Domestic Terror in the U.S.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

Zip Napalm wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Zip Napalm wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

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

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

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

No, I made it up.

Curse, I a disappoint.

**Frazzled**

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

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

**sebster**

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

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

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

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

**sexiest_hero**

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

**Frazzled**

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

Oh

when you put it like that, sexiesthero is right.

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

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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

Except its not.

short barrel

Define short barrel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a carbine.

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

Should I be posting pictures here too?

**ShumaGorath**

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

Extremism is a vice in all things.

**Frazzled**

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

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

**Polonius**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**dietrich**

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

I support the right to bear arms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Polonius**

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

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

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

Guess which one is which!

**Frazzled**

Polonius is accurate on all points, again.

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

Used by a nut-if that copkiller used it, yea I'd say that was a nut.
An AK is accurate to 300 yards?

not on planet earth it aint.
Is an AK a carbine-yep. Are most assault rifles automatic carbines? yep. You want to reach the level of a full on rifle you have to get into the FN/HK/M1A range.

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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

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

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

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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

Guess which one is which!

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

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

**dietrich**

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

I'd go more for:

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

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

**ShumaGorath**

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

I'd go more for:

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

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

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

**Zip Napalm**

Polonius wrote:

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

Guess which one is which!

Your observation gets funnier with every comment.

**Polonius**

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

**Frazzled**

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

I'd go more for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. I'll admit I went berserk when Shuma posted. I'll admit a civie Ak, in addition to being a classic carbine, is a semi auto version of the full on assault rifle.
But hitting a man sized target with any accuracy at 300 yds. No way jose...

You would have to shoot a lot before you could hit something.
I officially invite Shuma to a shoot if he ever comes down to Texas, but make no promises about not force feeding you Tex Mex after.
Sorry for calling you an intern Shu...

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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

**dietrich**

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

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

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

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

**dietrich**

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

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

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

**ShumaGorath**

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

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

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

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

**Polonius**

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Frazzled**

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

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

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

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

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

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

Avoid zealots, as they are generally humorous.

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

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

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

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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

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

I'm not exactly a bad shot.

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

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

**Ahtman**

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

**dietrich**

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

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

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

Arrrrrrrgh!

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

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