Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military. I'm better asking Richard Jewel about 2 man tactics than I am reading a military TM, which provides the history and theory as well as the tactics.

Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong. The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.

Contrary to your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem, the source is usually the best way to get information. Not always, but military doctrine and principles are very well documented and available to every soldier that wants to go read. Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.

Lastly, before you go another round of pathetic fallacy, learn what "one of many" means and then reread the post.

Your troll does not make sense. If ball ammo has longer range how the fuck can this possibly relate to close quarters combat? Fuck you are stupid.

The Geneva convention explicitly restricts the use of a serrated blades in combat. It has nothing to do with sticking in enemies, sorry.

From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).

I'm happy to share knowledge and ideas with you, but we should set terms and ensure that we are discussing the same subject. I posted this due to someone presenting a false military doctrine. If we attempt to merge military and law enforcement doctrines we end up with conflicting ideology in the same generalization because the goals are not compatible. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that you are trying to merge the two hence. I have concern in continuing dialogue.

Prior to typing next time, join the Military or ask a Veteran. The military taught us in boot camp why it was selected over a heavier round. Tumbling rounds are able to travel a farther distance than a hollow point round, and hold more energy at a longer distance. In two sentences you managed to fabricate two fairy tales. What an outstanding example of a moron you are, no wonder you post anonymously.

One of the primary reasons that the US Military went with a 5.56mm round instead of the standard 7.62mm is because it does not kill, it wounds people more often. Military Philosophy is that if you wound an enemy, it takes 3 soldiers out of commission and demoralizes them. The wounded soldier, a medic, and someone to carry the guy to the medic. Killing someone only takes 1 person out of commission, and will often make enrage their companions.

The convention against certain types of weapons had nothing to do with not wounding someone, it had to do with humane ways of wounding and killing people. This is why it's perfectly fine to stab someone with a smooth bayonet but you can not stab someone with a serrated bayonet, even though death from serrated bayonet was more likely. You can stitch up a wound from one pretty easily, the other is going to leave a big mess that probably won't be closable..

The type of behavior that a "tax" attempts to modify does not matter. Study history and economics. Taxes do not work, and have never worked in any history or economics system as an attempt to modify behavior. Those types of taxes only harm consumers (see slavery and force toll roads)

Or don't and continue to believe in some fantasy world that does not exist. You can believe in your fantasy, but that does not make it real and should not be expressed falsely as any reality.

A Pigovian tax is a subset of taxes claiming it will modify a specific behavior. You somehow believe that it will work, even though taxes have never changed any other subset of bad/immoral business behavior. In general terms, your pigovian tax is no different than a slavery tax and would bring the same result. No end of bad behavior, just higher cost to consumers and increased revenue for the people that own the companies behaving badly.

As stated, taxes are not enforced regulation. Historical attempts to use taxes as enforced regulations have all failed.

Pt. 1. Al Gore started preaching exactly what Agenda 21 is. If you don't see the relevance then you are really not looking.

Pt. 2. Al Gore received a Nobel prize for his position on both Global Warming and Carbon Taxes. As with above, if you don't see the relevance you are not trying.

What you need to prove the claim I quoted and disapprove of. You claimed, and I'll add incorrectly, that VR corrects all of the other problems with media as an education platform. This would be easily proved if it was true, but the fact is that VR is going to add about as much as TV to education.

No, you can't move the goal post to technology that is not here. The TFA is not a concept based on future technology, it's about current technology and false claims.

What? So taxing slavery is what ended slavery? Taxing voting unbiased the voting system? Come on now, I'm not a lunatic that believes nobody should be taxed but your assertion is provably wrong.

I believe you are trying to equate "Enforced Regulation" with "Tax" where no equality can exist.

That is one of the most idiotic replies I have ever received. You sir are trolling, and inventing statements never made to troll with.

Where did I ever say any of these things were an "Al Gore" idea or restrict carbon tax to the same? Hint: Never happened.

You bring up some interesting points, but those points don't change the facts I brought up about Al Gore.

Probably because instead of asking for my opinion you provide your own. You can read my post history, I'm anything but partisan on just about every subject. False dilemmas don't really address problems, they merely cover them up.

Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming", and even received the Nobel Peace prize for his peddling (not surprising, Obama won it for merely speaking an opinion).

Yes, we need to change how we interact with the Earth and there are some real problems. Pollution is a real problem, long term energy without fossil fuels is a problem, and I could co on. A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.