Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/09 04:08 PM, ReiperX wrote: The F-35 I do have to disagree with you on Mason. Yes, the UAVs are becoming more advanced, but I don't think that they will ever completely replace manned aircraft. I like the F-35, a) because it's going to all of the Branches, including the Marines, who needs the VToL aircraft (unless plans have changed for it b) because even though I'm a huge fan of the F16/18 it can't hurt to have some F-35's out there too.

I'm not sure that VTOL is really all that necessary anymore. The vast majority of Marine air over "there" are provided by the F/A-18s and AH-1s.

Also there is the fact that the F-35 is going to be eight years away, our UAV's will be able to do everything a strike aircraft can do...only better, cheaper and safer. Furthermore, the loiter time of these aircraft kinda makes VTOL irrelevant.

At 10/21/09 04:27 PM, adrshepard wrote: I'm not in the military and don't have more than a basic familiarity with US combat aircraft, but I think both sides of this argument may have missed some things.

Not to be rude, but perhaps you should've stopped just before the comma.

It's not enough that we have more or slightly better aircraft than the enemy. We must have overwhelmingly superior craft. The US public barely tolerates casualties among infantry, even though they are inevitable in a conflict like that in Iraq or Afghanistan. They will have even less tolerance for losses among forces almost wholly dependent on technology. Any combat loss will sow doubt and disillusionment with the war.

This I do agree with wholeheartedly.

Plus, even though war with China or Russia may be unlikely, what's more realistic is that they will sell their new generation fighters to third world nations like Iran.

Good point, but why is war with China, Russia or India unlikely?

However, even if 180 something F-22s aren't enough, how long could it possibly take to bring them into production again if it was necessary? It's not as if we would need to design an entirely new fighter to meet some unexpected need. While you might say that training pilots for the aircraft would take too long, I remember from a History Channel episode that the flying the F-22 is similar to piloting the F-15, only much easier. Retraining those F-15 pilots wouldn't take so long, right?

The training isn't much of an issue...but building them is. This isn't like WWII where the technology and manufacturing logistics were comparatively simple. It takes about a year from the time the initial frame is laid to when it takes off. So no, I don't think it would be easy to just re-start production.

At 10/21/09 04:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/21/09 02:31 PM, TheMason wrote: I predict that the F-35 will be severly cut because it will be obsolete in 2016. Why throw money at it?

Note I wasn't advocating continuing the F-35... I agree that we shouldn't continue developing a plane that will be obsolete by the time it sees action. That IS dumb. And from what I understand we're not canceling completely the development of the F-22, merely lowering the number we're making.... for now. When will the last of the F-22s we currently have orders for roll off the line? If it's a significant point in the future, then couldn't we add more orders to the list at a later date? And if that happens, then wouldn't it defer the cost to that later date? Would there be a significant interruption of parts/production if we did this?

From what I understand we are not laying any new airframes, which means the number will be halted at 187. This will produce a very significant interruption if we need to restart the line.

But we do need to cut somemthing and I think that is the F-35. They will not be operational until 2016...and obsolete by then. There is very little justification (when as Gates says, we don't have money) for a plane that will be obsolete before it is operational.

2) The F-22 is replacing an airframe that:
a) is old.

Cool, replacing old planes I'm all for... I just want to make sure it's done in a way that is economical.

It is economical. A new F-15K (built for the S. Korean Air Force) costs about $100M, a new F-22 costs about $143M. Now one thing about when we build a fighter for someone else, if we're not building something better, it does not have the avionics the US version has. So I think new build F-15s will be about $120M.

Is the $20M/aircraft really all that economical? Afterall the F-22 has supercruise which means more fuel efficiency. Then there is the stealth capability that the F-15 has which means more survivability. Think of it as "shoot-down" insurance.

b) UAVs have not demonstrated any air superiority capability. They are incapable of carrying Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is necessary for using things such as radar guided air-to-air missiles. While UAVs are making F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s obsolete...they are not making F-22s and F-15s obsolete.

Yet. I honestly don't know what the development curve on UAVs is, but I would assume that such feature will eventually be able to be included. Is there some logistic reason that they continue to be unable to carry the kind of tech that will allow them to perform similar roles to the F-15 and F-22?

Yes, as I've been saying on this topic. The aircraft are two light. They cannot carry the Fire Control RADAR (FCR) or other sophisticated avionics. Nor can they carry as many air-to-air missiles as the F-15 and F-22.

As for other countries: the Chinese and Russians are developing "Raptor Killers". There are Chinese/US Tensions, Chinese/Russian Tensions and Chinese/Indian Tensions...anyone of these could draw us into a Great Powers war where air superiority will be vital to military operations.

I agree that we need to keep up with the Joneses. However, our production capability so outstrips other countries that it seems to me that keeping our production of the most advanced planes modest, until it becomes obvious that we'll need a larger number of them, and then turning on the production again, will keep us out in front without spending too much money.

Again this comes down to just how long it takes to produce a new F-22. It's not like they just start making something else using the F-22's manufacturing set-up. They re-tool and re-organize their factories to produce something else.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Well I've got to give thanks to Stoicish for proving my point that when questioned to prove their point those who want to rail on Beck cannot back it up without degenerating into a flames.

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

The first commandment is essentially "Worship one god" That specifically mandates religions of a monotheistic faith yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

At 10/21/09 03:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/21/09 01:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/19/09 07:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:47 PM, jAk88 wrote:

Just because he uses his show to express his morality...he rarely says the answer is for the government to legislate or solve the problem by codifying morality into law.

I don't know enough about him to say wiether thats true or,but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt to you regardless . However he still dose ciritcise these things, and oviously saying things like porn leads to serial killing is retarded, and he offers no arguement to back it up.

I'm not really sure of when he made that connection...or how he backed it up. But I will be gracious as you have been and extend to you the benefit of the doubt.

My one question though is what did he say about how to fix the effects of porn? Was it government legislation or individual-based?

Although I have several good friends who are gay, I find two men being intimate with each other to be repulsive. But I am an ardent believer in the right of homosexuals to marry and serve openly in the military.

however , going on about how homosexuals were a cuase for immorality kinda defeats the purpose of being a libretarian. You may not want to illegalize it, but it certainly isn't helping libretarianism.

It is not the belief an individual holds...but the individual's belief on the appropriateness of the government being involved on the issue that makes one a Libertarian.

also, ive never seen him push for the legalization of drugs or prostitution or anything like that, its always how something is wrong .

You know I think I've heard him talk about how he believes it is up to individual adults on thinks like drinking and pot.

Besides, most of his attention is focused on the economy right now and defending the free market.

I am a Christian and I think it is appropriate for "one nation under God" to be in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a Courthouse.

I don't think your a very good american then, since the constitution clarifys the seperation of chruch and state, and these two things very clearly violate that.

Does it? Here is what the first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or on government property does not establish a religion. It is not saying that everyone must be a Catholic or a Baptist. Hell, it doesn't even mandate that one has to be a Christian.

The Ten Commandments are a historical code of law akin to the stelles of Hammarabi. They have had an impact on civilization and the development of Western Law.

Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

At 10/19/09 08:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe the current number of orders for the F-22 is enough, maybe it's not... but I don't think a blanket statement that canceling the rest of the orders for the plane is stupid is really deserved without some indication that we're falling behind the curve in some way. Are there countries out there who are developing better planes than the ones we even currently use, much less the F-22 and our UAVs?

I think it is.

1) The F-35 is replacing airframes that:
a) are not that old. We are still building F/A-18s and the last F-16 for the US made only a few years ago.
b) the multi-role strike mission that the F-35 is slated to accomplish are being accomplished more safely and cost-effectively by UAVs. The F-35 is scheduled to become operational in 2016. In the past eight years UAVs have increased dramatically...where will they be in regards to air-to-ground in the next seven years? I predict that the F-35 will be severly cut because it will be obsolete in 2016. Why throw money at it?

2) The F-22 is replacing an airframe that:
a) is old. The last F-15C/D was built in 1985. The last F-15E was built in the mid-1990s. The cost of a F-15K for the S. Korean AF is $100M. The cost of a F-22 is $143M. Now if we were to order new F-15s they would be more sophisticated than what we are building for the Koreans...probably about $20M more advanced. For an extra $20M we get stealth and more fuel efficency. This means increased survivability and decreased operational costs.
b) UAVs have not demonstrated any air superiority capability. They are incapable of carrying Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is necessary for using things such as radar guided air-to-air missiles. While UAVs are making F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s obsolete...they are not making F-22s and F-15s obsolete.

As for other countries: the Chinese and Russians are developing "Raptor Killers". There are Chinese/US Tensions, Chinese/Russian Tensions and Chinese/Indian Tensions...anyone of these could draw us into a Great Powers war where air superiority will be vital to military operations.

At 10/19/09 09:26 PM, Yorik wrote: I love the Raptor. There are few planes in all of the world that are as advanced. With that being said, why do we need so many more? As others have said, we aren't exactly in full scale aerial combat for the time being and even if we were the Raptors we already have along with the cut-back orders would be schooling everything else. There's no need to worry about it at this time.

All of the fighting in the middle east is on the ground. If you want a bomber there's no need to send the most advanced shit we have. There are plenty of more cost efficient beasts of burden for that task. Jeez, I think helicopters might actually be more appropriate for the kind of things they are doing in the middle east 9 times out of 10.

Yes we are fighting an insurgency war...right now. But that does not mean that our next war will be an insurgency. We could find ourselves in a conventional "Great Power" war in Eurasia.

This is a very short-sighted evaluation...which is why I think Obama is making a grave mistake. If we do find ourselves in a war against China or a Indian/Russian coalation...our Soldiers and Marines on the ground will suffer severe losses. We will be schooled on just how few casualties we have experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

===========

Again I appreciate that the F-35 is about $80M compared to the F-22's $143M price-tag. However, what some of you have to realize is what that difference in price means.

The F-16, F/A-18 and F-35 lacks the long-range Fire Control Radar that the F-15 and F-22 has. Furthermore, they can carry about half the air-to-air missiles the F-15s and F-22s have.

If we find ourselves fighting China or Russia & India and we cannot establish air superiority we will loose more strike aircraft. We will have multiple $80M piles of rubble (actually the enemy will) instead of a military asset. Then we will also loose AWACs, Tankers and cargo aircraft. And they will be able to strike at our boots on the ground.

In the end the lack of investment will mean severe losses in the future.

At 10/19/09 05:41 PM, MlCHAEL wrote: I'm not going to flame you on this thread.

I appreciate this. Debate me rigorously. Even if you say I'm wrong...and/or manage to prove it...I don't take it personally.

Being from the military - you must have a better reason than civilians why the F-22 development should be continued. But may I ask - what branch are you?

I am in the USAF/Missouri Air National Guard. In the interest of full disclosure:
Rank: SSgt
AFSCs: 2A352 F-16 Avionics Technician (6 years on Active Duty); 1C571 Aerospace Warning & Control Technician (3.5 years in the Guard).

I also have a Masters in Political Science/International Relations (emphasis on National Security issues).

IMHO, I also see the F-35 truly benefiting the Navy - since there will be a Naval version built as opposed to the F-22 (which will be strictly USAF)

You are right that the F-35 is for all branches and the F-22 is currently for the USAF exclusively. However, I don't think the Navy has a need for a multi-role strike fighter. The F/A-18 Super Hornet has improved RADAR and other avionics...much of it coming from the development of the F-35. These are also new builds whose service life has just begun.

The F-35 right now is only in development and will not enter service until about 2016 in any numbers. By this time they will be obsolete. UAVs will be performing the job of the F-35 much more safely and cheaply. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a more than able platform to fill as a stop gap until the Navy develops a significant UAV capability.

Now the Navy does have a huge hole in its aerial combat capability: air superiority. The Super Hornet has the same limitations that the F-16 has an air superiority fighter in terms of FCR and payload. The F-22 could possibly be adapted to carrier use like the F-4 was. Also McDonnell-Douglass did experiment with making the F-15 carrier capable. Perhaps Lockheed could do the same with the Raptor.

Also - in this world - we don't need an air superiority fighter. The days of large scale conflict are over and we're fighting a war on terrorism so we don't need a hyper advanced stealth air superiority aircraft that costs even more than the F-35.

Ummm...that attitude is rather short sighted and has continuously bit the US military in the ass. Look at snipers. After every conflict until Vietnam we stood down our snipers...thinking they were not a valuable asset that required institutionalizing them as a military specialty. But then the next war would come and we'd hurriedly convert our main battle rifles to sniper rifles...or have our best marksmen have their parents send them their deer rifles. We learned our lesson in Vietnam and then institutionalized snipers.

This gets to the fundamental lesson of national security: you do not prepare for the next war based on the current one. In the Philippines we fought an insurgent war from 1899-1913 (The American-Phillipine War and Moros Revolution). We also fought Pancho Villa's militia during the Mexican Revolution during this time.

Now in 1910 someone could make an argument that the US would not be fighting conventional wars. Afterall the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Indian Wars were insurgencies rather than conventional in nature. In fact the only true conventional war we fought was the Civil War. So why invest in a Conventional Army?

But guess what we were fighting in just a few short years? World War I. Then WWII and Korea.

What all of this means is we don't know what the next war will be. We could be fighting a nation rather than NGOs such as terrorist organizations. Afterall, the Russians, Chinese and Indians are developing air superiority fighters that counter the F-22's capabilities.

Things have changed - we aren't fighting nations anymore and terrorists do not have an air force of their own. Why send an overequipped expensive jet into battle when you can just send in an F-35? or a Super Hornet?

Because we can't just send in a F-35, F/A-18 or F-16 when we fight the next conventional war.

Look at Asia. For the past sixty years what has held the millenia old tensions between China, Japan and Korea in check (tensions FAR older than Israel-Palestine) has been our military presence. A presence that is effective because of two capabilities:

a) Naval Superiority
b) Air Superiority

Both must be maintained to a level greater than any potential rivals.

We already have 200 F-22's. We don't need more of them.

It's about 185. Not enough to fight China if they try to take over Taiwan...or fight a Russian/Indian coalition attacking China.

At 10/19/09 06:18 PM, LardLord wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:55 PM, amaterasu wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:41 PM, MlCHAEL wrote: Also - in this world - we don't need an air superiority fighter. The days of large scale conflict are over and we're fighting a war on terrorism so we don't need a hyper advanced stealth air superiority aircraft that costs even more than the F-35.

Foolish, wishful thinking. Air superiority is a safety measure as far as I'm concerned, whether we currently are using it or not.

In a time when the economy is in such deep shit, how can you justify wasteful redundancy? We've got a lot of problems to deal with right now, a lot more important things to spend money on, and air superiority has already been achieved for the foreseeable future with the 200 exist F-22s and the HUGE numbers of F-35s.

LardLord, I would respectfully suggest that next time you post you get your facts straight.

1) In a time when the economy is in deep shit, why cut one of the few government spending programs that has proven itself to provide jobs? The F-22 program employs about 95,000 people. When the unemployment rate is about 10%?
2) Ummm...there is two problems with what you say about the F-35:
a) it is not all that great as an air superiority platform. It lacks the RADAR and air-to-air weapons payload that the F-22 has.
b) it does not exist in HUGE numbers. In fact there are only 28 currently flying: 13 test platforms and 15 evaluation aircraft.

Now what we do have flying the air superiority mission are F-15s. However the F-15C/D ceased production in 1985. The F-15E (multi-role w/strike capabilities) ceased production in the mid-1990s. They are an old platform that is getting to point that it is no longer safe to fly the F-15C/Ds. We need new aircraft that are able to dominate when it comes to air superiority.

At 10/19/09 08:10 PM, Ravariel wrote: We have such a massive air advantage over every country in the world now, even with aging "falling out of the sky" planes, that a modest creep into new designs as we decommission older, frailer planes seems the prudent approach, especially with our current budget woes. UAVs are, as you said, making leaps and bounds of advancement, and may soon overcome the payload and weaponry issues that seem to be their shortfall now. I expect that soon, a majority of our air force will be UAVs, as the technology becomes cheaper, and the benefit both in monetary and human cost becomes more worth it.

I would cut the F-35 because UAVs are proving to be highly competent in that area. Furthermore, the F-35 hasn't made it into production yet...it is still be evaulated. The F-22 on the other hand has entered production.

Furthermore, UAVs are taking over the competencies of the F-16, F/A-18 and A-10...not the F-15 and F-22. That is why the F-35 needs to be eliminated...and the F-22 needs to be funded until UAVs can develop the capability to accomplish the air superiority mission.

At 10/19/09 09:37 PM, hansari wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: So NG I want proof that Beck is lying or a racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RVcbmw9r dQ

He admits the question was "poorly worded"...but any way you look at it, his view summed up as this.

- You are one of many people advocating we "cut-and-run"

I think that was a good point. Why was he favoring pulling out of Iraq? Was it because of what he felt was in the nation's best interest...or his personal beliefs?

- You are a senator

Umm...okay. Not really clear how this is relevant.

- You are muslim

Again...see my answer to "cut and run". I think questioning our elected officials on their motivations (good of nation vs. personal belief structures) is good. In fact I've heard him talk against the Republicans attempts to socially engineer the country through the Christian Religious Right in this country.

Glenn Beck also contradicted himself with regard to his position on healthcare. (its a clip from The Daily Show...)

Didn't get the link...

The only thing one could be favorable about with regard to Glenn Beck is maybe his take on the economy. He's pretty much aligned with Ron Paul...

Agreed.

At 10/19/09 10:03 PM, hansari wrote: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pers onalities/glenn-beck/

I looked at that source and I thought it was rather subjective.

At 10/19/09 07:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:47 PM, jAk88 wrote:

He is an economic libertarian and leads libertarian on quite a few moral issues. Learn the difference.

you are either a libretarian or your not, saying that your libretarian when you only meet half the qualifcations is dishonest.

Just because he uses his show to express his morality...he rarely says the answer is for the government to legislate or solve the problem by codifying morality into law.

Personally I think abortion=murder when used as birth control. But I do not want the government to prohibit it.

Although I have several good friends who are gay, I find two men being intimate with each other to be repulsive. But I am an ardent believer in the right of homosexuals to marry and serve openly in the military.

I am a Christian and I think it is appropriate for "one nation under God" to be in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a Courthouse. However, I disagree with religion being cited in a Judge's ruling.

So yes...you can be what Beck is and say the things he says while being a Libertarian.

At 10/19/09 08:28 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Reperations ...

That is not racist...when Obama himself makes the case. Here is a transcript from his show...specifically what you're talking about:

Barack Obama: "If we have a program, for example..."
Beck: "he had rejected universal healthcare because -- I'am sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough".
Barack Obama: "But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

Obama's a racist ...

I fail to see how that makes Beck a racist. The tape does not speak for itself in saying what you feel it says. Please make an argument.

And yeah, a lot of those things are taken out of context.

I'm not going to make a case that those are taken out of context. These YouTube videos does show the entirity of what Beck said. However, I will say I don't think what he is saying is obviously racist. I think there are people who are saying Glenn Beck is a racist and then shows him talking about race. Now you put that idea into a person's head an then show them a person talking about race (especially someone white talking about someone Black/Latino/Asian)...then you have the listener predisposed to the idea that the person talking is a racist.

I mean he does say (in the reparations tape) that he doesn't care what color his doctor is...just that s/he is competent. They also talk about how the office of civil liberties was designed to ensure that the hiring process is color blind...but that the focus is now on historically disadvantaged groups...and less on qualifications. These are not racist sentiments.

At 10/19/09 05:34 PM, Victory wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: The reason I like Beck is he is a libertarian. I've grown tired of my party (the Republicans) using the Religious Right to become the face of Conservativism.

Too bad Beck is clearly part of the religious right.

Stelyu answered this pretty well. Although I want to add something. I watched that clip and the guy annoyed me. He talked over Beck. Now I don't mind him editing his voice in...but stop Beck...throw up your "pithy" graphic and then talk. Then let Beck speak...then stop him and add your commentary.

Does he believe in God and talk about his religious journey? Yes he does. But being a Libertarian does not mean you are required to be an atheist. Show me where he wants the government to legislate morality or enshrine the Ten Commandments as law.

At 10/19/09 06:03 PM, fatape wrote: I doubt he's a libretarian, seeing as he said that watching porn turn's people into serial killers, or that atheist have cuased a insurgence of crime in america.

And that disqualifies him as a Libertarian...how? I think abortion is the taking of a human life. If a woman gets pregnant and it is an inconvenient time for her to be pregnant (ie: as birth control)...it is murder. Now in cases of life & death medical emergencies, rape or incest I have a slightly different take on this.

However, these are my personal beliefs. My beliefs in regards to how abortion should be legislated in this country are different.

Just because you express your personal religious/moral beliefs does not disqualify you as a Libertarian. If you start saying that Congress or State Legislatures should give religious belief the power of law...then that makes you not a Libertarian.

he seem's much closer to a republican to me, and although I have not read his, book I have seen his show and he dose not back his arguements well on his show.

Can you quantify how much of his show you've seen? Like I've said, I've listened to him since 2001/2 and have watched him since he was on CNN. Economically he is with Ron Paul (hardly a typical Repulican). He has had Jesse Ventura and Ted Nugent on his shows.

Also like I said before, he backs up his commentary much better than I've seen any other commentator (Olbermann, O'Reily, Maddow, Hannity, etc). He doesn't just play a soundbite, but several minutes of the person speaking to provide context. His book Arguing with idiots is fully sourced to media like the New York Times.

HERE

You know I think he does need to throttle back a bit, it makes him an easy target for those who want to cast him in a bad light.

But I've heard that clip before, and where is the "fact checking" of the woman who called? You've got a woman who got on there already combative. Then she makes comments about how "obviously no one in your family has every been seriously sick" (paraphrase). She makes an appeal to emotion argument. Guess what? You can be effected by serious illness (or a family member) and still be against the Democrat's health reform. My grandfather had Alpha-1 Antitripsen (sp?) disease (or disorder). He needed a liver transplant and was hours from death when he got it. Then he had to be on anti-rejection meds for the rest of his life (13 years). It was a very expensive health condition. Oh yeah...we're not Rockefellers or Gates. Grandpa was an auto-worker at Ford.

Then when he tries to explain his position as against reckless spending...she attacks him for being for spending when it came to bail-outs. At this point he has the "meltdown". Why did he get so pissed? During the bail-out and throughout the Bush administration he was against the reckless spending of the Republicans. His position on economics has remained consistent. So you've got a pinhead calling up who obviously does not listen to his show...and thus has very little idea of his political position.

So, in sum fatape...I think Beck needs to throttle back his passionate diatribes. But I don't think he's a racist or many of the other charges people lodge at him.

At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/19/09 05:56 PM, Stelyu wrote: I think a lot of the shit flying towards Beck comes from the fact that he is not a journalist but rather a commentator, something that is usually lost on people.

I don't understand how that supposedly gives his critics less of a right to evaluate the validity of what he says.

You both have a point.
a) Stelyu makes an astute observation in that Beck is a commentator, not a reporter. A reporter has to remove himself from the story. There has to be a neutrality. Their job is to say: "this is how it is". On the other hand a commentator's job is to editorialize...to say: "this is how it oughta be".
b) Bachannalian you make a good counter. Beck is running a line: question with boldness. Whenever someone tells you something...don't take it at face value. I'm from Missouri...don't just tell me something...Show-me. Don't take Beck or Obama at their word...research for yourself if what they are saying is true.

That said, there is a campaign to discredit Fox as not a news organization based upon their commentators. They use commentary to say their reporting is bad...not their reporting.

On an unrelated note, I think the point he was trying to make in that video is that the United States is moving away from morals and not so much that literally only the godless are murderers.

That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.

I think he was saying it was unrelated as a transition from one point to another.

"Is it the fact that just like some of our new money doesn't say now, God is no longer trusted. Instead of God being held up, he's being taken down...etc"

That is the conclusion of his opening statement, identifying what he believes to be the sole means of how we've "arrived at this place."

Our Founding Fathers, to include people like Thomas Jefferson (who most vociferously argued for the seperation of church and state) who did argue for a public morality based upon Judeo-Christian ethics as well as Greek and Roman ethics/philosophies. So to say that there is an errosion of "public morality" is not the same as saying we need to illegalize gay marriage, abortion or codify a Christian equivalent of Sha'ria law as the law of the land.

So until he crosses the line of calling for Congress to legislate morality (across the board and on a regular basis)...he is not a part of the religious right.

At 10/19/09 06:13 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/19/09 06:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: That's not unrelated. That's a reply to a direct refutation of your position that Glenn Beck isn't pandering to the religious right.

Apologies.... the Mason's position.

You're responding to Stelyu's commentary...not mine. So I'd say it is okay to infer that we share the position.

As some of you may know the Dems in Congress and Pres. Obama cut the number of F-22 Raptors that the US Air Force is buying. Obama famously called the F-22 a "Cold War Relic" designed to counter an enemy that no longer exists.

Even Sen. McCain agreed saying the Senate voting not to buy more than 186 was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation."

Now we are focusing on buying the F-35 which will replace the F-16 and A-10. However:
* The newest F-16s were built in 2000 and 2001, while the last F-15C was built in 1985 (F-15Es were built up to 1993 or 95).
* The F-35 lacks the "tanker killer" cannon that the A-10 carries.
* The F-16 only carries four air-to-air missiles while the F-15 carries double that number.
* The F-16 and F-35 has a limited fire control RADAR (FCR).
* The A-10 only carries two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles because it does not have the FCR to use an AMRAAM.
* The F-35 lacks the FCR that the F-22 does.

Furthermore, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are making great leaps and bounds doing the job that the A-10, F-16 and F-35 accomplishes. However, UAVs are not capable in the Air Superiority realm because of FCR and payload limitations.

So with our current air superiority platform (the F-15) rapidly aging and falling out of the sky...is it really smart to cut it's replacement? Why focus on the F-35 when UAVs are rapidly making it obsolete?

What Obama did here is dumb and neglegent in regards to the military.

Okay I've been listening to Beck since about 2001-2002 on the radio. I took a break from 2004-2006 (when I was stationed in Korea) and resumed listening when I came home in April '06.

The reason I like Beck is he is a libertarian. I've grown tired of my party (the Republicans) using the Religious Right to become the face of Conservativism. He railed against Bush's domestic policy. I got the sense from Beck that Bush and McCain, however, were the lesser of two evils.

But I've never heard him say anything remotely racist.

He also does something that ABC, CBS, NBC (to include Cable channels), CNN and FOX rarely does: he shows these people's quotes in context. I was listening to him talking about Anita Dunn and he showed a clip about her claiming her favorite political philosophers were Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa. Now he didn't just show a five second: "My two favorite political philosophers are Mao Tse Tung and Mother Theresa..." soundbite. He showed a few minutes, on both sides of the statement, of what she was saying.

Nor does he make up names for people like Rush and Hannity does.

And yet everynight I go to work at the bookstore, some customers have gotta quip that Arguing with Idiots is funny given that Beck is obviously an idiot. But when you look at the book...he backs up what he says. I can't really respond (other than by not responding) given that I'm an employee. But I gotta wonder if they know what they are talking about...or simply regurgetating what they have heard someone else saying.

So NG I want proof that Beck is lying or a racist. Now obviously I'm not part of the zeitgeist that just knows that this is who he is. Therefore answers like "he just is" does not really elucidate anything other than the respondant's own ignorance.

Substantive answers please. Preferably with links to direct quotes.

At 10/18/09 07:14 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 10/18/09 06:20 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Although it may be a week ago but doesn't this reminds you of "Happy Gilmore"?

I wonder how a ten foot long Alligator gets into such a place and goes unnoticed.

They're pretty common in SC. When I was stationed there my ex and I went to the outlet mall in Myrtle Beach and they had alligators swimming around the ponds behind the outlet mall.

Remember the state pretty much all swampland.

At 10/17/09 05:12 AM, fli wrote: Things wouldn't feel so terrible if I could find a job.
I mean, I got a few jobs... but I'm talking the boring 8 to 5.

I feel your pain fli. Right now I'm working at Barnes & Noble with some slim prospects for management in retail hell. I've got a few prospects as a correctional officer and maybe a full-time substitute teacher or Instructional Aid.

This economy sux.

At 10/16/09 11:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/16/09 09:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I don't know what quesadilla is. Must be a burrito/taco thing.
However, I did laugh at the pic.

A quesadilla is kind of like a fried taco made with a flour torilla and lots of cheese. I like some diced onions, green pepper, and chicken on mine. Although there was this time where I made one just using pepperoni and american cheese, then baked it.

mmmm... pepperoni....

Sometimes I put steak or chicken in mine...

Pepperoni sounds so delicious, but I'm on a diet. A month and a half of leave + Doctor's orders to take easy + all the food I couldn't have in the desert = a little fatter Mason

I think I know what chainmail patterns I'm going to make for my sisters and mother this year for Christmas. Either a scherzo or rhinos snorting drano chain with one of the following pendants on it. These patterns are pretty easy from the looks of it.

You make those? They're awesome.

At 10/15/09 12:42 AM, SevenSeize wrote: I just want to let ya'll know I'm running for president in 2016.

I've thought about running for state office myself here in Missouri. My slogal:

I need a job...please hire me!

I could stand on the side of overpasses holding a sign that says:

Homeless Vet
Will Legislate for Food
God Bless

stafff is my campaign manager and decided my slogan will be, "bacon enforces your greatness".

So vote for me and have bacon.

My bumper stickers will also look like a strip of bacon.

Mmmmm...bacon....*gaaaaaaa* (tongue lolls out of mouth, drool pools on collar).

I'd throw in some bears holding chainsaws fighting hobos but avie might ban me.

Awwww...that sounds like it would fun & sick as hell!

At 10/14/09 02:55 AM, michelinman wrote: You realize that right now in downtown Chicago, there are large groups of men armed with fully automatic assault rifles just waiting, WAITING, for that moment when shit hits the fan and a full scale gang war erupts. Statistics don't mean shit. Just like that other guy said, you're being entirely too by the book here. It isn't the death of a drug dealer who got shot with a 22 when he ripped off some junkie that I'm worried about. It's that tension.

My two main research interests are rogue regimes and, a related topic, feral cities (like Mogadishu, Somalia). The situation you describe is one in which Chicago becomes one of these hellholes.

And while you and amaterasu may think I'm spouting textbook dogma and useless, irrelevant statistics. But be aware that I am applying them to the real world which is of vital importance. You identify a real and growing problem in the US. There are projects in Compton where the police will not go because the gangs have set-up their own rule of law.

Now the problem has been identified, so where do we go from here? How do we know what the next step for public policy makers (and those responsibile for the law's execution and enforcement)?

The simple, common sense, bumper-sticker logic is: gun control. Simply make guns illegal.

But this doesn't work. Watch the History Channel's Gangland program. They've got gang members talking about obtaining guns, and they laugh at gun control. They say the same thing the NRA does: it keeps their victim's disarmed and makes it easier for them to committ crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition on them getting guns doesn't effect them.

Why?

It is a fact that the vast majority of crime is related to the drug trade. Now where do the dealers get their cocaine? Mexico and South America. The smuggling routes are well developed. Drugs, people and weapons can move across one of the world's most porous borders. A case in point is Hugo Chavez.

In 2005 Hugo Chavez ordered 100K AK-103s (a AKM variant) from Russia. AK-103 is chambered in the 7.62x39 instead of the 5.45x39 that most militaries are buying. Why is this significant? This round is favored by the FARC and the American AK market (legal and illegal).

Any idea how large the Venezualan Army is? 30K regular and another 30K reserves. Why the extra 40K? Why chambered in a round that is plentiful to the region's narco-terrorists and the American shooting market? (BTW: Chavez also built a factory to make 7.62x39.)

Chinese fully automatics are also making their way into the gang's arsenals. Not illegally modified weapons...but firearms built for military use.

What this all means for the problem you identified:
Gun control such as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban does NOT stem the flow of arms to the gangs.

Prohibition did not stop people from drinking...in fact it only led to Mafia violence. The same with drugs. If these "wars" did not stop what they targeted...what makes you think the gangs are suddenly going to disarm because it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to buy semi-automatics of guns they are getting that are military-grade from other countries?

It's all a little naive.

Now what public policy-makers can do is tackle those things that have a higher degree of correlation (if not a demonstrated causal effect).

* Education: If we can strengthen programs like Head Start and K-12 in depressed urban (and rural) areas...kids will have other avenues and options than the streets.

* Economic opportunity: Education can lead to this, but education is usefully only if this exists in the same area.

* Diversity: There is a history in this country of treating black Americans as second class citizens. Political scientists have a term for this: Ethno-Linguistic Factionalization (ELF). The higher the factionalization of a society...there is an increased liklihood of violence. While this is a social process and not easily legislated, "mainstreaming" previously second-class, fringe, marginalizied groups such as Blacks and Latinos will stem violence. And especially gang violence.

* Recidivism: When people come out of jail society looks down on them and their options for productive careers is rather limited. This leads to an increased incentive for returning to a criminal lifestyle.

* Prison University: Do you realize there are people who purposefully go to prison so that they can recruit and train new gang members...and expand the franchise?

Now you may be thinking I'm going "by the book" here, but this is the tactical reality of the street.

If you wanted to take out an enemy's supply chain, would you spend your time planning an ambush on a semi transporting toys? That is what things like the AWB and further gun control legislation are doing. Uselessly expending resources on things that will have zero impact on the phenomenon you're predicting.

At 10/15/09 05:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 10/13/09 11:27 AM, TheMason wrote: D2K this does not really argue that gun control works. In fact the links prove otherwise. Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the US...yet some of the most strict gun control laws.

No, it says having a gun is more likely to get you shot - which means that, if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to get shot.

Actually it doesn't really say or proves it at all...the researchers make inferences which are speculations on what the data is saying.

There are also rival alternative hypothesies that have to be evaluated.

Also how do they handle accidents? Of course there are going to be more accidents in the presence of something...hence the car argument.

We have to break what have become socio-economic norms and modes of behavior, not waste time and money on gun control. All that will do is take guns away from people who are not using them in crime and not do anything to stem the flow to law-breakers.

Is it really wasting time and money when - and let me just reiterate - you're less likely to be shot if you don't have a gun?

Yes it is. You have to look at where money, resources and manpower will do the most good. The statistics overall show that more guns means less crime...to include violent crime.

So if the overall rate of people getting shot goes down...something good is happening.

Then there is fact, that has been proven time and time again, that gun control does not reduce crime. Guns are not the cause of crime.

Therefore if you spend the money, resources and time you spend on something that is only very marginally effective on programs that will actually do something about the causes of crime...you do good. However, if you spend the money on gun control...you're not doing anything.

As for the increased chance of getting injured carrying a gun...well duh! Guess what? People who ride in cars are ten times more likely to get injured in a car accident than someone who rides a horse.

Ah, the car argument. Well, guess what? Cars aren't weapons designed to kill, so the majority of people killed by cars isn't related to somebody deliberatly aiming the bonnet of their car at them and putting their foot down. The people killed by guns, on the other hand...

Dude, I brought this up to show that the research question they "answered" doesn't pass the giggle test.

It is really a useless study that does not really tell us anything about gun violence in the US. It doesn't change the fact that socio-economic factors are the underlying cause of crime. It doesn't change the fact that there between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. It doesn't change the fact that crime rates drop when concealed carry goes into effect. It doesn't change the fact that fatal gun accidents are more rare than drowning, falling or walking accidents.

It doesn't tell the pro-gun brigade anything about gun violence, maybe. Then again, nothing ever seems to tell them anything - and they'll shoot you if you argue otherwise (stillo, at least you're not being so literal about it...)

*sigh* The reason it doesn't tell me anything about gun violence is I look beyond the bumper-sticker logic of gun control=less guns.

I also look at the scientific data. Numerous studies have shown that the crime is related to:
* Ethno-Lingustic Factionalization
* Educational level/opportunities
* Income/Economic opportunities

What does not correlate to low crime rates is gun control.

Also look at how many times guns are used, effectively, defensively. Does the phenomenon this study looks at really occurs more often than 800K-2.5M? I'll save you some time...no. What does this mean? Gun control does not work.

Of course, saying more people are killed by cars doesn't do this, nor does the usual "defensive gun use" argument - when the fact is the US has the highest gun murder rate of the First World nations, and the eight highest worldwide per 100,000. Or the fact the US has a very high frequency of mass shootings.

But, y'know, none of that matters...

No it doesn't. Once you normalize the statistics and run the standard deviation, you see that the US does not fall outside of what you would expect for a First World nation.

Then the mass shootings...something that is rather rare in the US (although you wouldn't know it by looking at the media).

At 10/15/09 04:29 AM, ReiperX wrote: Right now my tax rate is about 3% after business deductions (I have my own side business), college, mortgage ect, and I feel bad enough about only paying 3%. But I have to agree that it is not responsible to allow people to get back more than what they pay in.

Why feel bad for paying what you pay? What is the government going to do with the money you earn/generate that you cannot do better yourself?

I don't know what your side business is, but given time what are the chances that you could provide a job to at least one other person? Then your employee or employees will be paying taxes too. Getting the unemployment rate down to 5-7% will be the ultimate sign that the economy has recovered...and the most important thing the government and private citizens can do.

If you want to be socially conscious, what's stopping you? You don't need to give it to the state or federal government to improve education. Donate the money to your local school. There are a myriad of charities that you can donate to...hell they don't always want your money but your time.

At 10/14/09 09:30 PM, DarkBetaStudios wrote: Personally, I think the best way for the Economy to rebound, we should tax the Obsenely rich big time.
Thier interest coming from the insane amounts of money in the banks they own pays for thier obsene spending habits.

You do realize that currently they pay the majority of the income tax, right?

Also when FDR attempted "sin" or "luxury" taxes, the ones that affected only the rich were soon discarded because they did not bring in a significant enough revenue stream to justify their continued existence. However, those excise taxes that disproportionately effected the poor were maintained because they did generate revenue.

Also what about all the jobs that will be lost if the "obsene" (sic) spending habits of the rich are suddenly curtailed? Afterall it is not another rich person who is manufacturing, marketing or otherwise involved in producing those goods the rich are buying.

In the end you're talking about making the economy worse...not better.

At 10/13/09 09:20 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: I'm a liberal arts student majoring in a foreign language, and I plan to be a translator once I graduate from college. I don't understand why I would need to know any math outside of simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in my career choice.

If you decide to continue your education there are several liberal arts that require an understanding of statistics.

Since you're majoring in a foreign language, what are the chances that you'll decide to get a Masters or PhD in International Relations? If you go to a school that only offers a Masters, you might get a qualitative program where you won't need statistics (well one class). But if you get into a research intensive course...then you'll have to take about 9 hours of statistics/methodology courses.

At 10/14/09 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: 2) Do away with the ability to use tax credits to get more back than you put in. This is something that has always bugged the hell out of me. I can see certain people being able to get all of the money paid in income taxes back (although the % needs to be a hell of a lot smaller than it is now).

This would actually accomplish the first thing you want to see. When I was married I had a negative tax rate. Our family income was $20K (my ex-wife was in medical school). Then when I'm single and a grad student making $16K I still had a negative tax rate (-7% to be exact).

While it was all sorts of awesome getting $1,200 (single) to $4,000 (married) back when I only paid $700-1,200 in taxes...it is not socially responsible.

I am all in favor of no one getting more back than they paid in.

Proteas...or you could get the AK-47 of shotguns...

At 10/14/09 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: And if you REALLY want to freak them out, here's something for you;

I can go up to a local pawnshop and get a used Mossberg 500 for about $120.

And you can put this on it...then you'd have a pistol grip and stock.

Plus you don't have to worry about shortening the barrel... :)

At 10/14/09 01:19 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: With taxes, duh. But what kind of taxes?
Mankiw, among others suggests that the budget deficit should be reduced (and reversed) with a creation of the VAT, Value Added Tax, that is to replace all other sources of taxation.
Basically a VAT is like an Income tax, which
1) is flat (same rate for everyone)
2) Taxes consumption, not income.

This was first tried by FDR during the Great Depression, however back then it was called a "sin" or "luxury" tax. It was placed on things such as furs, cars, whiskey, cigarettes, etc. Basically the premise that we'll tax the things that are not needed for human survival.

One of the things that happened is what it was very regressive. Furs, yachts and toys for the rich did not bring in enough revenue to justify their continued enforcement. However, the consumer goods most consumed by the poor were money makers. So things like VAT will dispropoartionately take from the poor.

I find it absolutely laughable how the Democrats spun Bush's tax cuts for the "rich" (actually the rich and the poor). What the sheep who buy into the rhetoric don't understand...is the Democrats will actually raise their tax burden from several different directions.

Ah the American Electorate, quick to anger and quick to sleep.

At 10/14/09 02:06 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

At 10/13/09 11:38 AM, TheMason wrote:

Then you've got the tension of two rising superpowers sharing a long border in Asia: India and China.

Neither of which involve us, but they are more than welcome to buy our planes, like the british bought our planes and tanks in WW2. This is a better alternative than sending troops.

Umm...yes they do.

China hold 2/3 of our bonds...our debt. Their security and stability directly effects our economy.

Its a good thing that we don't have any immenent wars with Russia ahead of us. The cold war is over, we can let the arms race rest a minute. We already spend 60% of the worlds military budget. Can we not say enough is enough?

Russia is not letting it rest. They are developing aircraft to counter the F-22, F-35 and UAVs. If we do not keep up our advantage and loose it, we will never regain it.

Additionally, our airforce would be best served using unmanned attack drones to gain air suppiority. They are infinately cheaper, capable of launching AA missles and you don't risk a life inside them.

*sigh* Their air-to-air capability is very limited, they lack fire-control RADAR which is necessary to being an air superiority platform. The best they can do is carry heat-seeker missiles that are short range and only good for self-defense. Don't make the mistake of thinking self-defense and air superiority are the same thing.

And the china Debt thing is bull (that's not to say that it isn't true), its just that they can't do anything about it. China is in massive debt itself to the tune of 60%of its GDP. Its economy is even more frail than ours and if they called in their debt, they would trigger a global recall in which Europe would cripple them. It is in no bodies interest call debt right now. Not in Europes, not in China's, not in ours.

China doesn't care about Europe or the US. They often act irrationally in international relations if it means maintaining domestic stability. If they think it would pacify any current or future domestic dissent, they would call debt in a minute.

There is no reason to prepare for WW3, if we stockpile now it will be obsolete when it arrives

It is not just about stockpiling. Our F-15 is becoming too old and expensive to fly. It needs to be replaced. If we cut the F-22 too much, there will be a hole in our defense.

At 10/14/09 02:55 AM, michelinman wrote: Semi automatic M4's and AK47s can be modded to be fully automatic with only 10 minutes work. This is the "illegal modifications" you're talking about. So in that sense, 1994 was an attempt at doing the right thing.

While it is true that it is easy to illegally convert a clone to full-auto, there are two questions you don't answer:
1) Full-auto is difficult to control and a waste of ammo. That is why the military stopped buying full-auto and switched to burst fire.
2) Why is it the right thing? These weapons are not a scourge like the media portrays. They are used so rarely that it is statistically correct to say they are used in zero percent of the time.

Why waste the time and manpower to regulate them when the money can go to areas that will reduce crime more effectively?

........ Army infantryman..... Before I even read this, I can tell you right now, there's no way in fuck I'd deploy with a 22 caliber pistol over an M4. When you watch a man die 400 meters away simply from pulling your finger, then you can explain to me what "effective" is. (You realize that pistols aren't accurate at long distances right?)

Yes I know you're Army...it was in your profile. I'm Air Force (you know, the first branch to adopt the M-16). I'm also a hunter, collector and have shot competitively.

We're not talking about deploying so your point here is irrelevent. We're talking about crime not war. We are not talking about using a firearm at 400m, but rather close quarters such as a home, bank or 7/11.

Besides, when you deploy with a M-4 or M-16 you're essentially deploying with a .22.

It's hard to tell what their intent was because those guys were such COMPLETE DUMBASSES. From a tactical standpoint, ...

Not really. This wasn't the first time they robbed a bank. They were sociopaths who had killed before and were not afraid to kill again.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info on M4 rounds being armor piercing. If you're talking about military 7.62 rounds, those are different than the round the AK uses. They're almost twice as long. Just the same width. As for 5.56 and stub 7.62, you're not gonna see "armor piercing capabilites." The bolts in those small of assault rifles wouldn't provide enough power to take AP rounds to their full potential anyways. The M4 and AK rely on a tumbling effect for their lethality, and if you don't know what I mean by that, you should probably go ahead and hop on google.

I assume you're talking about hydrostatic shock), the theory that small bullets about the size of a .22 (like the 5.56) will cause more damage than larger and slower rounds (such as the 7.62x39).

But here's what I meant by armor piercing: I understand that a M-4 is not going to penetrate a T-72's sides. However, the Full Metal Jacket (you realize this is a type of projectile...not a Stanley Kubrik movie?) is a highly penetrative round that does have some armor piercing ability.

This makes these rounds less lethal. Entry and exit wounds are about the same size and the bullet travels a relatively linear path. However, hunting rounds and hollowpoints mushroom and either stay within the body cavity or explode out of the person's back. Now many militaries are starting to produce rounds that are frangible and will fragment or tumble on impact.

But the fact remains that FMJ military ammo is typically less lethal than hunting or self-defense rounds.

Wow. You really just compared a combat situation to a guy walking around popping people in the head from 5 feet away. It's a little bit easier to shoot people when you're not worrying about that whole, they're shooting back thing. Just saying.

Umm...I'm talking about crime, not combat. So your point is rather irrelevent.

I disagree on both points. M4's look like toys. They're pretty fucking lame to be honest. And as for the crime percentage, it's because most crime is small time. Small time criminals walk around with 50 dollar 22 pistols. If you get caught with a fully automatic weapon, you're going to be in A LOT more shit than if you have a 22. Most small time criminals aren't willing to take that chance. It's the big fish that are the ones that worry me.

Well on the point about the psychological component of assault rifle design you're just plain wrong. When the M-16 (remember the M-4 is a M-16 variant) was first introduced in combat against the Vietcong there was a definative psychological impact on the enemy. If you read about weapon design you will see that there is a definite psychological component to the aesthetics of a firearm.

As for the small time criminals it is NOT federal firearms charges that is the deterent. It is the fact that assault rifles, and rifles in general, are not conducive to committing a crime. You cannot conceal them as easily as a handgun. In the confines of a 7/11 they are too unweildy. This is why 70-75% of crime involves a handgun and 17-22% involves a shotgun (oft sawed off).

The tactical situation involved in crime is different from the tactical environment of combat.

Not a scourge no, but with great power comes great responsibility. A responsibility that I think would be taken advantage of, as everything is in the United States. For fucks sake, people sue here over spilling coffee on themselves.

Uh, Dude, these firearms have been legal for a very long time. Whatever it is you're talking about here hasn't happened. You are arguing against a figment of the imagination.

You realize that right now in downtown Chicago, there are large groups of men armed with fully automatic assault rifles just waiting, WAITING, for that moment when shit hits the fan and a full scale gang war erupts. Statistics don't mean shit. Just like that other guy said, you're being entirely too by the book here. It isn't the death of a drug dealer who got shot with a 22 when he ripped off some junkie that I'm worried about. It's that tension.

Yeah and guess what, they don't get those weapons by going to the local gun store and going through a federal background check. The source of those illegal firearms are through the black market. Something that is not addressed or even effected by things like the 1994 AWB.

So no I am not going by the book here, but rather by the reality of the situation.

All news sensationalizes every story. That's the way corporate America works. That doesn't mean that they are completely making shit up though.

No they do not make up the individual story. However, they do magnify the scope of the phenomenon. For example I was watching Nancy Grace talk about an armed robbery and they showed the tape. One of the guys was armed with a shotgun, and she called it an assault rifle. Now I know guns and call the difference, but to a layman they would agree that the guy was carrying an assault rifle.

I'm surprised this is the first time you've brought up shotguns. All the capabilities of a hand gun except better. The only thing it sucks on is range.

Handguns are the most popular for what the core topic is.

Thus from a public safety perspective I'd prefer bank robbers to use a M-4...less serious casualties.

Again. Look up tumbling.

I would suggest you learn a little more about ballistics yourself. Even with fangible bullets, FMJ rounds are less effective than hunting or self-defense rounds or shotgun shells.

And what, no comment about your Chief Justice's opinon piece?

At 10/13/09 09:50 AM, amaterasu wrote:

At 10/12/09 10:14 AM, TheMason wrote: If you are in your house and someone breaks in you retreat to your bedroom and lock the door. One does NOT go hunting for the perp. You get your gun and call 911. If they touch your door you yell: "I've got a gun!" and chamber a round so the person knows you're telling the truth.

Now, if they are not planning on hurting you they will leave. If they keep trying to get through then they mean you harm. At this point by attempting to gain access to you, it can reasonably be assumed that they are meaning to do you harm.

Your textbook answer is pretty good, but what do you do if you have kids or other people living with you, and they are elsewhere in the house? How do you know the robber will try one of their rooms first and not even find you? The law is the law, you can only shoot if you feel they are threatening your life. But as far as I'm concerned, if some mother fucker steps foot in your house, they left their right to life at the doorstep.

I've actually had to use this "textbook" answer twice. Both times I was able to get my family (ex-wife & daughter) safely into the bedroom. Often you actually have time to round up your family; you and your spouse go to the kid's room(s) and barricade there.

Yes there is variation depending on family composition and home layout, but the central point remains: you do not actively seek out the intruder. That greatly increases the odds of you getting hurt. Let insurance pay for your TV, but don't let a stupid machismo driven need to be the hero cost you your life.

It covers your ass physically and legally.

At 10/12/09 07:29 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 10/12/09 04:32 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/12/09 04:24 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: IThe 9-11 hijackers smuggled guns onto the planes.

Actually it was box-cutters and fake bombs.

actually there's been survalence tapes that show one of the hijackers having a gun in his back pocket.

Really, I'd like to see a link because all of the evidence points to the fact that they used knives and fake bombs.

See these guys were smart and they knew our system:
a) before 9/11 aircrews were taught to be passive in the face of hijacking. Never before had hijackers been initially suicidal. If they were on board they were there to try and get someone freed or some other political demand met.
b) a gun is a poor weapon choice when you want to take over a plane. Planes are pressurized so that humans can survive and be comfortable at altitude. A stray bullet through the fuselage would, in the worst case, cause the airplane to explosively decompress.
c) security screeners were on the look-out for guns...things like leathermen and box cutters were deemed not a threat.

IF one of the hijackers would have had a gun that was spotted by security...they would've been detained.

But if you can find a link that goes against the historical record (that is credible) I'd like to see it.

At 10/13/09 11:30 AM, Proteas wrote: *looks around*

Mason took all the fun out of this topic for me. :-(

Sorry... :-/

I'll try and leave some for you next time.

Oh well, I might as well point out one thing he didn't; The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the wording of the Second Amendment to say that it respects the rights of the individual to keep an abre arms, militias be dammned. So all these arguments about wording of the 2nd amendment and the intent of the authors to mean something that holds no sway in today's society are for naught, because the amdendment in question has been reaffirmed for today's society.

See...I saved something for you! Interestingly, I remember reading that the attorney arguing for the DC gun ban saying the second amendment specifically protected military arms...not hunting arms.

At 10/12/09 07:02 PM, Patton3 wrote: Woops. you see, I was going to write it there, and then copy it into a post like this, but ah well. Just thought I'd explain that. As well, I take it you have military experience? Probably as a mechanic judging from the references made in your post? Or do you work for an aeronautics company that frequently lands military contracts?

Before my current careerfield as a 1C571 in the Air National Guard, I was a 2A352 Avionics Technician on the F-16 for six years on active duty. My responsibilities included Fire Control RADAR, IFF/SIF radios as well as weapons systems.

I have no connection with any defense contractor.

As for assertion that building new F-15s would be cheaper, are you sure about that? A new build F-15K (for the S. Korean Air Force) costs $100 million. A new build F-22 costs $143 million. There is only a $43 million difference. This is mitigated by the increased capability of the F-22.

The F-15 is not a stealthy aircraft while the F-22 is which means in an air superiority fight the Raptor is simply more survivable than the Eagle.

The F-22 can see further than the F-15 which means that it can take out a potential threat earlier, which in turn increases its survivability.

What survivability means is by going cheap we may be left with a $100 million pile of scrap instead of a $143 million advanced fighter. That's huge cost savings. Oh...and then there's the fact that the F-22 has supercruise engines which means it is more fuel efficient than the F-15 (an operational savings).

All around this was a poor decision by the Obama administration justified by rhetoric...not military reality.

I'm a fan of history as well. That is where the lesson of "don't prepare for the next war by preparing for the last" comes from. Each war is different. The next war very well could be between conventional foes. If and when we need more F-22s, we will not be able to build them fast enough.

It also send the wrong message to the various powers in Asia that they will be able to achieve parity with the US. The millenia old tension between China, Japan and Korea is still there. The only thing keeping a lid on that tension from turning into WWIII is the US' ability to project power into Japan and Korea. This keeps Japan from militarizing (a major factor in sustaining regional peace) in that their defense is provided by the US...therefore they get the luxury of being pacifists.

Korea is Japan's traditional speed bump into China. The US presence on the penninsula as well as in Japan provides a security policy for both Korea and China.

Rather than promoting peace...Obama's F-22 decision could lead to more tensions if not an all-out shooting war.