Conn. school shooting

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:10 pm

Mikey wrote:
Derron wrote:

I think your spinning your wheels in a very desperate attempt to get some kind of traction with a baseless position.
So what you're saying is that if Loughner had been using a 16 shot clip, and he was disarmed after emptying the first one (and he was in fact disarmed while trying to change clips), he still would have shot 18 people?

No wheel spinning here at all. I think you're in denial, because of some misplaced romantic version of what "freedom" means, that limiting the size of available magazines can and would reduce the number of people shot and killed in at least some these mass shootings.

I am saying it does not make jack fucking shit what kind /size of clip he was using. Somebody that has practiced or trained, can drop an empty clip and load another one in less than 3 seconds. He got disarmed because he was an idiot that had no idea what he was doing, and that is a good thing. So the rate of fire you can put down with a 30 round clip, is only changed by 6 seconds if you go to 10 round clips. Apparently you did not read my other take on a high capacity magazine versus a shot gun. If he had not trained, he probably had to do a strong arm reload with the clip and that gave the people the extra time they need. Trained, you do a weak hand reload is much faster.

A shot gun set up completely legal for tactical use will have holding capacity of 7 rounds with an 18 inch barrel. Each round of 00 buckshot will have nine pellets in it, each bigger than a .223 round. That gives you a total of 63 down range projectiles lethal out to at least 50 yards, before you have to reload. Very effective inside 50 rounds, and even farther out.

So should that be made illegal ? It is not high capacity by the anti gun honks definition...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:22 pm

Mikey wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:There are plenty of eyewitness reports that confirm this account, whether it was 30, 31 or 33 in the clip is pretty much beside the point.
What if was only 16? Would Giffords still be half-turnip today? Yes or no.
What do you think?

No doubt whatsoever.

The fact is that he was disarmed while trying to change clips.

Because he dropped it and somebody kicked it out of the way, dumbass.

He might have killed three and wounded six, or fewer, instead of twice that many if he had half the number of rounds.

Then again, he might have killed twice as many knowing that he had to make each shot count. Smaller magazines also make a handgun easier to conceal.

The argument over magazine size is completely arbitrary and is no part of any "sensible discussion" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. They banned hi-cap magazines before and it didn't make one fucking iota of difference. The Aurora dickhead had a 100 round drum and it jammed almost immediately. Why? Because they're pieces of shit that's why. I would never even consider using one.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:00 pm

you're right, mikey. if that fukking punk had 6 round mags, those 6 year olds would have jumped him as he re-loaded.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:00 pm

DC has one of the strictest handgun laws in the nation. We're also about to hit a record low in murders. Coincidence? I think not.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:09 pm

And, of course, you'd be wrong. Murderers are not particularly law-abiding types in the first place so merely making guns illegal—with little in the way of a penalty to put any teeth in the law—will never provide much of a deterrent to them.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:21 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:DC has one of the strictest handgun laws in the nation. We're also about to hit a record low in murders. Coincidence? I think not.

Yes, we are well aware that you "think not." The reason the crime rate in DC has plummted is because there are fewer Dr. Detroits in DC.

The reasons Washington has gotten less violent: Gentrification, tax breaks, and urban reforms, according to John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who also teaches criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.

“If you want to change crime at a place you have to change the nature of the place,” he said.

The relentless expansion of the federal government — and Gucci-clad supplicants at lobbying and consulting firms — helped drive up incomes in Washington, Roman said, while the city handed out generous tax breaks to move businesses within its borders.

The city also tore down high-rise public housing towers and replaced them with garden-style apartments. Gentrification, meanwhile, drove many of the city’s poorer residents out to suburbs like Prince George’s County, where the violent crime rates spiked a few years ago...

Oh and before you start sucking yourself off, DC is still quite the shithole.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:13 am

Suggestions about armed teams guarding elementry schools are interesting. I'm assuming this would result in an increase in tax.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:35 am

mvscal wrote:The reasons Washington has gotten less violent: Gentrification, tax breaks, and urban reforms

Bwaha! I was trolling. Really!

Sin,

Tardspray

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:35 pm

No I didn't because I fucking live here, I fucking know the reasons why murders are at an all-time low in DC: Gentrification, the end of the crack era, improved police tactics and a nationwide trend of falling murder rates (except Chicago). And DC hasn't had it's gun ban lifted, it's been modified for access, although to what extent is debatable as lawsuits are continuing to be filed over how difficult the District makes it for law abiding citizens to legally carry. I have a friend who is about to graduate from the MPD academy and we talk about this all the time.

I was originally trolling, too. Glad you faggots took the bait as expected.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:40 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: I was originally trolling, too. Glad you faggots took the bait as expected.

Wait...

Did you just pull a reverse "BWAAAA!!! I was trolling you!", "golden-age-of shutyomouth" troll tactic on shutyomouth himself?

I suppose the world really has ended and I'm just living some inter-dimesnional on-line existence, trapped between cosmic realities...

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:42 am

Papa Willie wrote:What you call crank in the face, I call Saturday night.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:13 pm

mvscal wrote:The Aurora dickhead had a 100 round drum and it jammed almost immediately. Why? Because they're pieces of shit that's why. I would never even consider using one.

While they may exist, I've yet to come across an aftermarket hi capacity replacement mag that was anything other than a POS... some of the 10 round extended mags for the 1911s aren't too bad, and the factory drums for the Tommy Gun seem to work (they started making real semi-auto Tommys again a few years ago -- a friend bought one... all 30 pounds of it, fully loaded... those dudes carrying them in WW2 were some badass fuckers, since with the drum, those things are ridiculously heavy)...

Which speaks to Mikey and his fellow party-liners idiocy... they should be encouraging the use of hi-cap mags in handguns... since with the bigger clips, accuracy goes to absolute shit. The lighter the gun (sup Glock), the more dramatic the weight shift... which hurts accuracy considerably.

BTW -- what was the outcome of the last Assault Weapons Ban? Even according to the DOJ, it was insignificant. This was due to the fact that the use of the defined "assualt weapons" (which was strictly a cosmetic definition, rather than a question of functionality) in crimes is nearly nonexistent.

BTW, party-liners (aka "idiots")... quick question for you (sup Mikey)...

What size magazines did Cho use in the deadliest mass-shooting in American history?

Feeling stupid yet? You should -- he used 10's. Guess he must have practiced reloading first, unlike those who rely on the huge mags (which will invariably jam).

And it's sure funny how the media and politicians are avoiding-like-the-plague the fact the Clackamas Town Center shooting was thwarted by a guy carrying a concealed handgun (wonder how big the clip was?).

Good article here -- http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/201 ... -tell-you/

And I wonder i Dianne Feinstein would care to explain to everyone which "killing machines" have been released since 1994 that are "more powerful and lethal" than their predecessors? I'm somewhat up on new guns, and I wasn't aware that there had been some radical innovation in guns that made them "more powerful and lethal" than they were 18 years ago. I think the rifles still come in 7.62X39 and .223, propelled by the same powder, through the same length barrels as before.

Oh, wait... someone trying to use a tragedy to promote their political agenda is lying? Say it isn't so? Californians seem to have a "high capacity" for reelecting liars.

Why dfoes she feel the need to lie, if it's such an obvious issue? I suppose the alternative is that she's not lying, and has failed to do any sort of research before engaging in hyperbole. Either way, she's unfit to hold office.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:15 pm

Here's the resason I can't get onboard with a weapons ban of any type: Were there a limit where the Left would agree once and for all to hold the line in perpetuity-- in writing, to be placed in the Constitutuion in explicit, non-squishy language --that guaranteed forever any American the right to own, use, and sell weapons, be that a specific class or caliber, I'd entertain a conversation with them in respect to gun control. A trade-off as it were. But like drugs, gay marriage, taxes, and a whole host of other social/cultural issues, they only look to get that camel's nose under the tent so that further restrictions and/or decriminalizations can be legislated later. It's the classic bait-n-switch tactic that they use against traditionalists. The Constitution becomes a "living document" where the Democrats Clintonize and parse the meaning of "is" and explain how inalienable rights really just pertain to illegal aliens.

Thus, no quarter can be given in this matter because the Left has proven themselves time and again to negotiate in bad faith and hidden ulterior motives. Screw 'em. There will be no negotiating on this core issue.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:19 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
mvscal wrote:The Aurora dickhead had a 100 round drum and it jammed almost immediately. Why? Because they're pieces of shit that's why. I would never even consider using one.

...the factory drums for the Tommy Gun seem to work (they started making real semi-auto Tommys again a few years ago -- a friend bought one... all 30 pounds of it, fully loaded... those dudes carrying them in WW2 were some badass fuckers, since with the drum, those things are ridiculously heavy)...

We didn't use the 50 round drum magazines for the Thompson in WW2. They were heavy, they rattled and were a pain in the ass to load and to clear jams. We used 30 round box mags.

And, yes, they were heavy and expensive to manufacture and essentially worthless in the jungle with the low velocity .45 ACP.
The M3A1 'Grease Gun' was cheaper, lighter and more accurate. Hell, we still had a few of them in my unit in 1992 for the M88 crew.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:09 pm

What--are you still quacking away with your auto-drone Hannity jabber? That what America needs now is MORE guns--every school armed and ready, every principal packing, and most of all...our sacred rights to have whatever artillery or military ordinance we want!!!

You're a fucking joke, and like the NRA robots also reciting this insanity, you're quickly reduced to your little spot in the corner where you can seeth and simmer in silence.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:15 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:every school armed and ready, every principal packing...

From the sounds of it, that principal had some balls. Too fukking bad she didn't have a gun. I'll bet she was wishing she had one as that POS blew her away.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:22 pm

Nothing like fear of the government to drive up prices.

These went for $ 20 each last Sunday. I know somebody who bought 5 at that price. They are now bringing this price.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/743604/po ... ound-pmags

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:36 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:every school armed and ready, every principal packing

So?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:46 am

So..your fake argument is as dead as the GOP, you don't have a job, you're a seething creep racist parroting Hannity like a stunted puppet, and you don't even try to be real.

WW

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:37 pm

Serious question here LTS, can you think of a scenario where you would unequivocally allow for the ownership, use, and sale of a firearm? Or is your stance that no private citizen should own, have access to, or utilize a firarm?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:47 pm

Crickets....

sin,
let's turd

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:02 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You're a fucking joke, and like the NRA robots also reciting this insanity,

Insanity, huh?

The NRA plan is so stupid that 1/3rd of all public schools already use it

Via New York Times:

[. . .] Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days. . .

Plus the NRA plan was much more comprehensive than just armed guards. Everything about school security needs to be revised and that’s what the NRA proposed, not simply “more guns” as the libs would have you believe.— Greg Pollowitz

Also I can't help but notice that this push to get guns out of schools doesn't include the school which Dear Leader's kids, Moldavia and Slovakia, attend.

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:41 pm

Rooster wrote:Serious question here LTS, can you think of a scenario where you would unequivocally allow for the ownership, use, and sale of a firearm? Or is your stance that no private citizen should own, have access to, or utilize a firarm?

I've stated quite clearly that I don't oppose gun ownership at all. However, it needs to be seriously controlled. That means no assault rifles , period. Why would anyone need one? And too, no more mega-clips. What are they for? Similarly, gun ownership should require, besides real background checks, etc., actual training and safety instruction. Do you know how many idiots accidentally shoot themselves and others because they are fundamentally ignorant of basic gun safety?

As for arming up schools (in the Israeli tradition), this represents a complete capitulation into the bunker level existence in which the fake state has desperately hung on for 65-years now (tick...tick...tick). It's basically like suggesting we accept the Afghan model of paranoid 24-7 watch your back mode in one of our American bases.

As for the NRA response--dutifully parroted by 1-malt--of doubling down and declaring we obviously need lot's more guns, well this is the exact same toxic crap coming from the utterly failed and flailing GOP that we need more tax cuts for the plutocrats, less union power, and more military spending. It's obviously demented and deranged--with a clear record of dismal failure--and yet it just keeps pumping, like a septic tank cleaner.

What's your excuse, again?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:34 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I've stated quite clearly that I don't oppose gun ownership at all. However, it needs to be seriously controlled. That means no assault rifles , period. Why would anyone need one? And too, no more mega-clips. What are they for? Similarly, gun ownership should require, besides real background checks, etc., actual training and safety instruction.

Several epic fails here.

You DO know that high capacity mags were banned from 1994-2004, right?

The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't renewed in 2004... take a big guess why?

Because it had ZERO impact on violent crime... which stands to reason, since "assault rifle" use in criminal acts is extremely rare.

On to more stupidity:

LTS wrote:That means no assault rifles , period. Why would anyone need one? And too, no more mega-clips. What are they for?

The answer to the latter question is simple -- "None of your fucking business."

Why The People need assualt weapons?

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

Noah Webster wrote:Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States

The Father of the Bill of Rights wrote:Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

Patrick Henry wrote:Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

The reason those of us in the Militia may choose to arm ourselves with high capacity rifles is to make sure the government, military, and law enforcement are subordinate to The People, as intended.

Rest assured, if you and your freedom-hating bretheren don't take action to surpress anyone's rights, then it won't ever be an issue. The problem is with the intolerance in you and your ilk to let other people live their lives as they see fit, and you think you should have some authority to dictate the terms of other people's lives... hence the need for good people to heavily arm themselves, since frankly, your lot can't be trusted.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:37 am

Okay, Dins, so now you're a militia member?

Care to suggest against whom you are preparing to defend your Freedom? Uh...the Russians? Iraqi chem labs still circling about Baghdad on trains and trucks? Royalists?

As for how the NRA got the assault rifle ban overturned, it's exactly how the Climate Change response has been hobbled, the corporate tax loopholes increased, the AIPAC stranglehold on our congress tightened, and the constitution shredded. It's called deep-pocket lobbying (which is really bribes and threats) and for some reason you're fine with it. Of course this makes your "freedom loving" Hannity mask even more grotesque, but that's just you being Dins, the old coiled codger.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:57 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, Dins, so now you're a militia member?

You're mighty slow on the uptake, but at least you get it... yes, I am. As are you.

Crack a book sometime, dipshit.

Care to suggest against whom you are preparing to defend your Freedom?

If I knew, I'd already be dealing with it, now wouldn't I?

But at present, my greatest concern is you and your totalitarian ilk.

As for how the NRA got the assault rifle ban overturned

Do you ever read anything besides leftist-talking point rags?

Since you've asserted a falsehood, it makes it tough to respond.

The ban was never "overturned" -- it had a sunset clause (as EVERY law Congress passes should). The reason it was allowed to expire, as I've already stated, was that it had ZERO effect on crime... ZERO. That's according to the DoJ, not the NRA-BTW.

And the reason it had no effect, ONCE AGAIN, is because "assault rifles" (the definition of which is entirely cosmetic, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the functionality of a weapon) are very, very, very rarely ever used in crimes.

Like many people I know have stated over the decades -- "The best time to have an assault rifle is when someone tells you you can't have an assault rifle."

it's exactly how the Climate Change response has been hobbled

Finally, something we can agree upon (for now). It is akin to the reason "climate change" hasn't been taxed -- because actual, real data doesn't support it. Hell, even the ridiculously falsified "data" they roll out these days doesn't support it... 14 straight years of cooling, and counting.

the corporate tax loopholes increased, the AIPAC stranglehold on our congress tightened, and the constitution shredded. It's called deep-pocket lobbying (which is really bribes and threats) and for some reason you're fine with it.

No, I'm strongly opposed to it. It's been the bane of this country...

and I blame you.

See, YOU'RE the one who wants to "shred the Constitution." You liberal idiots are THE problem. You've wiped your ass over and over and over with the Tenth Amendment, in favor of your pet causes, to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal budget every year. YOU people have put the greatest chache of wealth mankind has ever seen in one place, with ~1000 people in control of it...

then you act shocked that there's corruption and favoritism associated with it.

Frankly, a complete lack of any logical reasoning is either a sign of a severe mental disorder, or one hell of a low IQ...

which is it?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:02 am

Some guy from very long ago with the prognostication abilities of YaFJ wrote:because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States

Yeah, buddy, go ahead and take a gander at our modern U.S. military, and compare it to the "armed populace." You might just want to have another long, hard think on that one.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:05 am

Sure -- we've gone faraway from the "subordinate to the Militia" concept.

Which means we should continue down that slippery slope, right?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:09 am

It means that that horse has long since left the barn. Short of straight-up endemic lunacy, there is no going back.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:23 am

I certainly don't want the Minnesota militia protecting us from the Canadian hordes, led by Marty, invading us via I-35.

Those fuckers probably don't even know to how to fish. They'd rather write poetry.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:11 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I've stated quite clearly that I don't oppose gun ownership at all. However, it needs to be seriously controlled. That means no assault rifles , period. Why would anyone need one? And too, no more mega-clips. What are they for? Similarly, gun ownership should require, besides real background checks, etc., actual training and safety instruction. Do you know how many idiots accidentally shoot themselves and others because they are fundamentally ignorant of basic gun safety?

So, go ahead and define "assault weapons". Also define "seriously controlled". Do you think that episode would have ended differently if he mowed them all down with a 9mm pistol?

What are mega clips used for? Mostly rendering weapon useless after they jam.

I agree about the training. Ignorant people should not be carrying. And people with known whackjobs for kids likely should have unsecured weapons

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:26 am

Van wrote:Yeah, buddy, go ahead and take a gander at our modern U.S. military, and compare it to the "armed populace."

OK. I just did. Our "modern US military" wouldn't stand a chance.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:43 am

Sure thing, Red Dawn.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:09 pm

Van wrote:Sure thing, Red Dawn.

yeah, you're right. that juggernaut rolled over afghanistan like nothing.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:32 pm

Van wrote:Sure thing, Red Dawn.

Take a look at what's happening in Syria right now, you bedwetting idiot.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:28 pm

Van, do us all a favor...

back up and take another run at it, and try to sound intelligent this time.

Let's see -- the American military is maybe 3 million total, including reservists and Coasties and whatnot.

Hmmm... 3 million against 150,000,000 gun owners, plus those that know how to use them but don't keep one at home for various reasons (kids at home, etc) that have easy access... but let's call it 150,000,000.

But wait -- how many military members are going to take up arms against their friends, neighbors, and family?

Less than 1% seems like a very reasonable guess. (Sup, USSR)

So now we've got a couple hundred thousand (which is a super-high end guess). Sure, they have a bunch of really cool weapons... and no one to fire them.

So, does this end badly for the 150,000,000, or the people that thought it would be a good idea to take violent action against Americans in their own backyard?

Yes, the military is still quite subordinate to the Militia... although I'm not sure the Top Brass fully realizes that. But, things will come to a head eventually, and the takers keep taking, and the "leaders" continue to defy the will of The People, and the powermongers are going to get a quick reality check... which is the last thing they'll get.

Really... now that the NSA is getting their dealio up and running, how long are people going to tolerate having every single phone call they make recorded and saved (and why yes, that is really happening)?

It's happened over and over in history -- any time a government grows too big and begins overreaching, the people revolt. It's GOING to happen here, because of DC's addiction problems (money and power). It will most likely happen in my lifetime, but there's a good chance I'll be too old to be of much help.

But look at what's going on, open your eyes -- thew government is getting really into "You can't have that gun -- it's a little too effective for defending yourself" (which has ALWAYS been step 1 in the downfall of a government... ALWAYS). And more and moree, we get "We're taking your money because That Guy needs it more than you" (with a whole bunch of greedy hands taking their cut along the way). That's step 2 to the downfall of a government. Step 3 is using part of the citizenry to suppress another part, and... there you go, revolution.

Anyone who thinks that won't happen here if "our" government continues down its current path, is frankly an idiot.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:45 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Sure thing, Red Dawn.
Take a look at what's happening in Syria right now, you bedwetting idiot.

Right, because Syria is analogous with the United States, especially their respective military capabilities.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:57 pm

Van wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Sure thing, Red Dawn.
Take a look at what's happening in Syria right now, you bedwetting idiot.
Right, because Syria is analogous with the United States, especially their respective military capabilities.

And the Syrian military is dealing with 300,000,000 million pissed off rebels at present, right?

And lo and behold -- Syrians are human, too, ands most aren't inclined to kill their friends and relatives.

Since you're awfully slow of late, I'll just phrase it as a direct question:

How many American military members would be willing to kill their loved ones because some "superior" told them to?

You're flailing, dude. We don't have to look to ancient history -- there's been plenty of huge revolutions in the last 25 years to draw from (crack a newspaper sometime). How did those work out when the standing government told the military to execute their loved ones?

The USSR was a great example -- when shit hit the fan, all those ex-military there (and there were millions) suddenly found that AK47 that slipped through the cracks (they built them by the tens of millions, and lost track of a good chunk) buried in their backyard.

Since you're history-challenged, I'll help you out... the Soviets (a military quite comparible to the USA) didn't stand a chance. Over in a matter of days.

So, let's see -- we've cited Syria and the USSR. We can throw Poland and Egypt in there, and that list could go on for a while, but we'll stop there for now.

So, we've got proven historical examples...

what, exactly, are you basing your current bout of idiocy on?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:23 pm

:?

There was no uprising in the USSR. The party was stripped of its power and melted away. The 'coup' was more psychodrama than anything else, a thousand men stared at each other for a few days, said 'I'm in charge' - 'no, 'I'm in charge', then went home, it was a non-event. No one siezed any radio stations, the coup leaders could have drawn on enormous resources, but didn't. It took place over everyone's heads.
Not that it mattered, the place was too far gone anyway.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:54 pm

Keep living in your fantasy world of "300,000,000 pissed off rebels" squaring off against its own self/own military, Dins. I'm sure it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy as you drift off to sleep, visions of a young Patrick Swayze leading the local townies in uprising dancing in your dreams.

Yep, you and your gun-toting ilk are the only thing preventing Werner from dropping the Big One on us.

Jesus, what a bunch of fucking loons.