The most common rifle round is NOT the 5.56. By FAR it is the .22. Seeing as how you were most likely referring to military rounds, you're still dead wrong; it's the 7.62 NATO. The last I read there were over 100 million ak47's in the world.

Body armor can stop the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 round with ceramic plates. I have been hit with a 7.62 round and while it left a huge black and blue spot on my back, knocked me down, and knocked the wind out of me, the vest did it's job and I am here today telling you that you're wrong.

Your sizes are just way off for rounds. the 9mm is 9mm across (duh, a$$hat) and the 5.56 isn't 24, it's 22.3mm (that's why we call it the .223)

Movies and games do not understate the range on grenades at all. the "lethal" radius of a grenade is 5m, but the effective stopping range is about 20-25m.

And lastly, most of the killing from artillery rounds is not done by fragmentation. There just isn't that much metal in an artillery shell. The majority of the destruction is done when the shell explodes and throws everything that's close to it 50 feet farther away. You're much more likely to be killed by a car door than a shell fragment in an artillery strike.

Nope. Grenades have about 20m worth of killing in them. Sure, it's possible you could get a random fragment through your neck 50 yards away, but from that distance I wouldn't even worry about covering my man sausage from the blast.

Unless you're in confined quarters (room, foxhole, vehicle) grenades aren't that much of a threat. Hell, we just awarded the MoH to a soldier who had one blow up less than two feet from his hand and all he lost was the hand. (that incident was clearly the exception, not the rule; but it shows us that grenades are a lot less lethal than most civilians assume.)

No, I didn't get a reach around. I got my legs shattered and my knees destroyed when my helicopter was shot down.

Most of the civilians I saw dead over there had AK-47's in their hands when they died...

I highly doubt we will see an Iranian revolution any time soon. At least not until the next election, which will most likely end up the same way the last one did where the ruling party clearly cheated and the people protest. THEN we will see an Iranian revolution. But that is years away.

Bahrain, I couldn't tell you one way or the other. I don't know enough about their country to say.

Saudia Arabia on the other hand it is very likely; and that will not be a good thing for fuel prices throughout the world. The Saudis control enough of the world's oil that whichever side controls the oil will get the help. The Saudi king could behead babies and rape virgins on worldwide television, but as long as he holds the keys to the oil, no western country will dare stand up to him. It just won't happen...

As far as who will fill the power vacuum, you're probably right. It will most likely be someone who is just as bad as the last guy. In that part of the world; where education is minimal, tribal leaders are more powerful than the government in many cases, and tensions among tribes is high; it takes a very strong (IE: ruling with an iron fist) to keep a country from tearing itself apart.

Look at what happened in Iraq after Hussein. As soon as he was gone the country ripped itself into three and each side declared war on the others for control of the nation. Sunis and Shiites do not get along. Not ever. They have fought for a thousand years. Theey will most likely fightt for the next thousand years also. The only thing that kept them from killing each other while Hussein was in power was that they were too afraid to attack and face his gas attacks. It takes a strong leader, and a heavy fist, to control two sides who dislike each other as much as these groups do.

Actually, it's done a lot of good. It gave us a battlefield to fight terrorists that wasn't American soil. Many of those we have fought over there WERE going to attack americans either way, we just gave them a place where American civilians wouldn't be endangered in the process.

The other thing it did was radicalize those in the muslim population who were ripe for radicalization. It brought them out of hiding and put them on a battlefield where they could be fought. America is safer because of this. They aren't attacking american targets here or our holdings in other countries; they're attacking our well armed soldiers in the field. Again, these people choose to attack us, all we did was choose who they had the best opportunity to attack.

Would you rather these people have been left alone to plan more attacks like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing and kill innocent civilians, or would you rather they keep their focus on attacking an army of soldiers who have chosen to fight?

Tell that to the dead guy...

It makes it hard to aim their weapons? They're on skiffs in the ocean! It's already hard to aim! Way to go inventing something that does nothing!

Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.

cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.

First off, if I were you, I wouldn't keep dead hookers in my basement. Come summer that thing will really start to stink.

And secondly, I don't agree. (I am not stating law, I am stating opinion of what I believe the law ought to be) I feel that my hair and my blood are just as much a part of "me" as my words and taking them to use to prosecute me should be considered forcing me to testify against myself.

Now if I left that blood under the nails of the dead hooker in your basement, it wouldn't be a part of me any more than a tape of me admitting guilt would be considered self-incriminating.

If it's in me, on me, or comes out of me; it is me.

If it's on tape, on the floor, or inside a dead hooker, it's no longer part of me.

How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)

Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.

Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.

If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)

That brings up a better question. Why are states able to require licenses to drive on public roads? If my taxes pay for them, shouldn't I be able to use them freely? I do not need a license to use public parks or public transportation. I don't have to get a license to listen to public radio (but I need a labotomy for it). How can the state require me to be licensed for anything that taxpayers fund, as licensing it implies permission, and permission implies the right to revoke permission.

Yes, I'm playing devils advocate here; I do think people should need to prove ability to drive before allowing them to drive in public, but I don't see how it can be revoked (suspended) or charged for if my tax money pays for it.

Courts most certainly DO extend the right (not privilege) against self-incrimination to the collection of hair and blood samples. Unless the suspect volunteers these things, a court order must be produced for investigators to take either of them.

1) "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Providing the police with evidence that can be used against you at trial is covered by the 5th amendment. That is why we have the right to remain silent under miranda rights. We can remain silent with our words OR with our actions so that we do not incriminate themselves.

2) A judge may NOT issue a warrant for any reason he pleases. A judge may only issue warrants if there is evidence supporting the belief that a crime has been committed. Simply asking drivers to take a breathalyzer because they come through a checkpoint does not come close to being enough to warrant a warrant.

If there is evidence of DUI present, (glazed eyes, red eyes, slurred speech, open containers, ect) then I do believe that breathalyzers may be used. But I still do not think that refusing one is enough to allow a needle to be placed in a driver's arm.

It's a waste of money. Not only do you have to have the police at the check points, but you also have to have a judge and medical personnel. That's more money being wasted than I am ok with.

1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.

2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.