have to look int that. Still, that suggests what many gun control advocates have understood for a long time: violence is not a matter of weaponry, but culture.
Fateweaver wrote:His approval rating is 46% and dropping. You don't win re-election on 46% approval.
So I am speaking for 162M people (and not every 300M+ people can vote).
You aren't even speaking for that many either. Your aren't actually speaking for anyone at all; you are prognosticating. Also, lolapprovalratings 1 year in. If you can't even be honest and admit that you can't predict the future, how can I trust you on other issues?
Survey methodology is based on taking representative samples instead of studying the whole population.
For the sample to be biased (unrepresentative) the Mexican Government must have conspired with the ATF to either select guns bought in the US, or they just lied about the data.
Kilkrazy wrote:For the sample to be biased (unrepresentative) the Mexican Government must have conspired with the ATF to either select guns bought in the US, or they just lied about the data.
You would probably have a hard time convincing people in the US that government would lie to the people. Especially on the reservations.
I presented facts as presented by the ATF and NRA to the MSM. If the liberal minded MSM don't want to see that than that is their problem, not the problem of those presenting the facts.
95% of guns to Mexico is a logical fallacy. It's also a logical fallacy to think banning assault rifles and semi-autos (which most liberals don't even know what the feth those entail) will lower gun crime and lower the murders and wars started by the drug cartel in Mexico.
Again, the answer to helping Mexico with their problems is not by taking away the rights of the U.S. The fact that Obama and liberalnation is even apologizing for the U.S to foreign entities is ludicrous.
"I'm sorry Mr. Mexican Leader sir, for the actions of our country. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment your country wouldn't have all these drug cartels and illegal assault rifles. It is our fault you can't get your gak together and take care of your own problem yourself. On behalf of the United States of America I assure you I am doing what I can to punish those infidels who would dare walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47 only to turn around, drive south to the Mexican border and sell it to some drug dealer waiting in a white, Toyota pickup to bring back to his drug cartel friends."
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
...
There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:
It's just not true.
In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
A Look at the Numbers
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:
-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
'These Don't Come From El Paso'
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."
Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala. ....
Fateweaver wrote:
95% of guns to Mexico is a logical fallacy.
No it isn't. Don't make me re-post the meaning of logic.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's also a logical fallacy to think banning assault rifles and semi-autos (which most liberals don't even know what the feth those entail) will lower gun crime and lower the murders and wars started by the drug cartel in Mexico.
Possibly, but not necessarily. See above.
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, the answer to helping Mexico with their problems is not by taking away the rights of the U.S. The fact that Obama and liberalnation is even apologizing for the U.S to foreign entities is ludicrous.
No it isn't. Its this thing that some people have. I believe its called tact.
Approval rating isn't a statistic that reflects a like or dislike of a presidency. It's a statistic that reflects happiness with a countries current direction, something often times outside of the direct control of influence of a sitting president. It's notoriously inaccurate in representing what it's actually meant to represent. The majority of americans polled simply don't understand the majority of issues for which they are judging a president on (as most Americans do not). It's also not an accurate way to predict votes historically.
You aren't even speaking for that many either. Your aren't actually speaking for anyone at all; you are prognosticating. Also, lolapprovalratings 1 year in. If you can't even be honest and admit that you can't predict the future, how can I trust you on other issues?
You can't trust him to form logical or reasonable points either. You can trust him to dive into cognitive dissonance like it's a beautiful ocean of money and women though.
"I'm sorry Mr. Mexican Leader sir, for the actions of our country. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment your country wouldn't have all these drug cartels and illegal assault rifles. It is our fault you can't get your gak together and take care of your own problem yourself. On behalf of the United States of America I assure you I am doing what I can to punish those infidels who would dare walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47 only to turn around, drive south to the Mexican border and sell it to some drug dealer waiting in a white, Toyota pickup to bring back to his drug cartel friends."
Sincerely,
Barack Hussein Obama.
Case in point. Arguing with fateweaver is essentially the same as arguing with the leader of the BNP or the dude that shouts from the soap box about 2012 on a NY street corner. Fateweavers opinions can be expressed quite succinctly in this way. "Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck"
ShumaGorath wrote:Approval rating isn't a statistic that reflects a like or dislike of a presidency. It's a statistic that reflects happiness with a countries current direction, something often times outside of the direct control of influence of a sitting president. It's notoriously inaccurate in representing what it's actually meant to represent. The majority of americans polled simply don't understand the majority of issues for which they are judging a president on (as most Americans do not). It's also not an accurate way to predict votes historically.
Indeed. As ever people tend to become butt-hurt when they're brand affiliations are no longer the best solution to the problems at hand.
A famous man once said: "If you feel like you're right, you're probably wrong."
I kindly point out the article to you that was posted just before Shuma's insulting reply.
Great that you keep repeating Glen Beck when I don't even listen to that man, nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.
Thanks though for cementing my opinion of you.
What are we apologizing for? We are not the cause of other nations problems (well the UC Berkely and UC Davis students believe we are but they are brainwashed gakheads).
I was supported 3 posts ago Shuma and Dogma. Logic is in front of you, proof is in front of you. Of course you will assume it's fallacy because it isn't Jon Stewart or Nancy Pelosi who wrote that article but you know what they say about assuming things. It makes an ass out of you and me and guess who is looking like the ass?
Give you a hint. Go look in the mirror.
I end this thread though. Dogma doesn't purposely try to troll me or flame me (though he comes close). Gwar gets a bad rep for being a troll. I think Gwar gets his training from Shuma.
Good day gentleman (and Shuma). You now have evidence in front of you. Google search it if you want to know the real facts on your own. I know it won't change your mind (especially Shuma as everything his poli-sci professors and history professors at Brainwash Univeristy are telling him must be true, because you know they have PhD's and BS degrees). It would not shock me to learn Shuma is a UC Berkely or UC Davis student in the least.
Please, keep thinking the US is the blame for everything and that Obama will make it better. The rest of the world loves to blame us for everything, our President might as well too.
Fateweaver wrote:I kindly point out the article to you that was posted just before Shuma's insulting reply.
That's nice. You'll note that I haven't made any claim about the nature of Mexican gun crime.
Fateweaver wrote:
What are we apologizing for? We are not the cause of other nations problems (well the UC Berkely and UC Davis students believe we are but they are brainwashed gakheads).
Anything and everything. Relationships are often based on appearances, and establishing a submissive one can be quite beneficial in the international arena. Note Chinese foreign policy.
Fateweaver wrote:
I was supported 3 posts ago Shuma and Dogma. Logic is in front of you, proof is in front of you.
Proof has been offered. Proof is not logic. You have not offered any form of logic.
Fateweaver wrote:
Of course you will assume it's fallacy because it isn't Jon Stewart or Nancy Pelosi who wrote that article but you know what they say about assuming things. It makes an ass out of you and me and guess who is looking like the ass?
You're assuming that I'm a liberal, and that I'm arguing against you. Both of these assumptions are baseless.
Fateweaver wrote:
It would not shock me to learn Shuma is a UC Berkely or UC Davis student in the least.
I believer he goes to school in Maine. I assure you that the school I went to was far more liberal than either Berkley, or Davis.
Fateweaver wrote:
...Dodge Viper (fastest production car in the world)...
I didn't read the rest of the thread to see if anyone else caught this, but I'm catching it now. This is FALSE. The following link lists the fastest production cars in the world, and the Viper isn't anywhere to be found. (Don't get me wrong, I love the clown shoe just as much as the next guy, but lets keep it in perspective.)
1000HP Twin Turbo Ford GT by Heffner Performance. I don't care if it's the fastest or not, the Ford GT is sexy, and this is the fastest one you can get.
While we all have our car likes and dislikes, when you break into the supercar level, the petty manufacturer squabbles just sort of fade away, and the cars must be measured individually against their own strengths and weaknesses.
Are you a lawyer, or should I secure the services of one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whitedragon wrote:While we all have our car likes and dislikes, when you break into the supercar level, the petty manufacturer squabbles just sort of fade away, and the cars must be measured individually against their own strengths and weaknesses.
Not for me, I have a bit of brand loyalty due to the role GM's worker benefits plan has played in my life.
whitedragon wrote:While we all have our car likes and dislikes, when you break into the supercar level, the petty manufacturer squabbles just sort of fade away, and the cars must be measured individually against their own strengths and weaknesses.
Not for me, I have a bit of brand loyalty due to the role GM's worker benefits plan has played in my life.
Eh, the super cars don't necessarily equal all that much of a slice of the pie in that equation.
Good day gentleman (and Shuma). You now have evidence in front of you. Google search it if you want to know the real facts on your own. I know it won't change your mind (especially Shuma as everything his poli-sci professors and history professors at Brainwash Univeristy are telling him must be true, because you know they have PhD's and BS degrees). It would not shock me to learn Shuma is a UC Berkely or UC Davis student in the least.
I commute a few hundred miles to Berkeley every day and I'm majoring in botany and art.
You'll note that I never defended the statistics themselves. I told you that you were being trollish, illogical, and could not support yourself. Indeed you never did support yourself, you were being quite trollish, and you until the very end refused to construct opinions based in logic. You shouted, and shouted, and shouted until someone else finally posted a pertinent article which I guess meant that you somehow "won" a debate that you both started and that was never reciprocated by anyone else.
I end this thread though. Dogma doesn't purposely try to troll me or flame me (though he comes close). Gwar gets a bad rep for being a troll. I think Gwar gets his training from Shuma.
Dogmas the soft touch, and while Gwar has a lot to learn, he doesn't need any troll training from the likes of me. He's already a master in that field.
Please, keep thinking the US is the blame for everything and that Obama will make it better. The rest of the world loves to blame us for everything, our President might as well too.
Now if you'll excuse me I have an SKS to clean while I listen to Rush Limbaugh, finish off my case of Bud Light and then put on some Hank Williams Jr and listen to songs about getting drunk and getting into fights.
In my mind you edited that for more "Glen Beck"'s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
Now if you'll excuse me I have an SKS to clean while I listen to Rush Limbaugh, finish off my case of Bud Light and then put on some Hank Williams Jr and listen to songs about getting drunk and getting into fights.
2 edits Shuma. Had to delete something you wanted to say but were afraid of a ban?
I thought you had said good day to this thread? My post styling is a bit odd. I copy paste a sentiment I want to respond too, respond to it, then post. I then copy paste the next thing, double click the post, add that thing and respond to it. I typically do this several times per post. Virtually all of my posts have edits, sometimes more than 10.
I hold no such fear and as you can tell I don't edit my posts for anyone.
Not even to fix grammar or formatting errors? You're hardcore.
Not sure you keep chanting Glenn Beck? Is he your father? Did he force you into having butt sects with him?
Your opinions mirror his almost exactly, and neither of you found your opinions in anything but dogmatic subculture buzzwords.
Yeah, but in the context it's not as funny to a random passerby, you're responding to a joke with that same joke, but you didn't cleverly reverse it or provide an ad hoc slapstick replacement.
Now if you'll excuse me I have an SKS to clean while I listen to Rush Limbaugh, finish off my case of Bud Light and then put on some Hank Williams Jr and listen to songs about getting drunk and getting into fights.
See? Thats what I'm talking about, that was actually pretty good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my mind you edited that for more "Glen Beck"'s.
You know what's really funny? I did. I copy pasted it for double the Beck.
In my mind you edited that for more "Glen Beck"'s.
You know what's really funny? I did. I copy pasted it for double the Beck.
Hi im billy maze, and for only 19.95 you can get shumas post but wait order now and it will have double the beck.
fate, whenever i side with your on some issues i feel embarrassed by the way you represent the conservative view point you refuse to use logic and just screm obama goning to kill us despite the fact that many of the arguments you are in could be won buy actually expressing some though and showing logic and evidence.
You must be new to political threads. Obama himself could tell Shuma something was a fallacy and Shuma would be looking around for the power cord thinking that he was standing in front of a hologram projector presenting a false image of Obama.
I have linked several articles proving that 90% is false. I just get accused of it being conservative fallacy. I've seen video interviews of the head of the ATF trying to convince Diane Feinstein(sp) that the 90%, 1000's of guns per day is a fallacy.
I could post that video but they can google it. So even when I'm right and I can prove it I just get shot down by Shuma and Dogma (and a few others) that I'm blowing smoke out my ass and trolling.
I can also prove through video that whistleblowers for the FBI have said that the Islamic Brotherhood along with the ACLU have been allowed to sit in on FBI security meetings to make sure that our security measures are not offensive and deemed politically incorrect. Digest that for a moment. Our top security advisors are discussing matters of our nations security with people who we are trying to defend ourselves from to make sure we don't offend them in the process. Absurd and treasonous.
I'll leave you all with a video. I know Shuma and Dogma will claim it's right wing propaganda but I'm tired of arguing. I'm going back to my beer and guns. Maybe at the gun show I'll buy an AK47, drive to Mexico and sell it so I can say I am contributing to the drug cartel problem in Mexico that the liberals say we, as a country, are the cause of.
The mods must be on vacation. I haven't been banned yet.
Guess I'm not trying hard enough.
Although if I start outright flaming like Shuma has I'll be lowered to his level and than I'd be looking up at Gwar! Not a dig at Gwar as I feel he gets a worst rep than some other trolls on this thread (not to go into names and fingerpointing).
I think this thread needs to be put down like an Islamic terrorist (yes, I did just go there).
You must be new to political threads. Obama himself could tell Shuma something was a fallacy and Shuma would be looking around for the power cord thinking that he was standing in front of a hologram projector presenting a false image of Obama.
Nah, it's pretty easy to recognize vapor holography and I would know if I was wearing the 3d glasses.
I have linked several articles proving that 90% is false. I just get accused of it being conservative fallacy. I've seen video interviews of the head of the ATF trying to convince Diane Feinstein(sp) that the 90%, 1000's of guns per day is a fallacy.
You linked to one, and it was an editorial talking about revisionist statistics. I also never said I agreed with the statistics, just that you argued from an illogical and ethereal position.
I could post that video but they can google it. So even when I'm right and I can prove it I just get shot down by Shuma and Dogma (and a few others) that I'm blowing smoke out my ass and trolling.
Well you draw conclusions then insult people, without actually qualifying your own opinions or positions.
I can also prove through video that whistleblowers for the FBI have said that the Islamic Brotherhood along with the ACLU have been allowed to sit in on FBI security meetings to make sure that our security measures are not offensive and deemed politically incorrect.
What does that have to do with anything..?
I'll leave you all with a video. I know Shuma and Dogma will claim it's right wing propaganda but I'm tired of arguing. I'm going back to my beer and guns.
You sure you haven't already been hitting that beer?
I think this thread needs to be put down like an Islamic terrorist (yes, I did just go there).
....? Don't convicted violent terrorists typically get the death sentence (less often if they are whistle blowers)?
Fateweaver wrote:I can also prove through video that whistleblowers for the FBI have said that the Islamic Brotherhood along with the ACLU have been allowed to sit in on FBI security meetings to make sure that our security measures are not offensive and deemed politically incorrect. Digest that for a moment. Our top security advisors are discussing matters of our nations security with people who we are trying to defend ourselves from to make sure we don't offend them in the process. Absurd and treasonous.
Please do prove this. Because that's a hell of a claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am getting pretty tired of the Fateweaver-Shuma show....
When a forum is moving along nicely, I find you average a hundred odd posts in a thread where you're a chance at learning something, after that it collapses into partisan rubbish. When a forum isn't working so well you're lucky to get off the first page before it's just tit for tat.
Ignoring the fact it's a conservative website the video appears to be genuine and I don't think the 2 men interviewed are pulling anyones legs or making gak up.
I'm sure though someone will try to claim it as phony but I'd even believe it if I had found it on a liberal website and I hate liberal ideology more than I hate a root canal.
Ignoring the fact it's a... We are sorry but we are unable to complete your request at this time. Please try again at another time... the video appears to be genuine and I don't think the 2 men interviewed are pulling anyones legs or making gak up.
I figured it out. You need to take 3 minutes to register. Doesn't cost any money and you don't get any unsolicited emails from the site.
It's conservative so if you aren't might want to stay away from the other videos but I'd seriously watch it and take the few minutes to register.
It's freaking shocking to say the least.
If you decide it's worth the effort its the top video link on the home page titled "The Islamic Infiltration: Inside our government, armed with our secrets".
Again, conservative website so if you are liberal or slightly left than don't bitch about the other videos but I don't even think liberals can justify the secrets revealed in that video.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Fateweaver wrote: I hate liberal ideology more than I hate a root canal.
Amusing that you espouse it, then.
It was either a vote for Nixon, or a vote for hte Commies!
How do I espouse liberal ideology? I'm against everything they stand for. I'm not pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-pc, pro-kissing the worlds ass. I'm a patriot, most liberals aren't. I believe we are an exceptional country, liberals think our country is the worst one on the globe.
Nothing the liberals believe in I believe in so how am I espousing liberal ideology?
Fateweaver wrote:
How do I espouse liberal ideology? I'm against everything they stand for. I'm not pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-pc, pro-kissing the worlds ass. I'm a patriot, most liberals aren't. I believe we are an exceptional country, liberals think our country is the worst one on the globe.
You don't understand liberal thought, at all. That said, you've expressed a sense of social neutrality (that's liberals). You've also expressed a sense of global independence (also liberal).
Fateweaver wrote:
Nothing the liberals believe in I believe in so how am I espousing liberal ideology?
See above. Stop looking at the world in two colors.
What is so bad about that? Islamic extremists are terrorists and they should all be treated as such.
If you are an Islamic extremist than quit trying to blow gak up and destroy our country.
If you are an apologist for these gakkers than I want to see how you'd feel if some Islamic rag-head that wants to see all Westerners die blows up a subway or federal building and your wife/gf/children are killed in the explosion.
I don't know why people are so eager to paint these broad strokes with liberal this and conservative that. I find myself more on the "liberal" side for quite a few things, but I'm more on the "conservative" side concerning Gun control, CCW, etc.
Fateweaver wrote:I can also prove through video that whistleblowers for the FBI have said that the Islamic Brotherhood along with the ACLU have been allowed to sit in on FBI security meetings to make sure that our security measures are not offensive and deemed politically incorrect. Digest that for a moment. Our top security advisors are discussing matters of our nations security with people who we are trying to defend ourselves from to make sure we don't offend them in the process. Absurd and treasonous.
I'll leave you all with a video. I know Shuma and Dogma will claim it's right wing propaganda but I'm tired of arguing. I'm going back to my beer and guns. Maybe at the gun show I'll buy an AK47, drive to Mexico and sell it so I can say I am contributing to the drug cartel problem in Mexico that the liberals say we, as a country, are the cause of.
I registered with that site and sat through 14 minutes of video to find out that the issue was about the FBI’s relationship with the Islamic group CAIR, a story that finished in May or June of last year. Senior members of CAIR were suspected to have links with Hamas and so direct consultation was ended. And that’s it, the FBI was quite explicit in noting this did not condemn all of CAIR (a large and diverse organisation).
Which brings us to the meat of your claim, that these extremist groups were sitting in on security meetings. The interviewer and interviewee talk around the subject, never mentioning the actual meetings CAIR or the ACLU were actually in... because they want you to believe they were invited into meetings over security matters despite it being ludicrously unlikely. Can you imagine any member of the public ever being included in a security meeting?
So you’re left with the scandalous option, or the plausible option that the meetings with the ACLU and CAIR were direct consultations on civil liberties. Which is such a common thing as to be downright boring. Unless the a member of a consultative group ends up having possible connections to Hamas, at which point it becomes embaressing... but no more than that unless you really, really want it to be.
It’s bizarre you’d bring this up anyway, the connections between CAIR and Hamas were exposed in 2007, during the second Bush administration. Is Bush part of the liberal elite that’s surrendering the country to the terrorists? They'd certainly be 'absurd and treasonous' according to your own claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zyklon wrote:I don't know why people are so eager to paint these broad strokes with liberal this and conservative that. I find myself more on the "liberal" side for quite a few things, but I'm more on the "conservative" side concerning Gun control, CCW, etc.
It really depends on what you're interested in. If you're interested in policy and forming a decent government then you'll probably find yourself agreeing with different people at different times. If you're interested in forming a personal identity, in belonging to a group, then you'll probably gind yourself picking a side and internalising all their opinions.
I'd recommend the latter to be honest. You're much more likely to get a job on TV.
Zyklon wrote:I don't know why people are so eager to paint these broad strokes with liberal this and conservative that. I find myself more on the "liberal" side for quite a few things, but I'm more on the "conservative" side concerning Gun control, CCW, etc.
It really depends on what you're interested in. If you're interested in policy and forming a decent government then you'll probably find yourself agreeing with different people at different times. If you're interested in forming a personal identity, in belonging to a group, then you'll probably gind yourself picking a side and internalising all their opinions.
I'd recommend the latter to be honest. You're much more likely to get a job on TV.
Let's not forget that in general it makes things easier. Instead of having to consider a lot of factors and admitting to a complex world with shades of grey, there are only two options.
Fateweaver wrote:What are we apologizing for? We are not the cause of other nations problems (well the UC Berkely and UC Davis students believe we are but they are brainwashed gakheads).
You seem to have no real knowledge of the history of the USA, the goverment and especially the CIA have many times stook their noses in the affairs of other nations to the benifit of themselves, as a reference look at:
Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba
The multiple assination attempts on foreign leaders
Actions in Europe during the cold war
Guatemala 1954
Turkey 1960
Chile 1973
Argentina 1976
there is alot more, and yes the UK has done stuff too, but it doesn't nulify the fact that these were done
Fateweaver wrote:What are we apologizing for? We are not the cause of other nations problems (well the UC Berkely and UC Davis students believe we are but they are brainwashed gakheads).
You seem to have no real knowledge of the history of the USA, the goverment and especially the CIA have many times stook their noses in the affairs of other nations to the benifit of themselves, as a reference look at:
Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba
The multiple assination attempts on foreign leaders
Actions in Europe during the cold war
Guatemala 1954
Turkey 1960
Chile 1973
Argentina 1976
there is alot more, and yes the UK has done stuff too, but it doesn't nulify the fact that these were done
Wait wait
1. How The Feth doe this relate to Captain Antigun Senator?
2. Actions in Europe? You mean where we had divisions and promised ot commite mutual suicide with the rooskies if they invaded your country right RIGHT? Are actions?
BluntmanDC wrote:You seem to have no real knowledge of the history of the USA, the goverment and especially the CIA have many times stook their noses in the affairs of other nations to the benifit of themselves, as a reference look at:
Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba
The multiple assination attempts on foreign leaders
Actions in Europe during the cold war
Guatemala 1954
Turkey 1960
Chile 1973
Argentina 1976
there is alot more, and yes the UK has done stuff too, but it doesn't nulify the fact that these were done
I suppose that a true "patriot" then is anyone who believes that their country is the best and attacks anyone who they don't believe in. In that way, Fateweaver fits the idea of a patriot perfectly!
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
~ Samuel Johnson
Fateweaver wrote:What are we apologizing for? We are not the cause of other nations problems (well the UC Berkely and UC Davis students believe we are but they are brainwashed gakheads).
You seem to have no real knowledge of the history of the USA, the goverment and especially the CIA have many times stook their noses in the affairs of other nations to the benifit of themselves, as a reference look at:
Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba
The multiple assination attempts on foreign leaders
Actions in Europe during the cold war
Guatemala 1954
Turkey 1960
Chile 1973
Argentina 1976
there is alot more, and yes the UK has done stuff too, but it doesn't nulify the fact that these were done
Wait wait
1. How The Feth doe this relate to Captain Antigun Senator?
2. Actions in Europe? You mean where we had divisions and promised to commit mutual suicide with the rooskies if they invaded your country right RIGHT? Are actions?
You beat me to it, curse you!
I'd love to hear the "multiple assassination attempts on foreign leaders", given there's an executive order in place PREVENTING those very attempts.
Frazzled wrote:if it prevents a war, why would I care?
Because sometimes it causes them later?
I am sure that could occur. As we've not been very good at it historical examples might be helpful in this context.
Afghan conflicts, the creation of the polar and destructive north korean state, the creation of the Israeli state, the Cuban Missile crisis. We tend to try and pull honey directly out of bee's nests at times, often without gloves. It very often comes back and bites us (or more often creates severe instability in the region which directly effects billions of non americans (the current conflicts being a great example)).
Frazzled wrote:if it prevents a war, why would I care?
Because sometimes it causes them later?
I am sure that could occur. As we've not been very good at it historical examples might be helpful in this context.
Afghan conflicts, the creation of the polar and destructive north korean state, the creation of the Israeli state. We tend to try and pull honey directly out of bee's nests at times, often without gloves.
Wait who did we assassinate in Afghanistan again? Who did we assinate to create north Korea (which was occupied by Russia if recollect)? Who did we assassinate to create Israel (which was British if I recollect-wait did we do a hit on the Queen?)?
Russians invaded Afghanistan.
Russians/Chinese created a communist state in north Korea which later invaded South Korea. (North Korea is BEST Korea!). Israel was a British and Isreali creation.
We also meddled in Western Europe and the Pacific in WWII.
Europe in WWI
Somalia trying to feed starving people
Bosnia
Kosova
Kuwait
etc etc
We then helped them throw off their occupiers, thus creating the trained militant warlords we now face. If we had not done that russia would have.. Afghanistan. Woo.
Russians/Chinese created a communist state in north Korea which later invaded South Korea. (North Korea is BEST Korea!). Israel was a British and Isreali creation.
True, but the conflict was largely produced by the domino proxy wars russia, china, and the US were engaged in at the time. As for Isreal, it wasn't entirely a british creation, we had a large hand in that.
We also meddled in Western Europe and the Pacific in WWII. Europe in WWI
Yeah, and we did such a good job in WW1 that WW2 happened. Post war WW2 was handled pretty well.
Somalia trying to feed starving people
Man, that went well.
Bosnia Kosova Kuwait
All wonderful vacation destinations now, after all our effort.
Whats your point?
I was just defending the idea that militaristic foreign involvement often times extends local conflicts, while involving us. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does. When you look back through some sort of lens of perfection and treat current conflicts as isolated incidents it creates a dangerously short national memory.
Frazzled wrote:So your solution is do nothing? Leave the rest of the world alone?
Just to be clear here.
No, it's to be smarter about foreign involvement. No more war in Iraq style debacles, no more gulf war jobs unfinished, no more bay of pigs style weakness or post 9/11 idiocy. Engage in war with a brain, not with a flag. There are ongoing conflicts in africa far more pressing and disastrous globally than in the mideast or mexico, but mexico is the single most pressing war America should be involved in right now.
Either way it's all hindsight. We can't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, africa is utterly uncooperative, and people just ignore mexico because they don't care about it at all.
Frazzled wrote:So your solution is do nothing? Leave the rest of the world alone?
Just to be clear here.
No, it's to be smarter about foreign involvement. No more war in Iraq style debacles, no more gulf war jobs unfinished, no more bay of pigs style weakness or post 9/11 idiocy. Engage in war with a brain, not with a flag. There are ongoing conflicts in africa far more pressing and disastrous globally than in the mideast or mexico, but mexico is the single most pressing war America should be involved in right now.
Either way it's all hindsight. We can't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, africa is utterly uncooperative, and people just ignore mexico because they don't care about it at all.
Oh so you would continue to intervene, just based on your keen intellect? Oh well, we almost had agreement there...
ShumaGorath wrote:We then helped them throw off their occupiers, thus creating the trained militant warlords we now face. If we had not done that russia would have.. Afghanistan. Woo.
That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists. At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?
ShumaGorath wrote:As for Isreal, it wasn't entirely a british creation, we had a large hand in that.
Not really. The US' involvement was really limited to voting in favor of the UN Partition Plan, which everyone in the world voted for, except the Arab nations. There were a few abstainers, but it was largely agreed upon by the international community to create a Jewish state. Furthermore, the Brits were the first to recognize Israel as a nation. IT was not long thereafter though that the US became its most staunch supporter.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, and we did such a good job in WW1 that WW2 happened. Post war WW2 was handled pretty well.
The handling of the Post-WWI effort was not a fault of the US. We pushed for reconstruction, a limit of punitive restrictions etc. Wilson only demanded that the Germans dump the absolute monarchy in favor of some form of representative government. It was Clemenceau and Lloyd George that pushed for the structure of Germany after WWI, and thus helped to start WWII.
Oh so you would continue to intervene, just based on your keen intellect? Oh well, we almost had agreement there...
Mines better than the shitpile you get if you listen to the american public after two hours of special fox news coverage.
Maybe, maybe not, but its better than multiple Presidents and their staffs, better than folks like Eisenhower who, you know, ran a war and all? Ok. I respect this level of hubris. Such an ego can only mean one thing-you sure you're not a Texan?
That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists. At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?
Economic instability brought down the soviet union. Not being rebuffed in afghanistan. It's fairly logical that when you empower a religious militant extremist group that once they are done fighting off one oppressor they would immediately move to the next.
Not really. The US' involvement was really limited to voting in favor of the UN Partition Plan, which everyone in the world voted for, except the Arab nations. There were a few abstainers, but it was largely agreed upon by the international community to create a Jewish state. Furthermore, the Brits were the first to recognize Israel as a nation. IT was not long thereafter though that the US became its most staunch supporter.
By that point our approval was pretty significant, but as you said, it was a global endeavor (and not just british).
The handling of the Post-WWI effort was not a fault of the US. We pushed for reconstruction, a limit of punitive restrictions etc. Wilson only demanded that the Germans dump the absolute monarchy in favor of some form of representative government. It was Clemenceau and Lloyd George that pushed for the structure of Germany after WWI, and thus helped to start WWII.
Certainly true, and a good bit of historical information when talking about the sheer importance of post war methodology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe, maybe not, but its better than multiple Presidents and their staffs, better than folks like Eisenhower who, you know, ran a war and all? Ok. I respect this level of hubris. Such an ego can only mean one thing-you sure you're not a Texan?
Someones gotta get gak done. If it's gotta be me I'll volunteer.
JEB_Stuart wrote:That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists.
He's assuming that we would have no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. Islamo-fascists can do as they please so long as they don't attack us.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?
See, there you go stealing my patented redirection query.
Anyway, Afghanistan is more valuable then most people think. There be potential natural gas pipelines in them hills. Its sort of like Africa in Risk. Lots of potential once you secure South America, but more trouble than its worth on the whole.
Altered_Soul wrote:How the hell did this go from a Democrat protecting himself with a gun to the merit of America's involvement in USSR's invasion of Afghanistan???
Very carefully
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Economic instability brought down the soviet union. Not being rebuffed in afghanistan.
The two are related to each other. The waste of billions upon billions of dollars in Afghanistan by the Russians, and their attempts to keep up with the US' level of spending brought about the economic instability that led to their collapse.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's fairly logical that when you empower a religious militant extremist group that once they are done fighting off one oppressor they would immediately move to the next.
True enough, but it still depends on how you would define oppressor. Jumping from friend and ally to oppressor is a pretty long bow to draw by any reasonable person. Granted we aren't really dealing with reasonable people....
ShumaGorath wrote:By that point our approval was pretty significant, but as you said, it was a global endeavor (and not just british).
It was the US' support that ensured the propagation of the Jewish state. While I do agree that the creation of Israel was a worldwide effort, I would still point out that it was largely dependent on the UK's unwillingness to govern the region any longer, and not to mention the Zionist support within the UK's own government.
ShumaGorath wrote:Certainly true, and a good bit of historical information when talking about the sheer importance of post war methodology.
Wow, we agree on something
dogma wrote:He's assuming that we would have no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. Islamo-fascists can do as they please so long as they don't attack us.
That is still a poor assumption. It fit well with our prevailing foreign policy modules, and as you so aptly point, vis-a-vis Risk, is more valuable then people might first assume.
dogma wrote:See, there you go stealing my patented redirection query.
Tut tut now old boy! All's fair in love and war....and Dakka apparently!
Altered_Soul wrote:How the hell did this go from a Democrat protecting himself with a gun to the merit of America's involvement in USSR's invasion of Afghanistan???
Oh and popcorn...lots and lots of popcorn to munch while you watch the Shuma & Fate Show,you'll need lots of popcorn...becuase the show goes on foooooorrreeevvvveeerrrrrr.
JEB_Stuart wrote:That is still a poor assumption. It fit well with our prevailing foreign policy modules, and as you so aptly point, vis-a-vis Risk, is more valuable then people might first assume.
Yep, but consistency does not make for good decisions.
That being said, I'm not particularly critical of Afghanistan.
1) That the US has made foreign policy errors and jerked around sovereign countries and this has led to
2) That the foreign policy errors and interference in other countries has led to the current level of hostility and violence towards the US by Islamic extremists.
The first point seems almost impossible to deny. The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.
sebster wrote:The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.
sebster wrote:The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.
Ron Paul would disagree!
He also wanted to move to a shiny metal backed currency again. Dudes off his rocker.
Fateweaver wrote:It takes leet skills to drag a topic so OT that it eventually veers back on topic.
Watch and learn Padwan.
I guess I have much to learn. I had assumed that OT went to the black hole of gun rights conversation. And there was a gun rights topic, and it went in reverse. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS STRANGE WORLD!!!
Fateweaver wrote:It takes leet skills to drag a topic so OT that it eventually veers back on topic.
Watch and learn Padwan.
I guess I have much to learn. I had assumed that OT went to the black hole of gun rights conversation. And there was a gun rights topic, and it went in reverse. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS STRANGE WORLD!!!
Only things without substance can escape a blackhole, which is why we're now talking about Ron Paul.
