Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/08 06:15 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I don't have Adobe. Just tell me what it says about what percentage of Assault Weapons are used in Murder attempts, I will take your word on it.

1) Rifle attempts of all types inclusive of assault rifles is less than 1%.
2) Quote: A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun.

If you where planning a drive-by, you wouldn't think and UZI a good choice? I mean, you know, your a murderous gangster, dont account for Automatics' tendency to hit bystanders.

If it were me, no. I would not use spray & pray. However, the gangstas who do drive-bys don't know/care about being effective. However, if you ban assault rifle clones you're going to get smuggled AK-47s from South America...often times the real deal instead of semi-auto "clones".

Individual instances don't equal up. You cant measure the shooters general accuracy, nor the vantage point; VT was point blank range, and 30 died because the proper authorities fucked up.

Yes you can make comparisons. First of all, the argument about the police's mistake is irrelevent. They had no reason to suspect that a massive school shooting was on the way. They had a much more likely suspect.

The points are:

1) The bullet type matters; the typical handgun ammo is much more lethal than military ammo.
2) Spray and pray is incredibly inefficient and usually results in less instead of more deaths.

1) Spray & Pray is uncontrollable and cause the shooter's bullets to go high after the first three rounds.

Yet the Military still uses Automatic rifles. Theres a REASON the Russian Army uses an AK over a Mosin-Nagant; in terms of plain ol' killings, they reign supreme.

Not true at all.
1) Militaries across the world are moving away from full auto to burst. Burst is a compromise in that you can get up to 3 rounds fired per trigger pull while still maintaining somewhat passable accuracy.
2) In terms of killing they do not reign supreme. Read the book Blackhawk Down and think of all the led that was flying. 19/100 Americans dead. 500-1,500 Somalies out of an unknown number. Rangers reported hitting the enemy five or six times with their 5.56mm (.223) M-16 round and the enemy still got up and returned fire. Furthermore, most of the American deaths were the results of helicopter crashes and RPG attacks...not AK-47 fire.

I disagree. We currently have restrictions on full automatic weapons that I think are reasonable.

Like?

Obtaining a Class III firearms license which involves an in-depth background check that is rather costly. Furthermore, to legally buy a full-auto firearm the cost is exceptionally prohibitive. For example a AK-47 semi-auto "clone" costs about $400. A fully auto/military version (the real thing) would cost at least $2,000. Then there is to cost of ammo is also exceptionally expensive. In short; these firearms have a reasonable level of restriction and are rarely used in crime...if ever.

As for the bayonet and grenade launcher; these are cosmetic only. The amount of bayonetings are incredibly rare...it is just a knife on a gun.

A knife can cut butter, carve wood, etc. Theres ONE PRACTICAL USE for a bayonet; stabbing people.

So what reason is there to ban them? Is there a trend of using them against people? Do they pose a realistic threat to the public good? Is their use in crime epidemic...or at least quantifiable? No. There is no rational or logical reason to have them banned.

I'm SURE that if someone knows how to obtain a black market Grenade Launcher, they know how to find a black market grenade of the design that gets launched from a grenade launcher.

Sorry, this argument is irrelevant because we're not talking about blackmarket Grenade launchers but rather legal products. The argument is also irrelevant because there is no widespread use of grenade launchers in crime. There is no real threat to the public welfare.

... This is like a legislature outlawing spoilers and racing stripes to enforce the speed limit.

It cannot be adequetly said, however, that when misused (E.G during a race) spoilers increase the danger of the race itself. It CAN be said, however, that during an assault, a grenade launcher w/ grenades increases the danger of the gun.

The point is that there is no statistical evidence to support your assumption that bayonets or grenade launchers make firearms like the Yugoslavian SKS shown below (with bayonet and grenade launcher) increases the "danger" of this firearm which has been legal to purchase since the sunsetting of the so-called 1994 Assault Rifle "ban".

The allegory (and reality) is that the banning of assault rifles, bayonets and grenade launchers are as effective at reducing murders as banning spoilers and racing stripes would be at reducing speeding on public roads not NASCAR.

(BTW: you lost your point when you talked about races...totally missing the point.)

At 2/9/08 10:06 PM, stafffighter wrote: I accounted for this. Whyw ould they even have to use firepower? Why not just contaminate the water supply, cut off power and other resources, or use some unsanctioned biological element? There are innumerable options avialiable to them that are not represented by your example.

One of the lessons that fighting insurgencies has taught the US military is that such heavy handed tactics by the government often produces counter-productive results because those tactics only produce more anti-government sentiment. This result while possibly effective in the short term would hasten the government's demise. Secondly the US doesn't have that kindof biological element and if we did the use would mostly likely blowback by infecting the very people who ordered the infection.

At 2/9/08 07:16 PM, Togukawa wrote: Oh seriously. What are you going to do against bombers, fighter jets, nuclear subs, tanks and heck even just trained soldiers with proper equipment with petty guns, even if it are assault rifles? Guns or no guns, you don't stand a chance against a modern well equipped army.

1) You overestimate the effectiveness of those platforms against an armed insurgency. Those weapons are useless against non-modern tactics such a guerilla war (which really is not all that cowardly when differentiated from suicide bombers). While an AK-47 nest would not effectively defend against a B-2 or F-16...these platforms would not be able to effectively target rednecks in the woods with rifles.

2) You forget that a great number of these people would have either military training themselves and/or have been hunting/farming/scouting the land around their communities for all of their lives. This would be a challenge for any invading force no matter how well equiped or trained.

At 2/9/08 10:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 2/9/08 09:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

Any figures specifically about Assault Rifle usage in murder attempts?

Personally, I don't support curbing firearms to limit all crime, I ONLY look at murder; I think that if you remove a guys ability to Rob 7/11 at gunpoint, he'll just mug somewhat at knife point

Admittedly this is getting old, however it shows that when the 1994 ban went into place it was not targeting the guns used in crime. This also addresses the issue of concealablity, something that would not change. Look I'm proficient with several types of firearms including the AK-47 and UZI. If I were doing a pre-planned murder it would be with anything BUT those firearms.

Also, if you ban civilian sale of guns then the robber is just going to get armed via gun smuggling across the border. Oh wait...the war drugs is SOOO successful at curbing the flow of narcotics...

The issue being that some people heavily aligned with the right are in favor of NO gun control, meaning that those full metal jackets could be fired in fully automatic mode; very unnecessary for hunting.

Those people are not the ones making the law. Furthermore, fully automatic mode would actually be safer. I know it sounds counter-intuitive (that is why the anti-gun crowd is so effective...their lies just feel right), but if you look at the Stockton Massacre of the late eighties and the VT Massacre last year you see the same number of rounds fired (+/- less than ten). In Stockton the guy fired an AK-47 with full metal jacket rounds in a spray & pray manner. In VT one guy fired two pistols...one with hollow points or soft core bullets. In the spray & pray about five people (sickenly they were five year olds) died. In VT this number was over 30. Two differences:

1) Spray & Pray is uncontrollable and cause the shooter's bullets to go high after the first three rounds.

2) Even with the rapid fire, several full metal jacket rounds are less of a death sentence than a single hollow point, jacketed hollow point or other type of hunting/self-defense round.

I say ban assault rifles, but WILDLY change how we define it; we make having any ONE of a list of things qualify it as an assault weapon, with the list consisting of the most heavy of the current list of qualities; full automatic mode, bayonet, grenade launcher, etc.

I disagree. We currently have restrictions on full automatic weapons that I think are reasonable.

As for the bayonet and grenade launcher; these are cosmetic only. The amount of bayonetings are incredibly rare...it is just a knife on a gun. Grenade launchers are just attachments on the end of the barrel that in order to fire a grenade one has to 1) obtain a soviet style grenade and 2) obtain soviet style grenade adapters. In short; you cannot find these things. There is no market, not even in the black market. These restrictions quite simply do not meet the test of "will this make any difference. This is like a legislature outlawing spoilers and racing stripes to enforce the speed limit.

At 2/9/08 09:50 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 2/9/08 09:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

While the second two have been argued to death I have to bring up the third, which is completly useless in the modern sense. The Taliban is not going to storm our beaches and a couple of assualt rifles would mean nothing about the resources our own government would throw at you.

With all due respect staff, we lost in Vietnam and "a couple of assault rifles" are highly problematic in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Case in point: in the early days of OIF a group of 32 Apache attack helicopters were advancing on an Iraqi Republican Guard stronghold. As the fleet approached they noticed the lights of the city flicker off and then quickly back on. This was the signal that unleashed a barrage of AK-47 fire. The effect was the assault was turned around; two of our advanced gunships with their awesome firepower sustained enough damage that they were forced down in the middle of desert.

Sorry, but an armed citizenry can still be effective against the firepower our own government can turn against us.

At 2/9/08 07:02 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 2/9/08 06:59 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: But who gets to decide that? Wouldn't, by the act of the government deciding it, go against the current stated ammendment?

The government has already done stuff like that for hallow-point ammo ("cop killers") and automatics, not that civies needed them for hunting or self-defense. That kind of weaponry should be reserved for law enforcement and the military.

Again Keith you show how little you know about this subject. Note; I'm not calling you stupid. You express yourself well which is an indication you're probably smart.

However, no one knows everything about everything and there are holes in all of our knowledge. When it comes to guns, being a life long hunter, competitive shooter and member of the military I qualify as an expert. On the other hand you appear to not know the first thing about this subject.

1) Hollow points are legal for civilians to buy. These are standard loads for hunting and self-defense. There was a controversy:

Controversy
The ammunition was targeted by those opposed to handguns,[5] and the reputation was very different in the public,[6]and eventually the Talons became to be known by the moniker "Cop-Killer" bullets.[7] The hype of the Black Talon ammunition was the black coating on the bullets themselves. There were false rumors that the bullets were armor piercing and could penetrate vests.[8][9] The reality of the issue at the time was for doctors and medical personnel who had to remove the bullets. Once expanded the tips had sharp barb like tips to shred the area around the bullet. These sharp points were reputedly causing cuts to the hands and fingers of the medical workers and exposing them to greater risk of infection, [1] however there are no documented reports of this actually happening.[10]

In 1996 a lawsuit was filed (McCarth v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 916 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y., 1996) claiming that Olin Corp should be liable for a shooting spree based on the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of Black Talon ammunition. The claims were dismissed against Olin because it was held that the bullets were not defectively designed.[11]

Winchester bowed to pressure and in 1993 removed the ammunition from public sale for a time,[12] and eventually law enforcement also bowed to the pressure.

Current status
Winchester voluntarily pulled the ammunition from the market completely in 2000. The "Ranger SXT" ammunition sold today by Winchester is essentially the same ammunition without the black Lubalox coating on the bullet. Among shooters, the running joke is that SXT stands for "Same eXact Thing."

2) What do you mean when you say "automatics"? Full-auto, burst or semi-auto? Not that this really matters because you would be wrong for all types. A civilian may purchase a full-auto or burst gun if they buy a special license. However, this is expensive and is the result of an extensive background check. Furthermore, to buy a full-auto version of a semi-auto gun adds several thousand dollars to the cost. There is no justification required under the law, just that one get licensed, pass the background check and pay the fees.

Secondly, the semi-auto assault rifle "clones" that were "banned" by the failed 1994 assault rifle ban are now legal to buy since the law sunseted in 2004. The reason I say the law was a failure was that it was still legal to buy semi-automatic AR-15s, UZIs, AK-47s, Mini-14s, etc under this law. How so? The law allowed firearms that accepted high capacity magazines as long as they did not have pistol grips, bayonet lugs, or a grenade launcher. (These so-called grenade launchers were cosmetic in that all they could fire were flares.) While the law banned specific guns by name, this was easily gotten around by refering to the AK-47 as a MAK-90 (the Chinese designation) or CAR-15. Finally, the law only banned the sale of newly manufactured high capacity (10+ round) magazines. This was pointless because the market was flooded by surplus military mags of all sizes. For example the price of a 30round AK-47 mag jumped from about $6.00 to an astounding $8.00.

3) Your claim that "automatics" are not suited for hunting is another sign of ignorance. It is perfectly legal to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle as long as the hunter is not using a magazine that holds more than five rounds. As stated previously, the AK-47's 7.62x39 round when firing a hollow point or other soft core bullet is powerful enough to take down a deer with one shot, yet it is not powerful enough to pose a threat or danger to unintended targets if the hunter misses.

Sorry Keith, but you made three claims and like a pitcher's perfect inning in baseball: three up and three down...all three of your claims are shown to be false.

At 2/9/08 11:02 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: Now, I'm not going to argue with one's right to own a handgun for self-defense, or a hunting rifle. If you need a gun to feel safe or for sport, go ahead. However, there are just some weapons that civilians don't need to carry, like assault rifles.

Keith,

We've been over this; if you make comments like this it betrays your ignorance both on guns and the Constitution.

FACT: Handguns are used in 72% of firearms crime. Shotguns in 17% and rifles of all types are used in less than 1% of crime.
FACT: Assault rifles are ill-suited to crime because they are not concealable; require two hands to use (making armed robbery problematic) and are heavy. This is supported by a DoJ study (which I have posted ad nauseum) in which many gangmember admit to owning an AK-47 or UZI; but less than 1 in 10 have used them in criminal acts because they suck in such a situation.
FACT: What makes a firearm truly dangerous is the type of round it fires. A military round (full metal jacket) does not have the killing characteristics of a hunting round, shotgun shell or handgun round. In terms of power, an assault rifle round is somewhere between that of a handgun and the lower powered deer rifles. An AK-47 or M-16 round is just powerful enough when firing a projectile designed for hunting to take down a deer without having the power to travel too far making it less likely to hit something you did not intend to hit. Thus in some hunting situations it is safer to hunt deer with an AK-47 than it is to hunt with a "deer" rifle.

Assault rifles pose no serious threat to the public welfare and therefore it is encumbent upon people like you to prove that there is a compelling reason to ban them other than they are scary looking and I've been LIED TO and told they are ONLY good for killing people.

The reasons the founders made the Second Amendment were, in order:

1) As a hedge against government tyranny (either invaders or domestic).
2) Home defense.
3) Hunting.

At 2/9/08 08:53 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 2/8/08 12:47 AM, highwatermark wrote:

However, in armed man vs. you with a concealed gun, you have the element of surprise. They'll always have a gun; the question is whether you'll carry one, too.

Yeah, but it's still a better chance of you surviving with no guns playing a part at all.

That's an unrealistic worldview; by banning guns you will not be getting guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals. Our border is exceptionally porous which means that people, drugs and yes guns are easily smuggled across it. All a gun ban would do is take guns our of the hands of people who for the most part are not predisposed to comitting crime.

At 2/9/08 12:16 AM, RobSoko315 wrote: I personally think McCain is crazy for wanting to rewrite the Constitution to fit the bible.
I myself an Catholic, and a good Catholic person (in my opinion) should be respectful of other peoples' religion therefore keeping separation of church and state as is.

McCain, Romney, Guilianni...NONE OF THESE REPUBLICANS SAID THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIT THE BIBLE!!!!

IT WAS THAT MORON HUCKABEE!!!!

At 2/8/08 11:46 PM, bobomajo wrote: Yet when ANOTHER massacre shooting occurs in America people give dumbarse reasoning like, guns don't kill people people kill people, or gun restrictions will only give power to the criminals. I'm sure when your founding fathers put together their constitution they weren't intending their countrymen going out and massacring their own countrymen, I think the picture they had in mind when writing the 2nd amendment was if an imperial power (reminding that this was written back when empires were present) wanted to grasp some more land from a presently weak developing nation (this was America back then), then at least their own nation would stand a fighting chance if every citizen could arm themselves with whatever they could. America is no longer in need for its citizens to arm themselves to deter other countries from invading, thats where most of your taxes go.

1) Most of our taxes go to Social Security.
2) Our founding fathers meant for use to have arms as a check upon foreign enemies and domestic abuses of power by our government. When one is sworn into any office or the military there is a line about protecting the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
3) We are not so ready to give up Constitutional rights based upon emotive reasons using singular examples.

Really all the pro gun reasoning just seams to translate to "I'm going blame everything BUT the guns for the damage guns do, (yeah hopefully that should change the subject, oh those fucking liberals will never take my guns away, I love shooting shit too much to give up my gun)."

First of all, there is no gun control reasoning since their arguments has time and again proven false. Things such as eductation and poverty are the reasons we have an epidemic of gang violence in this country. If we do not tackle that problem then we will never reduce violence in this country. Now you may say banning guns will reduce the impact, however we do not have a secure border with Mexico which means that the so-called drug war (which we are loosing) is easily spilling North of the border. Now since gangs are involved with the drug cartels, there will always be channels for these firearms to find their way onto the streets.

In short, you Australians who get on here and say we're talking bollocks simply do not know what you are talking about and have no conceptualization of our history and the nature of crime in America.

At 2/8/08 12:01 PM, Transkar wrote: Why don't you look up the lone survivor. It's about 4 navy seals in afghanistan who stumble upon goat herders. They knew they should of killed them because it was a secret mission and these guys could go tell taliban. But because they were afraid of being thrown in jail because of the liberal media and their actions they let them go. An hour later they were swarmed by Taliban and only one of them survived.

Transkar,

It is not just "liberal media" but the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC). As Americans we fight differently from the Taliban and al-Qaida.

But here's the other thing; if they were detected by goat herders then they fucked up. They were careless and got detected, something they are trained not to do. So then the question comes, why should they shoot an unarmed father and son for their fuck up?

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all show that Luttrell's bloodlust (while understandable) and heavy-handed tactics work against US forces and just inspire goat herders, etc to work against us instead of for us. He said it himself; he had been roughing up villagers, wanted to inflict double the 9/11 victim count and had probably killed family members of the villagers who ended up rescuing him.

At 2/8/08 08:14 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 2/8/08 12:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/8/08 11:12 AM, TheMason wrote: Every commander has a JAG

*shudder*

i've been avoiding this topic because i'm sure its safe to assume its a shit fest but some points i think i saw;
technology, personnel and training cannot determine the best army individually its a combination of factors.
but why do we need this thread and what the hell is it supposed to prove?

"my cocks bigger!" "well my cock is more high-tech!" "well i know how to use my cock!" who gives a fuck?
and no i will not read any previous pages.

I totally agree with everything you say. It's true, you can't just decide "I have a better military." There are just too many factors. I can't believe 11 pages were filled with people who think it's possible to simply put a military on a scale and read how "good" it is.

In reality I belong in your guy's camp on this one. I avoided posting until late in the topic because it just looked like a flame war waiting to happen. I decided to post to correct some errors and point out when people just glaringly did not know what they are talking about.

Technology, training, professionalism, equipment, and investment are all signs of military strength. However, each country retains its individual strengths and weaknesses and there is no way to answer this question without every country mentioned fighting a battle with another country. All of what has been said does not matter until the boots are on the ground.

I have a Canadian classmate whom I'm good friends with and he's about my rank except he's in the Canadian army. I poke fun of the CF around him, and we give each other shit. But that does not mean there is not mutual respect between us because at the end of the day we are just two servicemen. The funny thing is, there is no difference in him being Canadian from my fellow USAF Airmen.

At 2/7/08 10:26 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: Is this backing, fighting, or half-backing my point? From what I can tell, you feel that Christianity contributed to our formation, but was thrown in with other historic sources - which I woud assume would be half-backing.

It would be half-backing. To say that America was totally founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs or that the nation's founding was totally devoid of Judeo-Christian beliefs are equally wrong propositions. Christianity was just one of several intellectual influences upon the founding; no more or less important than the other influences.

And as for the Declaration of Independence I am sure that I read a while back someone who felt that deism did not enter the Declaration at all. May want to speak with him.

Fact: Thomas Jefferson was introduced to a Deistic view of Christianity while in college.
Fact: Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Fact: Thomas Jefferson used Deistic language such as the Creator and Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence.

That person either a) doesn't what they are talking about or b) is in denial.

At 2/8/08 09:39 AM, valium9 wrote: USA puts more money into warfare, but their troops are not very professional, like most other nation's troops

Basis? In fact our military is perhaps one of the most professional in the world. Everything we do is done with an eye towards following what is commonly known as "international law". Every commander has a JAG (lawyer) advising him on such issues.

Furthermore, if it had not been for the professionalism instilled in us servicemen no one would have ever known about the abuses at Abu Gharib because it was a soldier (not Amnesty or the press) who turned in the pictures that got those people arrested.

Finally, if there is an incident where unprofessional conduct is suspected a courts martial is conviened or some other board of inquiry.

Ah...I love it when ppl say things they either 1) don't understand what it is they are saying or 2) have no concept of that upon which they speak.

At 2/7/08 08:01 PM, arcansi wrote: Ok its as simple as this.
What guns are already banned?

Fact Check

-Sub Machine guns, Machine Guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry of any kind

Sub Machine guns: Banned ONLY if they are fully-automatic; but there are no special regulation for semi-auto (one bullet per trigger pull).
Machine Guns: See above.
High Powered Rifles: Not banned at all. These are your typical hunting rifles. You can even get Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. Although you gotta be rich because they start at $2,000.
GI Weaponry: See above; you can buy an AK-47 or M-16 as long as they are semi-auto and cannot fire full-auto or burst (typically 3 bullets per trigger pull).

At 2/7/08 06:22 PM, Brian wrote:

America's political system:
Free Elections/Universal Sufferage: This we have and is usually inclusive of universal sufferage by those minimalists who exclude universal sufferage as a criteria. America has a very unrestrictive voter registration system that allows any citizen, non-felon who is above 18 to vote. Criteria met

I agree with all of this, but I still say that we don't have the representation that is accurate or deserved of our education. Criteria not met. We are pretending to vote for the president and we are not electing our leaders. Criteria NOT met.

You are in no way arguing against me or proved me wrong. What you're talking about is the voting system, not the above mentioned characteristic. Race, religion, education level, wealth or gender are not things that will keep you from voting. The only legal discrimination is age and criminal record. What you are arguing is against the voting system...not the nature of the election.

Criteria met

Fair: The rules are known to everyone. Every person who casts a ballot has their ballot counted the same as someone more or less wealthy and/or educated than they. Criteria met

To elect the electorate, by law, yes. But in practice there are still great injustices on the poor of America. Also, not all absentee baltos are counted. Criteria NOT met.

The injustices are not that great. Election law makes it incredibly easy to register and then vote. If anything these "injustices" have to do with other social problems such as education in America. Therefore this is not a criticism of the electoral system and fails to show a failure to meet the minimalist definition. Criteria met.

Competitive/Multi-party: Everyone is allowed access to media and get their messages out and form political parties/organizations. In 1994 and 2006 the Congressional opposition party won election and power was transferred peacefully. We have never had a president refuse to transfer power. Criteria met

Not entirely accurate. We have a two party system and those two parties have done their best to not allow a third party in, or more. ...

Again Criteria NOT met.

To be democratic and meet the criteria is to ensure access to media, ability to form, etc. However, what is not ensured is the right to be successful. There are many theories on why third parties struggle in the US. And some of it has to do with the progressive reforms that promoted laws that created things like the 15% threshold. However, we still have more than one party and there is a peaceful transition of power when the opposition wins in an election.

Therefore: Criteria met

In some of these systems, known as Parliamentary systems, the executive head of government is unelected. ...

I don't agree that they are democracies. ... Again, you are pointing out states that are worse off. That doesn't mean that our system is ok. ...

You're agreement is not necessary. They (as well as the US system) are classified as democracies by people who have studied these questions all of their adult life. This is what I hate about political science; if someone brings up questions about global warming who are not "hard" scientists (ie: physics, chemistry, etc) are ridiculed for going against the consensus. However, people will jump on the bandwagon of any ideologue and then argue with a political science consensus...

As for the other systems being "worse off"...I wouldn't say that either. Many in this country think that these systems produce better government. I personally and professionally disagree with that.

At 2/7/08 06:42 PM, Brian wrote:

At 2/7/08 06:38 PM, Memorize wrote: I like how Brian is attempting to defend his topic with minor technicalities.

They aren't minor when the technicalities can swing entire elections.

The thing is that while you are totally free to say the system is not democratic, you'd be wrong since the consensus of political scientists who study democracy agree that the minimalist definition is "free, fair and competitive multi-party elections". There is no system of voting specified.

Now you may be asking what the maximalist definitions has to say; they are silent. What the maximalists (which I am one) look at are things like socio-economic factors, access to education and civil liberties.

Afterall, how can you have a truly competitive elections if you do not have freedom of speech or of the press? Furthermore, how can you cast an informed vote if you're illiterate and uneducated?

Again...little or no discussion of a voting system. And what discussion there is usually revolves around a bias towards PR and parliamentarianism where the parties, not the people, decide the leaders.

I'm sorry, but I don't think superdelegates is that much of a threat to democracy and/or makes the system significantly undemocratic.

At 2/7/08 10:06 AM, ToothBrushMan wrote: So its understood that a seperation of church and state was important to the founding fathers, but what was the main religion back in the day?

Deism is not incompatable with Christianity. Furthermore, Jefferson was clearly a Deist when he wrote the Declaration of Independence when he used such terms as "creator" and "God of Nature"; these are Deist concepts (especailly at the time). Was the Judeo-Christian tradition part of the philosophical roots of our government? Unequivocably yes, however it was only part of it. Greek and Roman philosophy and their models of republicanism (not to be confused with the Republican party) and representative democracy also factored in.

In short the criteria "good Christian man" was probably a criteria...but not the criteria. However, I don't think Huckabee's brand of evangelicalism would sit well with T. Jefferson.

At 2/7/08 04:54 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/6/08 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

I'm a jack of all trades, and coming from my psych experience, sometimes a "cigar is just a cigar". I don't think the question is difficult to answer, and Romney certainly didn't answer it in any way acceptable for a future President.

I'm a jack of all trades myself my friend and drawing upon my theology experience, Biblical history and own internal faith...I think I would've stumbled like Romney and that was one moment I don't think he was pre-fabricated. I spent awhile thinking about the "simple question" and 24 hours later I'm still not sure how I could answer that question in 30-60 seconds. And I don't think I'm a stupid, uneducated individual.

At 2/7/08 05:50 PM, Al6200 wrote: Definitely. I see Richardson or Biden being the democrat frontrunner in 2012, assuming McCain wins. I speculate that people will be looking for a very concrete and energy-conscious president at that point, and Richardson fits the bill.

If it is Obama who looses the election I'd agree with you. If Obama does NOT get the nomination and Hillary looses the election, then the 2012 nominee will be Obama.

assuming the Dems get it.

I wouldn't assume that at all.

When I use the "a-word" I'm using it in the hypothetical sense. The 2008 presidential election will be decided in November and so far it does not look like conventional wisdom is holding on any front. The popular view (especially looking at CNN's viewer mail since Romney's 2012 announcement speech) is that the Dems are going to win. I'm not so sure that they will. Furthermore, even if they do win it will not be an easy victory for them.

At 2/7/08 05:46 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 2/7/08 03:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Nothing is going according to whatever script the media's political pundits go by so I would not be surprised by a McCain/Romney ticket. However, I think Romney is actually in a good position to be the frontrunner in 2012 assuming the Dems get it.

Who is the likely VP? I think it's the Huckster...

That probably will not be known until the convention. And God I hope it is not Huckabee. Had he been the nominee...I highly doubt I could have voted for him. I honestly prefer Hillary or Obama to him. That said, if he would be a heartbeat away and considering how the VP has become an integral part of the administration (Gore & Cheney)...I wonder if I could vote McCain/Huckabee.

This is bad news for the Dems because it means McCain can start to coast during the Primary and build up a General election war chest while Hillary and Obama dwindle each other's financial resources.

At 2/7/08 05:18 PM, Imperator wrote: Unfortunately the only mistake I saw (er, see?) in their system was allowing it to change.....

Yes, the only real reason I'm for scrapping the Electoral College is that it has been tinkered with enough to the point that it no longer works as intended.

At 2/7/08 03:52 PM, KupaMan wrote: Super-delegates annoy me. What the people say don't so much matter anymore, because the super-delegates can flop a wide victory to the other person. It also seems easily corruptible.

Again, a lack of understanding what a representative democracy is. The founders had two problems: 1) The tyranny and problems with governmental authority and 2) the tyranny and problems with the will of the people. What we have now is a check and balance that keeps the appropriate amount of systemic tension between these two contradictory values.

In other systems this tension is resolved by having parliamentary or proportional representation which allow for minority parties to have more power...but the people do not have the right to vote for the individual people who will take those positions. Where we have the opposite; we have a system that outside of the Presidency the people get to pick the individuals the party will run and even in the parties the superdelegates are such a small percentage that the nomination is rarely in doubt.

Nothing is going according to whatever script the media's political pundits go by so I would not be surprised by a McCain/Romney ticket. However, I think Romney is actually in a good position to be the frontrunner in 2012 assuming the Dems get it.

At 2/7/08 12:22 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/7/08 12:13 PM, Transkar wrote: We have better technology accociated with our troops, we spendhundreds of thousands of dollars to maybe train one man.

I can hardly believe your recruits are so poorly set up that it costs that much to whip 'em into shape... I'm not surprised though, anyone who can't do anything else starts at the bottom of the military.
When your marks are that low & your background is poverty, it probably looks good.
But officer training looks like where the real future is.

Okay, this is proof you don't really know what you're talking about. We spend so much on training because tank driving, F-16 engine maintenance, fighter avionics maintenance, infantry manuevers are not really anything you find in the civilian sector.

You see we're not just talking about physical fitness, the cost of "whipping 'em into shape" is not that expensive. It is the cost of giving recruits job training in speciality skills that may or may not available in the civilian sector.

I mean, satellite operation (an enlisted AND officer specialty) is not exactly a subject taught in high schools and the VAST majority of colleges. I mean I guess someone could take nursing and mechanics in HS and Jr College vocational programs, but that just gives them an edge.

To make this argument really does display an ignorance of what you're trying to speak of.

At 2/7/08 12:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Ok I'll admit it, The U.S. has a bigger Navy ,Airforce & Army than we do... isn't nearly as good as we are man for man , BUT it is definately Bigger !

I really wouldn't compare the Canadian with the US military man for man. I'm an E-5 in the USAF and one of my classmates is an E-4 in the Canadian forces (Army type...artillery). We have, man for man, better resources and better training. Man for man, we simply invest more into our military than you do which does produce better soldiers.

At 2/7/08 01:21 PM, Brian wrote: America isn't even a democracy. We don't go by popular vote. We have an electoral college who does all the real voting.

First of all, the minimalist definition of a democracy is: free, fair, multi-party competitive elections. Some of these minimalist definitions include universal adult sufferage.

America's political system:
Free Elections/Universal Sufferage: This we have and is usually inclusive of universal sufferage by those minimalists who exclude universal sufferage as a criteria. America has a very unrestrictive voter registration system that allows any citizen, non-felon who is above 18 to vote. Criteria met

Fair: The rules are known to everyone. Every person who casts a ballot has their ballot counted the same as someone more or less wealthy and/or educated than they. Criteria met

Competitive/Multi-party: Everyone is allowed access to media and get their messages out and form political parties/organizations. In 1994 and 2006 the Congressional opposition party won election and power was transferred peacefully. We have never had a president refuse to transfer power. Criteria met

Our system is democratic. Sure it is not the Athenian, ideal type where everything is decided by everyone getting a vote...but the ideal type would be mass chaos. However, even the electoral college is an example of representative democracy. In most democratic parties the choice is not about individuals but parties to much larger degree than in the US. I'm not talking about some developing, third world democracy but established Western democracies that are common in Europe.

Democracy just means the presence of elections, not a specific voting system.

In PR systems your voting on a slate of candidates determined by party elites. So you as a voter has less say on which individuals will be holding office than in the US. Our primary system is overwhelmingly open to everyone whether you are in the party or not you can still have a say in one of the parties' selection process of the individual competing for elected office.

In some of these systems, known as Parliamentary systems, the executive head of government is unelected. Imagine the 2000 election under this system. The Republicans won congress and then they appoint Bush without a presidential election. In short, under these systems the individual voters do not get a say in who they want but rather what party they want this person to be from. And again, I'm not talking about N. Korea but places like France and the UK. And guess what? These systems meet the democratic criteria.

I'm not disagree with you, America sucks when it comes to voting. Its better than some other countries, but that doesn't mean its any better than suck.

America's voting system is the worst system, except for all the others. Nothing is perfect and every election system out there has their problems that someone under that system (who does not know what a democracy is) could say that that system is undemocratic. There are undemocratic elements in every system...the thing with the US system is I think we've got a good balance.

Here's some of the different type of voting systems:
Condorcet Criteria
Borda CountSNTV
Plurality voting

There is also the debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether or not if in this amendment the term "people" refers to individuals or the individual states. Odd that this individual vs state debate is only confined to this amendment and yet everywhere else this term used it is accepted as refering to an individual right...

But anyway an interesting section from Wikipedia's bio of T. Jefferson:

Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "Commonplace Book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

At 2/6/08 10:43 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote:

At 2/6/08 10:38 PM, Elfer wrote: Ah, so the country was founded on Christian principles, with the exception of the founding fathers who didn't intend that it be founded that way.

I see.

Jefferson's ideals changed dramatically from his founding to after his time in France. That quote was from later in his tenure.

No, Jefferson like several of the other founding fathers were Deists who believed in God but in a rational/scientific way that arose during the Enlightenment. Rather than believing that the Bible was literal fact they viewed it as a more allegorical history of the Jewish people. Furthermore, rather than believe that God was directly involved in our daily lives (like the Puritans) people like Jefferson believed that God created the world but imbued it with free will and stepped back to watch the show and if He does intervene it is rarely.

So both sides are wrong. The founding fathers saw utility in a public religion and the Judeo-Christian ethic. However, they also understood that religion is a private affair between an individual and their faith...something the government has no business in.

At 2/6/08 10:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Total US forces in Vietnam: 8,744,000

FACT CHECK
This many Americans did not fight and/or deploy to Vietnam. This is the total number of Vietnam era soldiers which means this is how many people who cycled in an out of the military during the conflict. Now just because you served in the military during this time does not mean you deployed to Vietnam.

My grandfather was in the USAF and was frozen at Beale AFB, CA working on the tankers that refueled the SR-71. The USAF would not allow him to transfer to another base to work at a depot in theater fixing B-52s damaged in Vietnam...so he retired.

My HS best friend's dad got drafted into the USMC. However, an orders mix-up kept him in California. The problem was not corrected until 6 weeks before his enlistment was up and despite pressure from his NCOs...he did not re-enlist.

One of my best USAF friend's mom's boyfriend (only in Missouri, right?) served in the Army during Vietnam but was stationed in Germany.

Why did I write this? Because these men are considered Vietnam era veterans and yet never went to Vietnam. So it is wrong to conflate how people served in the military in total with how many people deployed to Vietnam. This number comes to about 2.6 Million and you have to remember, that for the span of the entire conflict. I doubt that boots on the ground at any one time was significantly higher than 500,000.

At 2/6/08 06:06 PM, Imperator wrote: Odd.....

Everyone here had a bad night, no sleep, etc.....

Meanwhile I got 12 hours last night (6pm to 6am)......

Coincidence, or does Fate always try to find such equilibriums in the world?

YOU DECIDE!

I couldn't sleep either, tossed and turned for awhile. No storms though...

Anyway is there some sort of NG insomniacs IRC or other type of chat?

Also sometimes when I cannot sleep I write Star Wars fan fiction...(my guilty geek admission)...

Glad everyone Southeast of here is alright after last night's storm...

At 2/6/08 06:03 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/6/08 05:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

~So, do you believe every word?

"uh...you know...I...yeah, I believe it's the word of God....."

That to me spells NUT or Idiot. Either way, I see him handling the simplest question like a freakin trained monkey, instead of someone who's running for an office where brainpower is required.

'Cmon my friend, you're a humanities major...quite often it is the questions that seem most simple are the hardest to answer. That is a tricky question that I'd stumble over because that question in a yes or no format can be easily manipulated by either the Left, Right or both and so it is a trick question especially for someone who is Mormon or Catholic and has grown-up hearing their faith attacked by both Evangelicals and anti-religious people.

To me, Huckabee dodged the question by using the terms inspired and revelations.

Sorry, but I actually agree with the person who asked the question; it really did tell me everything I needed to know about him.......

I think the person asking the question was just simply trying to set up as many Republicans as he could by asking a question that does not lend itself to a yes or no question.