Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/16/14 02:11 PM, Feoric wrote: Exit polls show a 93% favorability.

Hmmm...I guess Putin is getting savvy. Knock a few points off to make it look legit (after all, 100% does seem a little fishy!)

At 3/11/14 11:12 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

What are you on about ? Today Russia is a world super power with the second biggest Military in the world. If Russia and China allied in arms against the states you yanks would be in allot of hurt.

China and Russia are NOT friends but actually bitter rivals. In any conflict, I see the US and China as allies against Russia.

Likewise, as an end to the Democratic Peace theory, I could see India (a regional power on the rise to global power) coming into conflict with China. Recently they have been developing military technology with Russia...so I could see Russia & India aligned against US & China.

At 3/9/14 12:30 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/9/14 11:31 AM, Budgiekeet wrote: Sadly, we never had any sort of Congressional approval for wars since World War II. Since then, we've been in the Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc...

I take it that you don't know jack shit about executive power, much less realize that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he can do whatever he wants short of declaring war. Plus, if we declared war on any country, then every industry would be converted to help out the war effort, even if it isn't needed by today's standards.

You're both wrong.

There is this law called The War Powers Act which came about in response to the Vietnam War. It sought to define limits on presidential power as CiC regarding military action that does not require a formal declaration of war.

About the only time since WWII that a president has gone to war (ie: sending in the troops long term, not a rescue mission like Grenada) without getting support from congress was the Korean War. Truman relied upon a legal argument that the UN Participation Act of 1947 had given him authority (after all, it was passed by Congress) to commit troops in Korea. (Also, Congressional approval of different treaties that required our response).

In short: the Congress had given the president a blank check.

Fast forward to 'Nam. LBJ asked Congress for permission under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to send in combat troops to 'Nam. Realizing that they had lost control...Congress would pass the War Powers Act in 1973.

Since then the president MUST:
* Notify Congress w/in 48hrs of sending troops into action.
* Troops can only fight for 60 days (plus 30 additional days for withdrawl).
* Past this time, Congress must either declare war or authorize further military intervention.

Thus Lybia would not necessarily be a violation since it did not last 60 days...and Obama did let Congress know w/in 48hrs.

++++

As for Russia and the Crimea...I do not see us going to war with Russia.

* This president is very weak on the international stage, and Putin as judged him as so. Posturing by Obama is more than likely an amusement for Putin rather than a serious concern.
* The American people do not see it as effecting our national interest. We are a war weary country after 13 years of fighting the GWOT.
* We don't have the money for it.

What will be interesting is to see if Putin capitalizies on Obama's increasing popularity, probable Republican take-over of the Senate, and a lame-duck White House to expand Russia's sphere of influence between now and 2016.

At 3/15/14 11:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/15/14 01:51 AM, Warforger wrote: Yes, but can you sell parts of a gun without a serial number?

I believe so. A firearm serial number is attached to a firearm. A firearm component, whilst logically needing one, does not fit under the rule as it is a component, not a firearm.

This is just conjecture, so don't take my word for it. I really don't feel like digging through mounds of statutes (or worse, regulations) to find the applicable one.

Depends on WHAT part we're talking about.

Receivers (in the case of AR-15s, specifically the lower receiver) require going to a gun store and getting a background check the same way buying a complete firearm requires a background check. They are stamped with a serial number. This is considered the foundation of the firearm, without which you cannot build a working firearm.

Barrels, bolts, and bolt carriers also commonly have a serial number, however you do not have to go through the background check (you've done that getting the receiver).

Triggers, pistol grips, stocks/barrel shrouds, scopes, scope mounts, etc...very rarely do these have serial numbers because they are not core to the firearm.

Hope this helps. :)

At 3/2/14 08:30 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

2) That's discussing the set-up of prison camps for POWs and insurgents overseas.

That's your opinion. Can you back your opinion up with any facts ?

Umm...the document is about setting up detention camps overseas for handling EPWs (enemy prisoners of war) and

At 3/2/14 07:52 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 3/2/14 07:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

It is amusing how little you know compared to how much you talk!

Another argumentative fallacy. Big surprise.

Nope...not a fallacy but an observation.

You speak of things you do not know about...and it quickly becomes obvious that you're ignorant of that which you speak.

I also notice that you make a weak attempt at crying 'fallacy!' instead of even making an attempt at answering my argument.

Thanks for the win!

FEMA Camps: do not exist. What you see on the internets are satellite images of N. Korean concentration camps.

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

Umm...yeah...
1) That's the Army, not FEMA.
2) That's discussing the set-up of prison camps for POWs and insurgents overseas. Overseas being important...why do you think GitMo is in Cuba and not in the US.

At 3/2/14 06:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Sorry but when the red necks are at work at the Mill, the factory, the office ect the Police and Military are training how to deal with insurgent's. The people don't have nearly enough training, weapons and tactics to withstand an assault by trained and well armed and financed Military and police. They have a FEMA jail cell with each one of these dips shit name on it if they survive.

It is amusing how little you know compared to how much you talk!

First, not all of the US military would follow orders putting down and insurgency in the US. Many would join the insurgents. Same with the police. Local cops would not enforce gun confiscation in rural areas. It would fall on the State and even more on the Federal government. Neither has the resources to take on the citizenry of the US!

Secondly, neither the US military nor US police forces are as well armed as you think they are.
* There are 270-310M firearms in civilian hands in the US.
* There are 2.7M firearms in the US military (civilian edge: 10:1)
* There are 1.2M firearms in the hands of US Law Enforcement (civilian edge: >20:1)
In the end, the American populace is NOT outgunned by the military/police! A M-4 assault rifle is not a high powered rifle! Yeah...it can hold and shoot more rounds! But it takes more rounds to do the same damage a bolt action .308 can do with ONE shot!

Planes and tanks are beat by terrain! In the open desert of Iraq...they are incredibly effective. In the mountains of Afghanistan...not so much. In the US there is more terrain...there are mountains, woods, and forests. They are not going to be as effective as you think they are!

Finally, training. Hate to break it to you...but there is a great deal of training that those 'rednecks' get hunting and shooting. You learn to stalk game. In fact, it wasn't until AFTER Vietnam that the military decided to start training snipers. Up until then they would take the best shots and press them into service as snipers...if they were hunters (as most of them were) they used their deer rifles from back home!

Now, a group of SWAT and/or military units going into rural communities would be successful with only the first few homes...but once they lost the element of surprise...they would lose all advantage. They would probably be decimated fairly quickly and easily.

FEMA Camps: do not exist. What you see on the internets are satellite images of N. Korean concentration camps.

At 2/28/14 12:58 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/28/14 12:29 AM, TNT wrote:

Metal Detectors are not going to stop psychos with guns from killing people.

Metal detectors are usually accompanied by some sort of security or law enforcement officers that are trained to deal with insane people.

Yep...because the TSA hires the best operators from US Special Forces!

Seriously LL1...metal detectors are an illusion of security. Security personnel are reactive. Their not sitting there with their weapons drawn and ready.

If someone is planning to do something to people beyond a metal detector security checkpoint...they are going to use the element of surprise to shoot first.

Your faith in the police is extraordinarily misplaced...

At 3/2/14 06:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 3/2/14 06:14 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

I fully believe it's going to happen. We're going to see an armed revolt, and people are going to die.

Stupid to think they can stand up and bare arms against Militarized police.

*sigh* It wouldn't be stupid to think that at all.

What is ignorant is to think that 'Militarized police' can easily crush an armed populace upset with the status quo.

If you look at the history since Vietnam, armed populaces have been able to stand-up to two super powers! In fact, history is replete with examples of super powers being defeated by rag-tag bands of rebels. The Romans were done in by German barbarians on the fringes of the Empire. The Soviets were done in by the Mujahideen. The US by the Vietnamese, Taliban, al-Qaida in Iraq, etc.

In Mexico, the government was not able to dislodge certain cartels without the aid of armed civilian vigilante groups backing them up!

For some one who is so obsessed with the oppressiveness of the state and corporations getting all corporation-y...you do not understand the balance of power that blunts their power!

Or are you all talk? You'll bitch all day about being oppressed...

...but in the end you're either A) too uninformed about revolution or B) too cowardly to stand up for your civil rights.

:)

At 2/13/14 05:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Congress does not have the power to turn over control of the money supply to the Federal Mint. If I am wrong then please show me where in the Constitution that it states that Congress has the power to turn over control of the money supply to another institution.

I know I probably drive Camaro nuts sometimes since I am more of an originalist in my interpretation of the Constitution. So when it comes to issues like this I like to refer to what the Founders wrote or ruled on these types of issues.

In 1819 the Marshall Court (which set the stage for Constitutional Law, at least until the 1920s and the ascension of the Progressive Incorporation Doctrine) ruled on the issue of a central bank in McCulloch v. Maryland. In it, which was ruled on by a unanimous decision, Marshall cited that the Congress DID have the power to establish entities/agencies to execute their constitutionally derived duties/responsibilities. There were some requirements: it has to be reasonable and not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

So the Founders themselves, you know the guys who wrote the Constitution and ratified it, interpreted the Constitution this way.

****

But if you're so concerned about strict adherence to what the Constitution says, why do you consistently argue against the 2nd Amendment? I mean, it is actually very clear and unambiguous. (Feel free to respond in the proper thread.)

Furthermore, I'm not defending the Fed. I think we're playing with forces that the experts don't fully understand. But I don't think Ron & Rand are right on the unconstitutionality of it or our fiat currency.

At 2/13/14 05:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: By we do you mean yourself ? If you are talking about yourself then who gave you the power to interfere with other peoples and Government affairs ? If you don't Live in Korea then I don't think you have to worry about it's Laws unless they are interfering with your own rights and Liberties afforded to you by your own Country's Government and natural Laws.

Mark this day on your calendar...LL1 and I are in agreement...

:-p

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

At 2/13/14 05:00 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

At 2/13/14 04:13 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Yes, the people are suffering and the horror stories coming from there rivals that of Saddam's Iraq, or the heyday of the Soviet Union. But there isn't much we can do about it

Actually, if you want to know something we can do about it, we can arrest the current leaders of North Korea on the grounds of disobeying the constitutional law of North Korea. To be more specific, Article 67 of Chapter 5 of the North Korean states that "citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations."

Nope.

Several things stand in our way. I'll address two: theory and realpolitik (and no...that is not a misspelling).

THEORY
Many of us who specialize in the study of International Relations (IR) do not believe that such a thing as international law exists. What lay people call 'International Law' is basically a bunch of treaties and promises one country makes to another (or a group of countries). These treaties and promises are only as good as the governments of these countries desire to follow them.

This leads to another problem: enforcement. Who enforces a UN resolution or a treaty? Yes there is a 'World Court'...but if a country either doesn't sign the treaty putting them under the authority of the World Court (or they pull out of the agreements)...then they do not follow the judgment of the court. There is no 'world police'. Any country that uses force (and arresting people...especially leaders of a country...is a use of force) to enforce the will of any world body is going to face criticism.

Finally, under theory, N. Korea is a sovereign country. It is called the Hermit Kingdom because it isolates itself from the world. It joins some treaties and attend some summits, but only if it does not limit their freedom of action. So they get to do what they want. Until they invade S. Korea, launch missiles at Japan or US territory, our options are rather limited. We cannot do anything when a country's leader(s) violate their constitution. That is up to their populace to correct.

REALPOLITIK
Realpolitik is not about ideology and moral questions...basically: "Don't bother me with abstractions, what can we do about X?"

1) We're coming off two wars that have fatigued our military and undermined American's will to go to war.
2) We've been slashing our military, so we're going to have to spin back up to a war footing...and that will take awhile.
3) China does not want a Korea that will probably be under the US' sphere of influence, so China will prop-up the DPRK (N. Korea) until it becomes a problem for their regime (hint: Beijing does not give a quarter of a half of a fuck about human rights and violations of civil liberties).

The status quo is about our only option at this point. Keep a strong defense of ROK (S. Korea) and send humanitarian aid when needed.

For a good book read: The Aquariums of Pyongyang.

At 2/13/14 01:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

Nope.

Just your line of thought.

So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

At 2/11/14 09:11 PM, Korriken wrote: I wonder if we could deploy magnetized objects to latch onto their ships, increasing drag and causing them to burn a lot more fuel? Barnacles used to play hell on ships back in the middle ages due to this same effect.

Just a thought.

At 2/11/14 06:37 PM, TheKlown wrote: LOL, does that Country really want to fuck with US? I dare them to shoot at our Ships or try to attack us. It's a battle they'd lose easily.

Okay...the worst thing we could do is attack the 'Great Green Fleet'. There are two reasons:
1) It would look like we really perceived them as a threat.
2) It would look like we're bullies...Mike Tyson taking on Bill Gates.

What would be the best thing to happen for the US? The Iranian ships get into a jam and the US Navy or Coast Guard rescues them.

Awesome PR coupe for the US!

At 2/12/14 02:44 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

That is a very good point. I did not think about that. But, selling things like RPGs and guns are one thing, I don't think countries are as willing to part with advanced missile technology.

Not.
At.
All.

Following the collapse of the USSR, many Soviet scientists left the country. Not all of them fled to the West to escape poverty at home. Some ended up working for Baghdad, Pyongyang, and Tehran. Others went to work for Beijing. This included individuals engaged in Chem/Bio war...and rocket scientists.

Even before the collapse of the USSR...the Soviets would 'sell' advanced military tech to client states. Why do you think just about every country aligned against the US and the West have SCUD missiles?

Right now the Chinese and Russians ARE selling weapons systems countries like Iran to gain leverage against the US. Even N. Korea has a lucrative ballistic missile program that they sell...and they really do not care who they sell it too.

At 2/11/14 12:54 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 2/10/14 08:18 PM, TheMason wrote: But what if gun control does not have a meaningful impact?

I feel that Gun Control can, and does, have a meaningful impact when we allow it to.

Here's the thing...we're not all that far apart here. Do I think ALL of gun control is bad? No.

However, do I think that further gun control will have any meaningful impact? No I do not. I think that our efforts need to be directed elsewhere. Further gun control would take efforts and resources away from policy initiatives that could make a meaningful impact.

Thus, more gun control would be counter-productive.

**To me, Gun control shows itself as common sense when you ask yourself almost absurd questions ... Sure, it's a very basic, almost common sense form of Gun Control, but it is Gun Control none the less and thus we can dictate that yes, we do indeed need Gun Control. The details of just what "Gun Control" entails are up for debate.

Again...I agree with you. However, these are already against the law.

For example, assault rifles such as AK-47 and AR-15 clones are used very rarely in crime. So why ban them? This diverts public funds and resources from other projects.

I personally agree with you here... for the most part. I don't think banning "Assault rifles" is a solution at all. I don't think it'll have any effect on Gun Violence and I think it's a meaningless "feel good" law that can't even really be enforced as we're unsure as to how to even define what an "assault riffle" is. I think 'banning guns' puts out a bad message to Gun Advocates about our intentions and further increases fears that 'liberals are trying to take away your guns'. Besides, the majority of gun violence is committed with hand guns, so if we're going to target a specific type of gun why target rifles? Is it because they look scary?

It is because they look scary and it 'feels' or 'seems' like common sense. The vast majority of people who are not shooters (and really hunters who get into ballistics) do not understand how international law limits the 'killing power' of military firearms...or just how ineffective a high rate of fire is...think it makes 'sense'.

It's because the reality of 'assault rifles' is counter to the perception people get from movies & pop culture.

But just because this specific aspect of Gun Control is stupid doesn't mean everything about Gun Control is stupid. This doesn't change the fact that there is a giant hole in the "Background check" system that allows felons to purchase to guns with ease, nor does it explain why a civilian needs a magazine/clip that holds over a hundred rounds of ammunition. So although I'm against the banning of any specific type of gun (based on appearance) I'm still in full support of the idea of Gun Control, and some of the proposed ideas to limit magazine size and close the Background Check loop holes.

1) It's not so much of a loop hole as it is a fringe problem. Felons have established sources to get guns. Gangs are not going to gun shows and doing 'person-to-person' purchases. I don't think we can stop that many people from getting guns illegally through further background checks.

Instead, I'd go for providing private sellers access to background checks. IF it can be proved a person sold a gun to a felon, that person should face criminal prosecution. If that person does not do due diligence, but did NOT know the person was a felon...then they should be open to lawsuits.

2) While I'm OK with a limit on handgun mags...I am less ok with a limit on assault rifle mags. It may seem counterintuitive...but I think it actually makes shootings safer.

Why?

*The faster you pull the trigger...the less people you hit. The guys who open fire with an AR-15 and pulls the trigger as fast as they can, recoil causes the barrel to rise. In a semi-auto, this means that after the first 4-5 rounds...the rest go harmlessly above would-be victim's heads.
* Hi-cap mags also cause the weapon to malfunction (jam) more often. In fact, this happened to James Holmes at the Aurora, Co shooting.

On the other hand, the vast majority of crime is causally linked to a lack of social/economic mobility and/or lack of educational attainment.

However, that doesn't mean that we should just sell those who continue to do crime guns. The fact that gang members can buy hand guns as easy as we buy bread is a bit of a red-flag problem for me. One I think we should fix. See, it's possible to do more then one thing... and while I agree that our long-term plan should be to improve social services and health-care for at-risk humans, I think our backup plan should be, "don't sell those who continue to want to commit crime weapons". The world I want to live in, is the world where when a criminal breaks into my house, he comes wielding a knife because he's a criminal and can't get his hands on a gun, where I have a gun, because I'm not a criminal and was able to purchase one with relative ease.

Again...this is something that isn't addressed by further background checks. If people want a gun enough...there are extra-legal means to obtain it.

How about this? Canada had a gun registry...but now they don't. It cost too much money and had very little impact on the problems they were trying to address.

Well Canada isn't America. They own far less guns then we do and their crime rate with guns is far lower then ours. What we need to do to get our numbers down, and what they need to do to get their numbers down, are two different issues. We can re-evaluate our need for a registry when our gun-related crime rate is as low as Canada.

If a gun registry fails in a country where people are more law abiding, more focused on being part of the larger society (as opposed to the US' rugged individualist ethic). I'm not sure that if a registry cannot survive in Canada...it would do any better in the US.

At 2/8/14 11:15 PM, MOSFET wrote: While true, gun control will not stop a determined individual, it will make it harder for these kinds of individuals to acquire a gun. So statistically speaking there would be less people that lose it AND have a gun. That would indicate to me that gun control works.

Umm...I think you've got an error in your logic. What he was saying was sometimes you cannot predict who will lose it and use a gun maliciously. So when you say gun control, are you then advocating for an all-out gun ban?

For example, we currently have laws which make it illegal for certain people to have guns. These prohibitions are predicated on something in their history which is a strong indicator for future misuse.

Now, the 'kinds of individuals' Klown brought up does present with these indicators. So are we to deprive them of a constitutionally guaranteed civil right? How do we target them?

Finally, what you are presenting is a hypothetical...so you cannot really say that gun control works. All you can argue is that it MAY work.

But it hardly matters to a pro-gun advocate whether gun-control works or not, because to them it's all about the individual right. It doesn't matter that having a gun at home increase your chance of getting shot by one, or increases the threat of gun violence to yourself and everyone around you, as long as the individual can protect themselves or be a hero.

Be careful when making these sorts of generalizations. I oppose bans on AR-15 & AK-47 clones because the statistics prove that they are not weapons that are used in crime in any appreciable rate (<2%). Ballistically speaking, they are not the best choice to kill (how a bullet does damage is based in physics and metallurgy...not a person’s opinion).
On the other hand, since there is some evidence that restricting handgun magazine capacity would have a positive effect on gun violence I am open to discussing that.
Finally, is your point about having a gun really one you want to make? Let me start by saying that I’m NOT disputing that the statistic is most likely true. However, I am saying that it is not that significant.

Think about what you’re saying: engaging in an activity leads to a greater risk of being accidently injured/killed by that activity. By following your logic people should avoid having in their homes:
* Cars (42,000 deaths/yr)
* Cleaning products/household chemicals (39,000 deaths/yr to poisoning)
* Stairs & ladders (25,000 deaths/yr to falls)
* Anything that burns (2,700 deaths/yr to fire)
* Bite sized anything (2,500 deaths/yr to choking)
(Listosaur)
So what about guns?
* Since 1904, when we started keeping stats, accidental shootings have decreased by 94%. (Sorry...lost the source for this one.)
* In 2010 there were 31,672 firearms deaths. 96.2% were homicides or suicides (which according to many psych papers I’ve read...gun availability does not have an impact on suicide rates). This means that 1,204 of these deaths were accidental.
(CDC pg. 11)

When you look at the numbers, this argument is based in stats...true. However, it is one that is used to emotionally manipulate and give a patina of legitimacy to an argument that doesn’t hold-up.

Take a look at Japan or Australia to see the effects of gun control. The general trend is that they work, and work well. Of course you'll run into sites that tell you that gun-control in Australia failed, because these pro-gun advocates cherry-pick the data by taking a 2 year period where it may have increased or restricted it to a locality. Don't be fooled, good gun control laws work. Everyone knows it, even intelligent pro-gun people know it.

You know what’s funny?

You accuse your opposition of cherry picking...when your use of anecdotal evidence is cherry picking as well!

To be more legitimate you need to look at nations as a group and see what trends form. After all, just because something correlates...does not mean the correlation is significant. If the correlation is not significant...then there is no cause between the variables. If there is no cause, then policies targeting one or the other variable will not be effective since the causes are not addressed.

For example, look at Japan and Australia. Two countries with demographics that are vastly different from the US. Both are more ethnically and linguistically homogenous...with little or no ethnic tension. These socio-economic factors have much stronger relationships with gun violence than gun availability.

At 2/11/14 12:54 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/11/14 12:05 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) It is showing that their capabilities are improving (a transatlantic trip is good training, and does require some skill).

I'm sure any navy, given enough oil, could pilot their ship anywhere in the world. ... It's really a waste of money and if anything shows how weak they are.

Oil is not the only issue here.

* How sea worthy is the vessel? How old is it? How well has it been maintained (anti-corrosion, mechanically, structurally)? You can have enough gas to get it there...but will the ship itself make the voyage?

* What is the experience of the crew? There is a difference operating in a Gulf, especially a narrow and small one like the Persian Gulf, and the open seas/ocean. It is far more involved than it would seem.

Is it a waste of money? From an American perspective it does. We could easily sink them at the first provocation. On the other hand, it will show that they have the reach to put the US mainland within range of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs). This is a selling point for them in any campaign for military aid from Russia, China, and even N. Korea. All of those countries have a vested interest (and history of doing business with Iran) in pestering the US.

The Iranians can now ask for either free or reduced weapons systems (TBMs, defensive weapons for their ships) that increase their standing in their region. In exchange, Russia, China, and N. Korea get a US military that still has to address the Middle East which takes away from the 'Asian Pivot'.

From an Iranian perspective this is an investment and makes perfect strategic sense.

At 2/11/14 02:12 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Necro thread. Please delete.

If we called every thread you lost the debate in a necro thread and deleted it...we wouldn't have a politics forum!

Actions like this usually have more than one or two audiences.

1) US: obvious messages.
2) Domestic: propaganda/rally around the flag.
3) Regional rivals: look how strong we are.
4) Israel: we can reach your strongest ally.
5) Russia/China/DPRK: check out what we're capable of...we've got your back so send us more weapons!

It is a little troubling that they are capable of this show of force. 1) They are confident that they can send this force over here. 2) It is showing that their capabilities are improving (a transatlantic trip is good training, and does require some skill).

It's not a 'the sky is falling' situation...but it is not good that they feel they can play this game with us.

At 2/10/14 11:22 AM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 2/7/14 08:00 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Are we able to actually do something to address this problem in a meaningful way that is something more than feel good laws that would affect the criminal element and not just those without ill intent.

Yes. Why? Because we're intelligent human beings who have the ability to solve problems. Of course, to solve the problem in question you have to actually do something.

But what if gun control does not have a meaningful impact? For example, assault rifles such as AK-47 and AR-15 clones are used very rarely in crime. So why ban them? This diverts public funds and resources from other projects.

On the other hand, the vast majority of crime is causally linked to a lack of social/economic mobility and/or lack of educational attainment.

So what is a more meaningful 'something'? Banning a gun rarely used in crime...or moving resources away from law enforcement and into programs that address poverty?

People are against registration, because, no matter what the pro-gun control crowd says, yes, there are people who are coming after your guns to take them away from you.

What? Registration = no guns? Then what are we registering? Your speaking from fear and emotion here... maybe even a big of Patriotic nonsense. Your opinion is retarded and doesn't count. My opinion is more valid then yours.

How about this? Canada had a gun registry...but now they don't. It cost too much money and had very little impact on the problems they were trying to address.

(see how obnoxious that is?)

At 2/7/14 06:55 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: At 2/7/14 12:32 PM, TheMason wrote::

However, if you would like to move away from your baseless ad hominem position that I'm being a fool and present some valid points from the opposition I'll be more than happy to show you what I mean.

If I was a felon I could buy a gun from a stranger out the back of a van in an ally way behind a bar in front of a cop and nobody could do anything about it because "private sale". This allows criminals to bypass all aspects of Gun Control and gives them easy access to the weapons that they're not legally allowed to own.

1) If the cop had a reason to believe that the gun was being sold to a guy with a felony conviction, yes he could do something. (But he would have to have reasonable cause to intervene.)

2) If both parties know this is illegal anyway, how is additional background check laws going to dampen this from happening? Especially the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed to get passed last year.

I mean...that sale is already against multiple laws. How would more laws reduce this?

That's not emotion there jackass, that's a fucking fact.

Two things here:

1) I do not recall calling you names. You may not like what I'm saying. But I'm not swearing (really, being profane to be shocking is cliche).

2) You dismiss the core arguments that I'm making (ie: how social and hard sciences deconstruct most of the pro-gun control arguments) as 'Bullshit'...with no attempt to address my argument. Then you turn around and call a pro-gun poster "closed-minded".

3) You're getting emotional...which kinda proves my point. ;)

Question, should we fix the problem and if so, how?

Some people say yes. To just ignore everyone who says yes, is indeed absurdly foolish of you. To ignore the possibility that you might be bias since you're a hunter, is also pretty foolish of you. To not listen to your peers or keep an open mind about opposing views is also foolish of you. All and all, you seem like a really shitty scientist to me. So maybe it's time to deflate your head, climb off your high horse, and join the rest of us here on planet Earth.

Again with the ad homeinem attack.

1) I recognize that I have a bias. However, this also gives me technical insight.
2) You have no basis to say I'm a "really shitty scientist". You have not really evaluated my argument (remember, you dismissed a brief overview as 'Bullshit').
3) You're presenting an argument here that is a good example of the "strawman fallacy".

When you say: "Question, should we fix the problem and if so, how?" And then answer it for me...you are:
A) Preventing a dialog from happening, by preventing me from presenting you with my opinion on the question.
B) You are instead arguing against the argument YOU want me to make in order to then call me names.

Now let me answer your question:

I do think there is a problem with violent crime in our society. This extends beyond gun crime (ie: sexual assault). To answer these problems, I want to see a scientifically based approach that addresses the causes...not just symptoms. If the statistics pointed to a causal relationship and/or the ballistics pointed to it...I would accept gun control.. Furthermore, there are things in my personal history that opens me up to gun control arguments.
1) When I was a kid, a man named Purdy opened up with an AK-47 clone on a playground full of Kindergarteners. My mother was a Kindergarten teacher, and in the weeks that followed the school began coming up with all sorts of drills to prepare students and faculty for this at my school. As such I began worrying excessively about it, I started fearing guns even though I lived around guns. For awhile I was even for assault rifle bans. However, as I learned more about the guns and what they were capable of...I reversed my opposition.
2) When I was in my late 20s I took-in my then teen brother-in-law who was struggling with bullying. Immediately following Columbine, he was talking to me about HIS plan to do the same thing. His plan had been in the works for several weeks BEFORE the Columbine Massacre. (One of the targets was my mother.)

So as you can see, my life has been effected by the forces that cause/lead to gun crime.

I wish that gun control WAS the answer...it would actually be easier. However, once you break-down the statistics and science:

* Gun availability, while obviously correlates with gun crime, is not associated with gun crime as a cause of crime (even gun crime). What does correlate with crime? Socio-economic factors. Education, economic mobility, and having a diverse population with one or more disadvantaged groups are the things that are shown to be the causes of crime.
* According to International Law, military small arms (rifles, pistols) cannot make death inevitable. Therefore, assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 when firing military ammo...are the least lethal guns available. (This is a combination of treaty/law and the physics of ballistics...and not at all subjective.)
* Rifles of ALL types (including assault rifles) are used in less than 5% of gun crimes. For assault rifles, over the past 20 years, the highest I've seen them used in a year is about 2% (and that included theft of the rifle) and the lowest (and most common) was less than 0.5%. So laws aimed at guns like the AR-15 or AK-47 address guns that present no real problem.
* Handguns are used 70-80% of the time and shotguns are used in 14-18% of the time. The ammo available for use in these firearms are also more deadly than what is found in an assault rifle round (but not a high-powered hunting rifle).

These are facts. They are not subjective, but objective and verifiable. They are not hypothetical, and in the case of ballistics...not up for debate.

Furthermore, I am not the absolutist you are making me out to be. If you scroll through my previous posts on the subject you'll notice that:
1) I DO accept arguments from the other side when they are based on an objective, scientific research. For example, I would accept a limitation on HANDGUN magazine capacity because a U of Pennsylvannia study shows a marginal positive effect by such a limitation. (However, this does not transfer/translate to assault rifles...so I remain opposed to such a limit on AKs and ARs.)
2) I see the need for expanded background checks, but not the ones in Manchin-Toomey. In the computer age there is no reason that gun shows cannot have booths set-up where a private seller and buyer could go and get background checks done for free or a very nominal charge. (Free would be cheaper for gun show organizers than a law that ended gun shows.) If a person fails in this due diligence, then they are open to either civil litigation (lawsuit) or even criminal charges (ie: negligent homicide).

These are not positions I'm making up just to counter your attack. If you look at my posting history, you'll see that I have made these arguments prior to responding to your posts.

The question is, do you want to have an open dialog...or do you want to just attack people and call us names?

At 2/8/14 11:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Although this is perspective, I just see a whole lot of emotion and logical fallacies come out of the Gun rights side (most common causality-correlation) while ignoring the evidence of the gun control side.... like you know lower rates of crime in countries with gun restrictions.

Again War, I am not saying that everyone on the pro-gun side is free of emotion. Nor am I saying that even ALL of MY arguments are free from emotion or even bias.

My argument is: the vast majority of the pro-gun control side's evidence and arguments that are fact based dissolve when you look at the statistical analysis, ballistics, and physics.

For example, your lower rates of crime stat dissolves. The correlation proves spurious. The causal factors tend to be socio-economic instead of the presence of guns.

At 2/7/14 02:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/7/14 12:32 PM, TheMason wrote:

First of all, yes we are all human beings. However, this does not mean we are all equal.

Yes humans are all equal. We all have the same set of needs that must be met in order to realize individual full potential. You might have skills in areas such as gun's and mechanic's but I am trained in Welding and Computers. We all have something to bring to the table because this world is very diverse and needs people from many different backgrounds to make things work. If you think you are outright better than someone else then that is your ego talking. Ego is a fools device.

Ummm...

How about you read my entire thought on the subject there sport before you try calling someone a fool.

You're actually making my point!

First of all, I am not claiming that I am superior to lolo. Nor am I saying that I am entitled to more than they (or anyone else). But nice try at cherry-picking. ;)

However, I am saying that on the subject of guns I bring expertise to the table. As such, my opinions/arguments/views/etc ARE superior to someone who is not an expert. After all, I'm not going to try and tell you how to do a welding job.

At 2/5/14 02:14 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 2/4/14 07:12 PM, TheMason wrote: Bunch of bullshit.

It's like you don't understand that everyone involved in the argument is a human being and thus, equal. It's like you're under the impression that my side is full of a bunch of sub-human retards that are incapable of using logic while your side is made up of some form of superior man Gods that can rarely say any wrong. Sure, some of you are emotional, but there are others that use facts. yet, you refuse to apply this very same logic to the opposition. Although it's true that some people on the opposition might make arguments of emotion, you refuse to acknowledge that some people on the opposition can, just like you, also use facts.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying and seeking to find things to be offended by.

First of all, yes we are all human beings. However, this does not mean we are all equal. There are some topics that I know a lot about, then there are other topics that I'm pretty ignorant about.

However, guns is one of those topics that I know a lot about.

1) I'm a political scientist, I have crunched the numbers myself. Pretty much once you get past the descriptive statistics and get into statistical analysis the correlation become insignificant. This undermines a vast majority of pro-gun control arguments scientifically.
2) I'm a hunter, sport shooter, and military member. I own an example of practically all types of modern firearms.

In short, I am a bona fide expert on this topic. I understand the science as well as the politics involved in this issue.

The idea that the opposition ONLY has arguments of emotion is an absurdly foolish claim for you to make. Both sides, and I do mean BOTH sides, make valid points.

You're saying that I'm 'absurdly foolish'. However, my claims are coming from spending the past 20 years studying this issue. However, what is 'absurdly foolish' is maintaining that all opinions/perspectives are equal. They are not. If we're discussing climate change my opinion is not equal to a climatologist's. I do not possess the same knowledge of how climate works as that person. Similarly, someone who does not know how guns work and how to conduct social scientific research/analysis is not going to possess an opinion equal to mine.

In my experience the vast majority of claims made by the opposition are based on emotion and their policy solutions they offer are not substantiated by solid facts. Either from a social science or ballistic perspective.

However, if you would like to move away from your baseless ad hominem position that I'm being a fool and present some valid points from the opposition I'll be more than happy to show you what I mean.

At 2/3/14 03:27 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: That's not true.

Yes, actually it is. The pro-gun control side make arguments that are rooted in emotion and descriptive statistics. It is based upon a naïve and unsophisticated logic that "no guns=no gun crime". They are firmly rooted in the notion that banning guns will resolve gun crime. They do not take into account:

* Statistically speaking, there is no causal relationship between guns and gun crime, only a correlation.
* Demographic differences between the US and European/Asian countries.
* Geographical differences between the US and Europe.
* The technology involved in the various calibers and gun types.

Furthermore, statistics are often manipulated...especially with children and guns. They just talk about children and don't really tell you their numbers include 'kids' as old as 19 (I've seen some including people in their early 20s). Or when talking about kids under 12, they use a time span rather than an annual snapshot to increase emotional impact.

I could easily argue that Gun-Advocates argue from emotion with paranoid illusions of "the government wants to take away my weapons so they can murder me and my family just like Hitler" or "without my gun hoards of heavily armed criminals will crawl out of the shadows and attack me every second of my life".

You are absolutely correct. There are people on my side of the argument that rely solely on emotion. And they annoy me just as much as pure emotion arguments from the opposition.

However, this does not impact the intellectual depth (or shall I say shallowness) of the pro-gun control side. It does nothing to say that what I assert is in anyway untrue.

Arguments work both ways and it's absurdly foolish of you to assume that only the opposition displays common human traits such as "emotion".

I'm being foolish? Not at all, and especially not "absurdly foolish".

While I did not speak to the emotional arguments of my side, does not mean that I think/assume that it is ONLY the opposition that advances erroneous and/or manipulated emotional arguments. There are people on my side that does not have the background to make in-depth statistical, scientific, or technical arguments. So they are prey to making and/or buying into purely emotional arguments.

What IS foolish is to make an assumption and then accuse someone of being a fool based upon your erroneous assumption.

:)

What about the hypocrisy of gun advocates? Half the time guns are no different from shovels because both could be used to kill a person... but the other half the time guns are totally different from shovels and that's why you need a gun to protect yourself. Which one is it? Are guns just tools like shovels that offer no advantage in killing a person, or do they offer a distinct advantage in killing a person that you want to use to protect yourself? I mean, if guns are just tools, by your logic, we could outlaw all guns tomorrow and if someone breaks into your home and tries to attack you with a gun, you're OK because you could just defend yourself with a shovel -- tool vs tool = fair fight. And yet... that's obviously not the case.

Okay...

You're conflating a whole bunch of arguments and then trying to make it fit into what you think guns are.

* First, guns are tools. They are tools of self-defense and for hunting. They are also sporting equipment.
* Secondly, guns (like shovels) are varied in their capabilities and things they can do.
* Third, your argument goes off the rail when you say: "I mean, if guns are just tools, by your logic, we could outlaw all guns tomorrow and if someone breaks into your home and tries to attack you with a gun, you're OK because you could just defend yourself with a shovel -- tool vs tool = fair fight. And yet... that's obviously not the case." This 'logic' is very flawed. Tool vs Tool? Really? A screwdriver is also a tool, but this does not mean you can dig a hole just as easily or deep with a screwdriver than you can with a screwdriver. Your argument here is nonsensical.
* Fourth, just because you outlaw guns...does not mean criminals will stop using or getting ahold of them.

Finally: "It's exactly why you don't bring a knife to a gun fight... but you'll never hear a Gun Advocate man up and admit the most obvious of obvious facts because it's "emotionally damaging" to their side." You will hear guys like me make this argument...and in no way is it "emotionally damaging" to my side. Guns are an equalizer. If someone breaks into my house while I'm gone and my wife is home alone, she has the ability to decisively defend herself rather than hope she can be luck enough to escape. It also means that I can protect my daughter and not leave her wellbeing up to whether or not I can kick the ass of the person(s) who are threatening us.

Some guns are better than others. I own .22s, assault rifles, deer rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I live in the country, average police response can be measured in hours. I use a shotgun because it is the best choice for the job. So you see, the issue is far more complicated than merely 'tool vs tool' or 'gun vs knife'.

At 2/2/14 03:29 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/2/14 03:09 AM, TheMason wrote: So that's my problem with the number: it really measures the effect of tax rates on income...not expanding disparities of wealth (which BTW: is not outside the historical margin of error).

I'm not sure these things are mutually exclusive of one another.

Where's the source? How do they define 'overall income'?
* Does this include non-income benefits such as stock options?
* Is this pre or post tax?

Furthermore, one problem with inequality arguments and stats is that they focus on trends and treat the groups as fixed when in fact once you look at the individuals involved with the classes there is great movement. I read an article in Fortune that looked at who was in the top 1%. It is actually pretty fluid, people move in and out. It's not the same people year after year. Someone cashes in stock or has a windfall and move in...then move out the next year never to return.

It's been awhile since I read the article (like three weeks). But the numbers were staggering, I think it was 60-70% of people who make it into the top 1% only make it one year and never make it into this elite group ever again.

But anyway, I digress.

Without seeing the source, I don't know if your graph even comes close to addressing the concern I raise.

At 2/2/14 03:32 AM, AJ wrote:

At 2/2/14 03:09 AM, TheMason wrote: stuff

I think you're the one trying to compare global warming with the declining number of pirates on earth. Look at 1990-2005.

Score: 6

* Humor: 9
* Distraction: 5
* Intelligence: 0

Your use of non sequitur is a good start to your post. If it hadn't been so short, I would've gotten excited that I was going to read something full of with. However, your attempt to change the topic was average and showed no signs of depth. "Hey, someone who seems to know a little bit about this has posted something that's well thought out...I know...posting a random graph about something related to his concern will beat him!"

I mean looking at the source, it's obviously got an ideological agenda. Are the percentages they're trying to compare based on the same after-tax data? If so...that would be exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Lastly, you get a zero for the intellectual value of your post because there is no argument you make. You let a graph speak for itself with NO attempt at providing a context.

There is something that's bothering me about the main stat that's being bandied about when ppl talk about income inequality: the rise of after-tax income of the upper 1% since 1979...

Why does this bother me?

In the social sciences we have to make sure that when we measure something, it actually measures what we intend it to measure. Sometimes a measurement captures an intervening variable and paints a picture that is not accurate. A good example is the correlation of ice cream sales and crime. Both go up at the same time of the year. So we could measure ice crime sales by the crime rate, right? (Or vice versa.) Well no...a measure would be flawed because what is actually going on is a rise in temperatures impacts both variables.

So this is my problem: this measurement is not really speaking to income inequality but the effect of income tax on people's incomes.

For those of you NOT pushing 40...

In 1979 the top tax rate was 71% (which JFK cut in the 1960s from FDR's historical high of over 90%).

In 1980 Ronal Reagan was elected president and during his eight years, the top tax rate was cut to 28%. During Clinton's tenure it was raised to about 35%.

So since 1979 the tax rate has been cut by 50% (or another way to put it: in 1979 the top 1% was paying 200% more than they are today).

So that's my problem with the number: it really measures the effect of tax rates on income...not expanding disparities of wealth (which BTW: is not outside the historical margin of error).

At 1/31/14 08:14 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I am so fucking happy right now!

Congrats AH!

I had my first marriage at the court house, but my second was in the backyard of my apartment complex (it was by the pool...but it was January!).