Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:100 more will die today (Score 2) 1719

by Stormshadow (#42317347) Attached to: Adam Lanza Destroyed His Computer Before Rampage

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams

Comment: Re:And yet... (Score 1) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42313889) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Tanks have to stop and refuel sometimes. Folks got to get out and piss eventually. Like any other armored vehicle, there also may or may not be certain weak points a rifleman could take advantage of, if only he knew they were there. Treads break. They break even easier when you know how to do it. A mobility kill makes a tank an expensive metal lined coffin.

  US armor doctrine has always used tanks to support infantry because a lone tank surrounded by infantry is extremely vulnerable. It's not a mobile impenetrable fortress.

Comment: Re:And yet... (Score 1) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42313401) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

And yet 10k Iraqi insurgents kept 150k US troops busy in Iraq for almost a decade, killing and wounding ~40k US soldiers in the process. The Iraqi insurgency faced tanks, air strikes, drones, et. al. They also did it using subpar weapons.

    If you stop for a moment and consider that there are 90M US gun owners, were some hypothetical situation occur where it became .mil vs the populace... if only 1% of the gun owners actually fought, you'd have 900k insurgents. While one could argue the effectiveness of a US-based insurgency, most folks I've talked to agreed that even if you set the bar low and assumed a US-based insurgency was no more effective than the Iraqis, despite our history of being able to shoot, despite our resourcefulness, despite the fact that the insurgency would be sitting on top of the supply lines for the .mil in a manner the IRQ insurgency never could... and despite the fact that were such an event to occur, you would necessarily see .mil desertion rates, either to the other side or folks who would just refuse and sit it out... but if you assume a 4:1 ratio as IRQ managed, then in 9 years, the US-based insurgency, being no more effective than the IRQ one, would have killed or wounded 3.6M US troops.

  Thing is, we don't have 3.6M troops. The totality of the US.mil is less than a third of that, so you are looking at literally every last man and woman in the .mil being killed or wounded in less than 3 years. When you account for the fact that many, many of our troops are support troops and not intended for direct combat, the number of actual door kickers drops to somewhere around 300k-400k, which is roughly a third of the total number available... It's not unfair to assume that the door kicking folks would be used on the front line and would suffer casualties first before the support guys were used, but at a 4:1 ratio, you're looking at running out of door kickers in less than a year...

    Do you think that there wouldn't be attacks on the supply side of things? That the support guys would be able to hold the US insurgency to 4:1? Or better yet, start factoring in combat effectiveness. As a unit loses troops, their cohesiveness suffers to the point where generally the .mil considers a unit at or below half strength to be combat ineffective... which means all line units become combat ineffective at 6 months.

  This scenario does not account for any more than 1% of US gun owners fighting, nor does it account for the fact that a hypothetical US-based insurgency will loot equipment, and is likely to consist of veterans capable of using such equipment with little to no additional training, to include rocket launchers (SMAW, Javelin), anti-air capability, machine guns, tanks, etc, etc. It also doesn't account for defection or actions taken by either side that sway the public to or from their positions, potentially swelling the ranks of the insurgency or causing it to wane. Similarly, this doesn't account for decapitating strikes by either side; though given the nature of an insurgency to act as a hydra, it would not be unfair to assume that adding this to the scenario would necessarily alter the balance in favor of the insurgents.

  As you can see by this simple numbers game, it is not a foregone conclusion that the US.mil will win. In fact, it's highly likely, even if starting from bolt-actions and semi-automatic weapons, that a US-based insurgency with nominally popular support will outlast the .mil were both sides to "slug it out" in a fashion similar to the tactics used in Iraq, provided both sides had the willpower to do so.

  Please note, this post is neither an exhaustive study in military science, nor are the numbers terribly authoritative; this was purely a hypothetical intended to get folks thinking about the numbers behind it in an effort to highlight that perhaps some of our assumptions may not be as solid/accurate as we think.

Comment: Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42307947) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

How does something like this get modded insightful? There's nothing insightful about it. The subject he was replying to was dealing with allowing teachers to CCW and poster gives a herp-derp knee jerk response that has nothing to do with either refuting or supporting the idea and is only tangentially related to the subject at all.

  Insightful could have been, depending on your point of view, something like: "Well, I don't know if I'm comfortable with that, I don't trust most teachers without going through some sort of process", not the drivel posted.

 

Comment: No really, somebody's got to say it. (Score 2) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42307021) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Funny, Bruce... for someone with as many intellectual accomplishments as you have, how is it exactly that you missed the fact that you're advocating taking away someone else's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Explain to me how depriving each and every one of your countrymen of a right endowed upon them by their Creator based solely on the actions of a person who clearly stepped beyond the boundaries of the social contract does not constitute blatant hypocrisy?

    I have the same right to Life as everyone else here, including you, does. Derived from that right is the right of self-defense against all entities who transgress against us in proportion to the severity of that transgression. Should someone attempt to use lethal force against me, I am morally and ethically permitted to use the same in response: Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back! As a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, for you to exercise prior restraint against me, to deprive me of the ability to defend myself in a proportional manner to the threat, you are directly violating my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You are also purposefully giving the transgressing party an advantage they would not possess were I to have the Liberty to arm myself accordingly and as such are setting up the situation where the transgressing party is far more likely to kill me.

  So, by advocating unjust prior restraint, you are:
1. violating the right to life
2. violating the right to liberty
3. violating the right to pursuit of happiness
4. violating the right to due process
5. aiding/abetting the initiation of force/use of violence against an innocent party
6. aiding/abetting the murder of an innocent party

  So, in light of 1-6, can you explain to me how your actions, were they to become more than simple words, do not constitute a transgression against every person who is subject to your whims? Do you know what's ultimately sad about this? The crazy sonofabitch who shot up that school was crazy; presumably you aren't.

      Last I checked, we're supposed to respect each other's rights, not stomp on them in an emotion-driven tit-for-tat to soothe our own bruised egos. You're supposed to be smarter than this, Bruce. It's not rocket surgery.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42306943) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Meanwhile, 90 million other gun owners killed nobody that day or any other day for that matter. Guess it makes perfect sense to punish everyone for the actions of one crazy person. One might want to consider the wisdom or lack thereof when getting ready to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Comment: Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

by Stormshadow (#42306861) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Actually one person *DID* whip his piece out after taking cover. The CCWer properly held his fire because there were innocents behind his target. Supposedly the shooter saw the CCWer and elected to retreat instead of engaging.

Most folks who do that kinda thing are consummate cowards, why else do you think they off themselves before the police show up?

Comment: Re:Whose trust is being violated here? (Score 1) 847

Sorry, but if I lived in an active war zone, was driving to work, and came across a bunch of freshly made corpses and one non-uniformed wounded guy flopping about, I'm not so sure I'd endanger my own children by stopping... especially considering it wasn't hard to tell which side was which based on appearance and equipment.

  Also, given the various other tactics used by AQI and their umbrella affiliates, to include tactics expressly forbidden by the Geneva convention, and their blatant, constant attempts to manipulate public opinion via media deception... well, they're kinda proven repeat offenders in the liar department. You'll have to pardon me if I take what's said with a grain of salt.

As for your request for citation, it doesn't matter which one of us is right in regards to #2, they made themselves a legal target (See #3). As far as actually producing the citation, the last time I spent any thought on this incident was 2+ years ago, and being the lazy guy I am, unless you reaaaaaaly want me to go digging, I'm disinclined to do so ;) Especially for a single point of disputed information made moot by another point of law.

Comment: Re:Whose trust is being violated here? (Score 2) 847

The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.

Yep. All fine and dandy until you realize a few things like:

1. The video was edited to remove context. Assange admitted this much.
2. The van with the kids was observed dropping off armed insurgents prior to the scene in the original wikileaks video thus making it a legitimate target.
3. Under the Law of Armed Conflict, aiding combatants makes you a combatant.
4. AQI SOP was to pick up weapons to stage fake 'civilian' massacres to use as recruiting tools.
5. Reporters were required to have specific types of markings on them to make sure air units could recognize them. These guys weren't wearing them.
6. Hanging around with guys toting AKs and RPGs in an active warzone where the other side has air support orbiting your position is not a smart idea.
7. In fact, hanging around with armed combatants makes you a legitimate target under the Law of Armed Conflict.

Given #2 through #4, the van was a legitimate target and was serviced appropriately. Given #4 through 7, the "reporters" had made themselves into legitimate targets, either knowingly or through their own negligence. It sucks for their friends/families; but play stupid games, win stupid prizes, good shoot.

Comment: Re:According to Volokh, this is a molehill, not a (Score 2, Insightful) 430

by Stormshadow (#25855731) Attached to: After Columbine, Eric Holder Advocated Internet "Restrictions"

As you alluded to, "well-regulated" at the time meant something that functioned well; however, something you seem to have forgotten is how militias function.

  In a professional standing military, you can afford to take in any Tom, Dick, and Harry that can't shoot, and you can afford to throw ammo at them until they don't suck. In a militia, you don't have that luxury. You get what you get, and there isn't much funding for training, much less actual equipment, as most militia are banded together for an emergency post-haste with equipment on-hand.

  Position 1) The right is necessary in light of training requirements.

  If the people can't shoot, how much use are they in a militia? You can only have so many cooks and back to carry a load. Clearly then, without a citizenry capable of practicing skill at arms on their own time and dime, the likelyhood of raising a functioning militia on short notice is dismally slim. Lastly, if you were to pull together a militia of people who grew up scared that their uncle's .45 was going to jump up and start shooting children, nuns, and their puppy at any moment, I'm fairly certain that such a force would break upon first contact due to lack of nerve and inflict minimal casualties anyone other than themselves due to lack of training. This is one of the reasons for the 'well-regulated' clause.

  Position 2) The right is necessary in light of logistical requirements.

  In short, the logistics of maintaining an effective short-notice militia are a nightmare. As stated previously, militias were usually called up in rediculously quick order with whatever they had on hand. In the vast majority of areas, there were no armories were everything was stored, short of a place for their cannon, if they had one, which was usually privately owned as well. (gasp) Instead, everyone brought what they had at home. Hard to muster an effective militia if you have no weapons.

  Also, I'd take issue with your idea of what a militia is or is not. Technically, if one were to attribute gun-ownership to everyone in the military, by definition then, it would be a vast number of unrelated gun-owners, though I do believe you meant related more like organizationally related as opposed to genetically related.

  In that case, your case still fails:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1 > Chapter 13 Â 311 Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    According to current US law, the unorganized militia consists of everyone who is a citizen from 18 to 45, gun-owner or not. Somehow I don't think you were aware of this, much less the fact that you are technically obligated as a militia member the moment you reach the age of majority. Kinda puts a different spin on the draft, eh?

  Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-gun variety like to throw out the National Guard as being the militia, seeing as the Federal Government aborbed state militias into the National Guard in the 1800s; however, if one paid close attention to the founding documents, the militia at the time were all run by the states. The National Guard is run like the bastard stepchildren of the US Army, a Federal organization. Seeing as the militia at the time were state-based, how could the National Guard possibly be what the founders envisioned? Keep in mind that the National Guard did not exist until 1903, over a hundred years after the Constitution was written.

  I'm sorry if your lack of knowledge of both the functioning of a military unit, US law, or your closely held political beliefs got in the way of the truth; try again, this time without the blinders on.

Comment: Re:According to Volokh, this is a molehill, not a (Score 1) 430

by Stormshadow (#25854795) Attached to: After Columbine, Eric Holder Advocated Internet "Restrictions"

Changed the English language, eh?

  Hardly.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Look at the clauses:
Clause 1: A well-regulated Militia
Clause 2: being necessary to the security of a free State
Clause 3: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Clause 4: shall not be infringed.

Clause 1 is used as noun, clause 2 as an adjective modifying section 1.

Clause 3 is being used as a noun, and acts as the subject.

Clause 4 is the predicate to section 3.

  The first two clauses together are referred to as the justifying clause.

  Keep in mind the use of well-regulated at the time, which meant "well functioning" not "Holy crap, add moar red tape!"

  Also, keep in mind that the Bill of Rights, as written, lists entirely individual rights, which would make sense, seeing as the Bill of Rights was written to calm down the anti-Federalists who would be pretty upset at how powerful the current Federal government is compared to the states.

So, in shorthand using section #s for brevity:

(1 modded by 2) justifying 3 and 4.

There's really no way you could possibly try to misconstrue it to any different and maintain any level of intellectual honesty... I mean, seriously, without any editing, do you think ((1-2)-3), 4 makes any sense at all?

  To pound the point a little further, simple word substitution makes it pretty obvious:

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the self-governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

  Can you look at that and with honestly tell me that substitution doesn't mean that people should be able to own any book they wish?

    Or rather, would you try to tell me that surely there should be reasonable restrictions to that as well?

  Perhaps we should restrict people's access to books with unnessisarily large amounts of words in them like anti-2nd amendment types want to factory capacity magazines? Factory cap mags? Yes, factory cap mags. They only become high-capacity magazines when you compare them to the anemic 3/5/7/10 shot magazines less gunfriendly states impose on their people.

    Or perhaps, ban the ones with pointy edges because someone might get hurt, like bayonet lugs were on the ban list in 94. Bayonet lugs. Seriously. Has anyone ever heard of a drive-by bayonetting? If the whole idea was crime prevention, when was the last time you heard of someone getting bayonetted in the news?

Or maybe just the ones with really big multisyllabic words like some people want to ban firearms over a certain size? Like somehow someone could reliably shoot down aircraft with a .50cal rifle. My favorite was seeing an interview with some anti-gun type from the Brady campaign insisting that people could knock down a 747 with a single shot from a .50cal. I'm pretty certain they were the kind of person who believes Kennedy was killed with a single bullet too.

  Maybe we should ban book series, like they banned automatic weapons? But only the one written after 1986. Every other one, you can own if you write a $200 check to the Dept. of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Books... which enables you to own shorter books (short barrel shotguns/rifles), some books with objectionable content and/or really big words (destructive devices), soft book covers to keep the book from banging around (silencers) and things that just might not be a book at all but it kinda looks like one ("Any other weapon).

    Or clearly, we should ban only the books that get straight to the point with little fuss (real assault-type weapons), but unfortunately in the process of doing so, only ban the ones with scary covers that remind us of those mentioned previously (what the '94 AWB did instead)?

  I think perhaps some people need a good civics lesson so they can find out what the Founding Fathers really intended for this country, and then they should be left alone in a dark room for a bit so they can let it sink in just how far we've strayed from the path the founders collectively wanted for us.

  It saddens me that so many are so willing to discard their rights for so pathetically little reason. And once those rights are gone; they're gone. If you can't devise some way to get them back quickly, you'll likely never see them again. Why? Because future generations will grow up never having that right in the first place, and never understanding why it was important in the first place. After all, they grew up just fine, yes?

  Don't get me wrong, we've done many, many good things, many mighty things, but those first 10 Amendments were things so dear to the founders of this country, that they were etched into the very Constitution it stands on, the very constitution I swore to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic almost a decade ago, but the logic used to strip so many people of so much of what God has given them sickens me. The fact that so many fail to notice this happening is sad, but worse yet are those that roll over and bleat harder for the government to take more because someone/something offends them, or because something frightens them and they're not willing to do anything about it themselves or they never learned the real definition of tolerance.

    So few people seem to realize that according to the framers of the Constitution, your rights came from God, not the US Government. If that's the case, under whose authority does the Government strip you of your recognized rights?

  I'm sure many will try to come up with some childish or inane attempt at something witty to explain away what I said, or just plain insult me... do as you wish; those of you who wish to learn need to start comprehending instead of just reading... and then wake up the sheep around you to the reality of what has happened.

If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.

Working...