People are really pissed off and we have a guy in the White House who resides in the satisfaction of his own inaction and self-serving platitudes rather than a decisive leader who is not afraid to make difficult if not questionable or perhaps even reprehensible decisions. We could bomb ISIS to hell in a week yet Obama is stuck on an island surrounded by the waters of rules of engagement and is afraid to dive in, for him he would rather do nothing than sink-or-swim. Trump is the exact opposite, he comes from a life of luxury but is also an experienced dealmaker who is not afraid to get his hands dirty or getting burned, he has a winner's mentality which is reflected in his brash and grandiose campaign flair. Clinton may be experienced and sensible but she is also part of the Washington elite and voters don't want another soft leader like Obama. I do not see her beating Trump unless she really shows assertion like we haven't seen before. Trump is the anti-Obama and voters will be looking for that in 2016.
Hey I got a great idea. We should invade all the countries where ISIS is located and root them out to the last terrorist. That shouldn't take too long. A few months at most. We can use the profits from ISIS oil to pay for the invasions. And we will be welcomed by the people in those countries as liberators. For some reason I just got this eirie feeling of dj vu all over again. Are you worried. No problem I'm a decider. I'm not worried.
And you really believe this, you have great faith.
This is all historically accurate, your only response was a sarcastic response. Typical Islamophobic republican shrill. I gave you an example of the Jews of medina, that republicans like to use as an example of Islam being spread by sword.
Tell me when the Jewish golden age was. Tell me about how Christians were treated under Muslim rule.
Also tell me why no more Muslims exist in Spain. Now THATS spread by sword
Ok, if you say so. I looked it up and it seems like there were invading armies, battles and raids on villages by Arab Muslims. Guess they didn't use swords and fought hand to hand. Never knew that. Invasion and conquest, to me, usually includes battles and such....oh well, I guess peaceful invasion is better.
Islam spread quickly beginning in the seventh century through two primary means. The first method was conquest. Although no one was forced to convert after Muslim conquests, many found it advantageous, and some of the areas were eventually Islamized. The second method was trade, which spread the message of Islam through merchants. The conversation of the people of the Iranian plateau to Islam was, however, a gradual one, and even 300 years after the downfall of the Sasanians there were sizeable Zoroastrian communities in Iran. the Persians were “forced to convert to Islam and attack by “Omar” is nothing but a lie. Never were the Iranian people FORCED to convert to Islam. That is why it took the Iranian nation 300 years to have a substantial Muslim population
Not with people I knew, the many that didn't vote for him were pleased nevertheless that our nation had elected the first African American President.
However when the way he governed (knowingly telling untruths such as "if you like you insurance/doctor you can keep them, "we will be most transparent administration in history and will post all new Legislation on web for all to see in advance" combined with ramming through all legislation on strictly a partisan basis) became apparent people quickly became disenchanted.
Combined with Foreign Policy issues like turning his back on the Green Revolution in Iran but supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt along with bailing completely on a stabilized Iraq has given rise to well reasoned people disagreeing vehemently with this presidents domestic and foreign policies.
Just a couple things: (1) I don't really know enough about ACA to comment on those points (hopefully someone else on the Board does), except to say that, despite the opposition of Republican Governors, who refuse to allow ACA's expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, thereby preventing hundreds of thousands and/or millions of their citizens from getting insured, the ACA has allowed unprecedented expansion of the insured, likely to the benefit of the general health of the population, and, contrary to the cant regularly spewing from Republican politicians about the ACA, it is majorly, regularly gaining in popularity. One of my favorite, related Republican memes is the pitchfork cry to keep the government's dirty hands off my medicare. (2) Ramming through legislation on a strictly partisan basis (and, relatedly, governing by administrative order: Might that have something to do with Mitch McConnell's expressly stated goal (which was clearly carried out on an essentially absolute basis by the Republicans) of making Obama a one-term president by not cooperating with anything he proposed? (3) Due to the hijacking of unconscious Republicanism by the thuggish extremism of PNAC: Is this maybe the first Republican position in history opposed to the historical American position of avoiding foreign entanglements and avoiding sending American troops into the middle of civil wars in which we really have no dog in the fight (e.g., between a religious dictatorship in Egypt and a military dictatorship in Egypt)?; and the idea of even the remotest possibility of "a stabilized Iraq" (or even a remotely viable Iraq) at any point after the American invasion, and its extraordinary following blunder of essentially dismantling almost the entire viable infrastructure of that country (which never made sense as a country to begin with, except for English administrative purposes in harvesting oil) is nothing short of crazy.
Correct. As an American and a Jew, I'm really alarmed by the increasingly extreme dialogue spewed by Trump and Cruz. I don't fear for myself, thankfully, but fear for the "other". Coincidentally, my wife is Nisei (First Generation Japanese-American), and all of my mother-in-law's friends who were born in the US were rounded up into the internment camps. My father, who served in WWII, frequently told me that aside from the holocaust, his greatest regret about WWII was Japanese American internment. If memory serves, Earl Warren was California Governor during the war and I believe his guilt and regret over participating in that program encouraged his bravery on the SCOTUS. These times are indeed scary. We haven't seen home-grown terrorism like this since The Depression, and that lead us to the shameful years of McCarthyism. Very scary indeed.
An American and a Jew. Didn't Jews originally inhabit the Eastern Mediterranean where so many terrorists come from. Maybe we should lock them up too. After all can't be too careful. (OK just kidding.)
smh. Then we can rest on our moral high ground on top of all those civilian bodies knowing that such genocide will not drive moderates into becoming extremist. Would we use the same tactics to deal with home grown terrorists in America?
Bombing them is the easy part but they occupy territory and have to be removed; that would be relatively easy too. What's difficult is who then occupies and governs that region; it can't be us (again); it would have to be a moderate Sunni group to replace ISIS. Which means you need an Arab army to fight along the West. Bush 1 could have pulled this off but he's the last President who could. Since the actions of Bush 2 and Obama largely created ISIS, we don't have the knowledge, leadership or the will.
😵Maybe if we use nuclear weapons we won't have to occupy the area since it would be radioactive. 😜
Christians endorsed slavery in the name of religion? What are you talking about? There may have been Christian slave owners and there were slaves when the books in the New Testament were written, but Christianity endorses slavery? Wow, this is Trump like twisting of facts. You should be ashamed.
No, Jesus didn't come to disrupt the social order as the Jews had wanted Him to do. The Jews thought that the Messiah would free them from the enslaving rule of the Roman empire. He instead taught to give to Caesar what is Caesar's because this is not our home and this is not our final destination. The point was that, whether you are a master or a slave, treat each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and find contentment in this lifetime and serve each other. Those who cared that deeply about whether someone was a slave or not a slave or saw the end goal of salvation as material blessings in this world (i.e., Joel Olsteen's "Your Best Life NOW") missed the point. In fact, one of the most touching epistles about forgiveness involves a master and a runaway slave (Philemon). God himself came to serve. Paul and each of the apostles lived in poverty, were imprisoned and, other than John (who was exiled on an island) served and were killed. Those were Jesus' closest friends. And they suffered gladly knowing that they had eternity of glory in God's presence. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so you claim that Christians and Christianity endorsed slavery. Just so you know, my friend, abolitionists were Christians, and the former slave owner who wrote Amazing Grace became an abolitionist after he became a Christian.
If you think Christians did not use the Bible to justify slavery and thereafter segregation, and currently racial prejudice (to the extent that is still capable of raising its ugly head), I suggest you look at every political discussion in this country (and probably others) seeking to justify those positions (and there have been millions of such discussions from the moment slavery became a political issue in this country hundreds of years ago, and see how many of them invoke the Christian religion to bolster those positions. One does not have to believe or advocate that there is anything about Christianity which in fact supports any of those positions to see the extraordinary extent to which it has been invoked in support of those unholy causes.
An American and a Jew. Didn't Jews originally inhabit the Eastern Mediterranean where so many terrorists come from. Maybe we should lock them up too. After all can't be too careful. (OK just kidding.)
Sadly, there are virtually no Jews left in the Middle East outside of Israel.
It wasn't by force or by sword. In fact, the non Muslims were able to florish inder Muslim rule. The conversions to Islam by locals was eventual..proving that they weren't forced.
Quran says no religion by compulsion.
So does the New Testament. But the Crusaders found a way to ignore that. BTW. Why are we still discussing this. Does anyone really believe the all Muslims are inherently more violent than all Christians. (Outside of FOX News. That is.
Islam spread quickly beginning in the seventh century through two primary means. The first method was conquest. Although no one was forced to convert after Muslim conquests, many found it advantageous, and some of the areas were eventually Islamized. The second method was trade, which spread the message of Islam through merchants. The conversation of the people of the Iranian plateau to Islam was, however, a gradual one, and even 300 years after the downfall of the Sasanians there were sizeable Zoroastrian communities in Iran. the Persians were “forced to convert to Islam and attack by “Omar” is nothing but a lie. Never were the Iranian people FORCED to convert to Islam. That is why it took the Iranian nation 300 years to have a substantial Muslim population
I agree that Jews thrived far better under Muslim domination than Christian domination during our golden age. I am also appalled by Trump's demagoguery and Islamaphobia present in the west today. That being said, I'm equally troubled by the absence of freedom of religion on the Arabian Penninsula, the Horn of Africa, and in today's North Africa. I'd like to know your thoughts on that.
Unfortunately that is no longer the case today in much of the Middle East. Everyday Christians and Jews face increased persecution and violence.
Out of curiosity, do you have have the same concern about Muslims in Myarnmar, Africa, and Russia who are suppressed by Christians and Buddhists (Myanmar)...or does your prejudice of the Islamic faith prevent that?
I find it really disheartening how easily people on TV and here on this thread of Berkeley fans of all things, how glibly we speak of war. These aren't a cartoon movie version of bad people sitting around thinking about evil and rubbing their hands together. These are families and cultures of people who are human beings living really hard lives (harder than anthing we have known) and some are part of a religeon fervently and some are because that's all there is--there beliefs are just as much a spectrum of "good and evil" "moderate and radical" as many many parts of the world and parts of the US. Going down corridors of dehumanizing thoughts that sees them as subhuman, or as evil empire, or wackos...just limping complex societies into simple boxes is the worst of our nature. That's a real mother weeping over a real dead baby collateral not a video game or someone who deserves their suffering.
The "bomb them back to the Stone Age" crowd is the problem here. To have that sentiment you have lost your humanity and are the actual threat to civility and grace. You are the very evil you paint. You are already in the Stone Age. And most of these are so called Christians who espouse sanctity of human life. You are so used to your own thinking and the scripts you are fed that you fail to see your own horror.
The current media obsession with radicalization is a perfect example of trying to avoid the real issues and dehumanize the "enemy". Is there a radicalization quotient? At one point is someone officially radicalized? Where is the radicalization button and have Christian organizations like Westboro pushed it themselves? Are the barbaric calls for indiscriminate violence and revenge radicalization?
If you are going to say things like guns don't kill people, people kill people, then at least be logically consistent and say religeons don't kill people, people kill people. Address the causes of despair in the world through generosity and non-exploitation and quit feeding our out of control appetites for materialism and the complex chain that follows from our own greed and self-interest and we will do a much better job of creating "freedom", American exceptionalism, and "homeland security"--much more than any bomb.
You know who is a p@ssy? Not Obama, but the asshole military nuts that think bombing is tough and a solution. Press a button. Kill people. That is the p@ssy move.
Out of curiosity, do you have have the same concern about Muslims in Myarnmar, Africa, and Russia who are suppressed by Christians and Buddhists (Myanmar)...or does your prejudice of the Islamic faith prevent that?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm glad you mentioned these issue because they support my position that extremism and/or fundamentalism in ANY religion or culture (including my own) is depraved. Dogma in any form is the root of all evil as far as I'm concerned.....I always used to say that only the Buddhists were immune until I was made aware of the horrendous situation in Myanmar.
Are you serious? You may not like that "Assault Weapons" are defined by the US Justice Department.
In the United States, assault weapons were legally categorized for the first time when President Bill Clinton signed the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) into law in 1994. The ban expired in 2004.
While the term “assault weapons” has long been used globally to describe a broad variety of military and non-military weapons, those weapons were not defined by specific characteristics in America’s legal system until Congress approved the AWB.
...
Accept it...there are assault weapons.
I REALLY want to help people understand why gun laws are NOT "common sense" and WILL NOT work as proposed, and how to craft reasonable arguments in the future.
Because... those laws defining "Assault weapons" dont work ... because they dont actually address anything aside from inconsequential things and cosmetics.
Assault Weapon's are not a real thing: the term is literally marketing to sell things that cosmetically LOOK like Assault Rifles (something that does exist) to idiots that didnt know the difference. To ban them you would have to ban cosmetics. That is why banning them has always been a failure. It does not diminish the killing power of the weapon AT ALL. The Newtown shooter bought a weapon that was sold in a very strict assault weapon ban state as legal! It was 0% safer than an "assault weapon" and as a matter of fact, was called an "assault weapon" by nearly everyone anyway. Because cosmetics do NOT make a firearm.
Step one is determining what exactly you are trying to prevent and why: 1. Most gun deaths are not caused by long rifles. They are caused by Handguns. About 70% 2. Rifles account for 4% of gun deaths, right in line with shotguns. Less than hammers, less than knives. 3. Cosmetically styled "Assault Weapons" are not listed, because they do not function differently than any other semi-automatic rifle.
Sometimes rifles that look like military rifles and fire low-power are used in mass shootings. Not often, but sometimes. Lets say you focus on on THOSE shootings, and you will deal with the 96% of gun homicides through, lets say, social programs to curb gang violence. OK. How?
To be honest, the very first step you would need to take to get a hold of this issue is to stop acting as though scary looking equates to more dangerous. Look at why a weapon you think is dangerous is dangerous, then look at what you can do to overcome that: Fair enough. Where to start?
Lets dispel the most prevalent myth first: Cosmetics do not matter. A gun is lethal. The attachments are not. Semi-automatic is nearly meaningless in today's world. Automatic is already heavily regulated.
What is termed "Assault Weapons" shoot a small, low power, high velocity round, typically .223 (about the size of a 22, but ridiculously faster) - they are not "high powered." Nearly ALL ammunition available is hollow point because hunting with FMJ is illegal in most places (because it wounds, not kills). There IS reason to own them (ie small predator hunting for protection of livestock, et al). The most common type (made to look like a US military rifle) has two parts called an "Upper" containing the bolt group and barrel, and the receiver (lower), containing the trigger group and magazine well. The lower is the gun. The upper is not well unregulated, unless attached to the lower. The draw of these weapons is the ease of use, and the individual rounds they put down range. They are easy to shoot because the round is so low power, and they are small rounds, so a magazine can hold a lot. What makes them so lethal if they shoot such a ***** round? Hollow Point Ammunition. Full Jacket ammunition will go through you pretty well. Unless it hits something immediately vital (brain, heart) you will very likely survive. Even if you are shot in an artery, you have an OK chance. A HP round? You are fucked a high percentage of the time. If you dont die, the damage is ... very bad (best example I could find quickly ).
So, some common sense ideas that will not work: 1. Reduce the number of rounds in a magazine -why it is hard to do: a magazine is a box and a spring. I can make one out of a coke can and a wire. I can print one. They are not traceable. They are not regulated unless you are caught with it. TRUST that someone trying to kill a lot of people will find a way to get magazines that fit their need. OK start. Not real world workable. 2. Eliminate detachable magazines - quite possibly the only solution to the issue. but is asinine (for reasons I will show later) but a start. More workable than mag restriction, but can be overcome with some effort. Better start. 3. Ban cosmetic attachments and outlaw already non-purchasable attachments - cosmetics do NOT change the ability to send 30 WELL AIMED rounds down range in 15 seconds. No one is being bayoneted to death in these attacks and knifes are legal. Grenade launchers are the most ridiculous thing I have heard of (if you can legally get one, you can get a machine gun anyway). Dumbest **** I have ever seen attempted.
So what would actually work to prevent deaths, and may be politically achievable? 1. Something NO ONE talks about: Outlaw Hollowpoint rifle ammunition for general sale. - VERY touchy because the VAST majority of killing is hunting, and this would cause ridiculous amounts of suffering to animals, but for argument sake, lets say you can specially purchase hunting ammunition with a game tag, with the casings returned after the season/6 months whatever: not ideal, but preventing human death is the goal, not animal suffering. The difference in lethality between FMJ and HP rounds is RIDICULOUS. Most victims would not have died if they were shot with FMJ's given emergency response times and proximity to hospitals. I have no data, aside from Military casualty data, where FMJ is the only legal ammunition, but knowing a few "Blackwater" types who have used HP in theater and vouch for its killing power over standard ball ammunition. You dont need hollow point for target shooting. For home defense it is good because it wont go through material as well, but even with HP, they go through **** pretty well. A glaring issue here is that anyone can poke a hole in an FMJ and make their own HP's, but I doubt most mass shooters would even think about it. Worse is that FMJ will **** people up behind cars, behind walls, behind doors, etc. Not much hiding. Less dying if hit. Maybe more hits? 2. Treat the upper (as mentioned above) as a firearm, and regulate them. They matter because they are half of what makes the gun work. Right now you can buy one, make one, sell one, etc with no oversight. 3. Treat ANY manufacture of lowers as firearm manufacturing. Currently you can purchase an "80%" lower with no regulation, complete it yourself, and have an untraceable gun. It is extremely uncommon, but has happened, and will become more popular as rifle laws are passed. 4. Ban .223 ammunition sale. The side effect here is that every other rifle round is exponentially more lethal, but they are much harder to use and take more training to use effectively. So that is a plus. It is only legal to kill game smaller than a coyote with it, so not a huge livestock protection loss, I dont think, and certainly not a a huge hunting loss, but perhaps a significant "fun at the range loss." I take that as a win, personally.
Those are three simple things we can do to at the very least reduce lethality and improve tracability, and one thing we can do to increase lethality but decrease ease of use.
The problem with assualt weapon bans is they are a mythical type of weapon. NOTHING about them is unique to "assault weapons." They are semi-automatic rifles. A VERY widely used rifle everywhere. It is politically IMPOSSIBLE to ban semi-automatic rifles, and that is the "dangerous" technology regardless of what the rifle LOOKS like.
Remember the term was INVENTED to sell guns based on LOOKS alone. It is now being used to try to ban guns. A term invented to sell guns based on looks will NEVER work to ban guns. Focus on what makes them uniquely dangerous, and solve those problems. What is more important? A couple dozen people a year, or animal suffering. That is a VERY real question in this, because it is the number one reason these weapons are so lethal.
Anyway, anyone that talks about Assault Weapons is ignorant. It was a marketing tool to sell to soldier of fortune wannabes and is still used to trap ignorant people. To stop the problem you see, you need to think more clearly, understand the issue, take a less reactionary approach, etc. We dont stop terrorism like this by putting Muslims in camps, because we are smarter than that (I hope). We should be equally smart in not reacting through ignorance on gun control.
A minute fraction of the population is left in Iran. They live under major restrictions despite the BS propaganda from the Iranian government. None left in Ethiopia which was voluntary. Completely wiped out in Iraq after more than 2000 years. None left in Libya or Algeria. A few left in Tunisia and Morocco. A literal handful remain in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. I'm aware that Israel figures into this discussion, but I wanted to respond to the wisecrack. I wanted to stay on point on tha thread and don't want to unleash a discussion on Zionism which always devolves into a mosh pit.
This is all historically accurate, your only response was a sarcastic response. Typical Islamophobic republican shrill. I gave you an example of the Jews of medina, that republicans like to use as an example of Islam being spread by sword.
Tell me when the Jewish golden age was. Tell me about how Christians were treated under Muslim rule.
Also tell me why no more Muslims exist in Spain. Now THATS spread by sword
Why do you keep saying republican, those are not my sentiments at all. I am very upset with that party.
Out of curiosity, do you have have the same concern about Muslims in Myarnmar, Africa, and Russia who are suppressed by Christians and Buddhists (Myanmar)...or does your prejudice of the Islamic faith prevent that?
I am concerned about suppression of faith wherever it happens. I do also consider the context in those places where it may occur. For example in Nigeria where Boko Haram has kidnapped hundreds of young Christian girls and committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of fundamentalist Islam I would understand skepticism towards that religion.
I find it really disheartening how easily people on TV and here on this thread of Berkeley fans of all things, how glibly we speak of war. These aren't a cartoon movie version of bad people sitting around thinking about evil and rubbing their hands together. These are families and cultures of people who are human beings living really hard lives (harder than anthing we have known) and some are part of a religeon fervently and some are because that's all there is--there beliefs are just as much a spectrum of "good and evil" "moderate and radical" as many many parts of the world and parts of the US. Going down corridors of dehumanizing thoughts that sees them as subhuman, or as evil empire, or wackos...just limping complex societies into simple boxes is the worst of our nature. That's a real mother weeping over a real dead baby collateral not a video game or someone who deserves their suffering.
The "bomb them back to the Stone Age" crowd is the problem here. To have that sentiment you have lost your humanity and are the actual threat to civility and grace. You are the very evil you paint. You are already in the Stone Age. And most of these are so called Christians who espouse sanctity of human life. You are so used to your own thinking and the scripts you are fed that you fail to see your own horror.
The current media obsession with radicalization is a perfect example of trying to avoid the real issues and dehumanize the "enemy". Is there a radicalization quotient? At one point is someone officially radicalized? Where is the radicalization button and have Christian organizations like Westboro pushed it themselves? Are the barbaric calls for indiscriminate violence and revenge radicalization?
If you are going to say things like guns don't kill people, people kill people, then at least be logically consistent and say religeons don't kill people, people kill people. Address the causes of despair in the world through generosity and non-exploitation and quit feeding our out of control appetites for materialism and the complex chain that follows from our own greed and self-interest and we will do a much better job of creating "freedom", American exceptionalism, and "homeland security"--much more than any bomb.
You know who is a p@ssy? Not Obama, but the asshole military nuts that think bombing is tough and a solution. Press a button. Kill people. That is the p@ssy move.
I am concerned about suppression of faith wherever it happens. I do also consider the context in those places where it may occur. For example in Nigeria where Boko Haram has kidnapped hundreds of young Christian girls and committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of fundamentalist Islam I would understand skepticism towards that religion.
So with your logic, how many Muslims have Americans killed? Does that mean American civilians are fair game? Btw - what did Myanmar Muslims do? How about the Muslims in Grozny...killed by Christians
I find it really disheartening how easily people on TV and here on this thread of Berkeley fans of all things, how glibly we speak of war. These aren't a cartoon movie version of bad people sitting around thinking about evil and rubbing their hands together. These are families and cultures of people who are human beings living really hard lives (harder than anthing we have known) and some are part of a religeon fervently and some are because that's all there is--there beliefs are just as much a spectrum of "good and evil" "moderate and radical" as many many parts of the world and parts of the US. Going down corridors of dehumanizing thoughts that sees them as subhuman, or as evil empire, or wackos...just limping complex societies into simple boxes is the worst of our nature. That's a real mother weeping over a real dead baby collateral not a video game or someone who deserves their suffering.
The "bomb them back to the Stone Age" crowd is the problem here. To have that sentiment you have lost your humanity and are the actual threat to civility and grace. You are the very evil you paint. You are already in the Stone Age. And most of these are so called Christians who espouse sanctity of human life. You are so used to your own thinking and the scripts you are fed that you fail to see your own horror.
The current media obsession with radicalization is a perfect example of trying to avoid the real issues and dehumanize the "enemy". Is there a radicalization quotient? At one point is someone officially radicalized? Where is the radicalization button and have Christian organizations like Westboro pushed it themselves? Are the barbaric calls for indiscriminate violence and revenge radicalization?
If you are going to say things like guns don't kill people, people kill people, then at least be logically consistent and say religeons don't kill people, people kill people. Address the causes of despair in the world through generosity and non-exploitation and quit feeding our out of control appetites for materialism and the complex chain that follows from our own greed and self-interest and we will do a much better job of creating "freedom", American exceptionalism, and "homeland security"--much more than any bomb.
You know who is a p@ssy? Not Obama, but the asshole military nuts that think bombing is tough and a solution. Press a button. Kill people. That is the p@ssy move.
Thank you Blungld. As a Cal student who was drafted in 1966 but thanks to a quick enlistment in Cal ROTC managed to delay my active duty in the Army until 1970, all the macho war talk I find offensive UNLESS you served in the military during war time. Back in the 1960's and 1970's we used to refer to supporters of the Vietnam war who were not subject to active duty service as "Chicken Hawks".
All the talk of war takes on a different meaning if you are the one who is going to fight that war. it is not just a philosophical exercise. it is a life and death decision. Your own life and death. Further when your life is involved you have a special appreciation for what the soldiers on the other side are going through and their families and loved ones.
Thank you Blungld. As a Cal student who was drafted in 1966 but thanks to a quick enlistment in Cal ROTC managed to delay my active duty in the Army until 1970, all the macho war talk I find offensive UNLESS you served in the military during war time. Back in the 1960's and 1970's we used to refer to supporters of the Vietnam war who were not subject to active duty service as "Chicken Hawks".
All the talk of war takes on a different meaning if you are the one who is going to fight that war. it is not just a philosophical exercise. it is a life and death decision. Your own life and death. Further when your life is involved you have a special appreciation for what the soldiers on the other side are going through and their families and loved ones.
Yes. If you haven't put on the uniform, and you're not going to personally go kill whoever you think needs killing, shut up. You can hate bad people, and I'll assume a bunch of bad ones are middle east Isis Muslims. Nevertheless, I don't want war with them unless the military here drags at least one hundred and fifty congresspersons into the military as well as put all of us 40 and 50 year olds in the draft pool. I would much rather go than my son, and I have zero desire to go. I do not want his life risked in a fight with people who mean nothing to me. I wouldn't trade either of my kids or even one of their limbs for every middle east life on this planet. I don't want any young people involuntarily sent to engage these people. It needs to be we middle aged guys. We on this board who are in our 40s and 50s have already had great lives.
I appreciate what you wrote, I do. But you quote me. Again, I did not coin the phrase, I have nothing to do with the phrase. I merely pointed out that there is a legal definition in the US and the world. I understand you may not accept it. That's not my issue. I smoked pot when it was illegal, everyone has something they don't accept as valid. I'm not a gun owner. But you are WRONG. Josh Sugarmann coined the phrase, not the gun manufactures. Cheers!!
I find it really disheartening how easily people on TV and here on this thread of Berkeley fans of all things, how glibly we speak of war. These aren't a cartoon movie version of bad people sitting around thinking about evil and rubbing their hands together. These are families and cultures of people who are human beings living really hard lives (harder than anthing we have known) and some are part of a religeon fervently and some are because that's all there is--there beliefs are just as much a spectrum of "good and evil" "moderate and radical" as many many parts of the world and parts of the US. Going down corridors of dehumanizing thoughts that sees them as subhuman, or as evil empire, or wackos...just limping complex societies into simple boxes is the worst of our nature. That's a real mother weeping over a real dead baby collateral not a video game or someone who deserves their suffering.
The "bomb them back to the Stone Age" crowd is the problem here. To have that sentiment you have lost your humanity and are the actual threat to civility and grace. You are the very evil you paint. You are already in the Stone Age. And most of these are so called Christians who espouse sanctity of human life. You are so used to your own thinking and the scripts you are fed that you fail to see your own horror.
The current media obsession with radicalization is a perfect example of trying to avoid the real issues and dehumanize the "enemy". Is there a radicalization quotient? At one point is someone officially radicalized? Where is the radicalization button and have Christian organizations like Westboro pushed it themselves? Are the barbaric calls for indiscriminate violence and revenge radicalization?
If you are going to say things like guns don't kill people, people kill people, then at least be logically consistent and say religeons don't kill people, people kill people. Address the causes of despair in the world through generosity and non-exploitation and quit feeding our out of control appetites for materialism and the complex chain that follows from our own greed and self-interest and we will do a much better job of creating "freedom", American exceptionalism, and "homeland security"--much more than any bomb.
You know who is a p@ssy? Not Obama, but the asshole military nuts that think bombing is tough and a solution. Press a button. Kill people. That is the p@ssy move.
Damn right.
Also, where do people think ISIS came from in the first place? They came to power after the US invaded Iraq, took out Saddam, and left a power vacuum in the region. You think just dropping some bombs and taking out another powerful force is going to mean everything comes up roses after that? No more terrorist groups? Come on now.
The problem with assualt weapon bans is they are a mythical type of weapon. NOTHING about them is unique to "assault weapons." They are semi-automatic rifles. A VERY widely used rifle everywhere. It is politically IMPOSSIBLE to ban semi-automatic rifles, and that is the "dangerous" technology regardless of what the rifle LOOKS like.
Remember the term was INVENTED to sell guns based on LOOKS alone. It is now being used to try to ban guns. A term invented to sell guns based on looks will NEVER work to ban guns. Focus on what makes them uniquely dangerous, and solve those problems. What is more important? A couple dozen people a year, or animal suffering. That is a VERY real question in this, because it is the number one reason these weapons are so lethal.
Anyway, anyone that talks about Assault Weapons is ignorant. It was a marketing tool to sell to soldier of fortune wannabes and is still used to trap ignorant people. To stop the problem you see, you need to think more clearly, understand the issue, take a less reactionary approach, etc. We dont stop terrorism like this by putting Muslims in camps, because we are smarter than that (I hope). We should be equally smart in not reacting through ignorance on gun control.
Actually the term assault rifle came to be used several decades ago to differentiate the lighter select-fire rifles from the heavier ones, which were called battle rifles. Just about every major combatant in WWII went to war with a heavy rifle (US had the Garand 30-06, Brits had the Enfield .303 bolt-actions, Germans had the Mauser type 96 8mm bolt-actions, and the Sovs had the Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54 (Japanese had the Arisaka, but we don't need to discuss them). These rifles shot larger bullets, which were very lethal, but the rifles themselves were heavy and the rounds big, so not as many could be carried. We also started the war with the Thompson submachine gun in the .45ACP, while the Germans had their MP40 machine pistol in the 9mm, so there were big rifles and smaller things shooting pistol rounds, but nothing really in between that could sacrifice some lethality but be lighter, select-fire, and have smaller ammo so troops could carry more. By the end of the war we had the M-1 carbine shooting the .30 carbine round, pretty much an elongated roundnose pistol round, and the Sovs had the hugely successful PPSh submachine gun that shot the 7.62x25mm round. The Sovs realized that so much of infantry action took place under 100m, so you didn't need weapon overkill by equipping everybody with heavy rifles.
So postwar there was this push to make smaller rifles that could reliably shoot the smaller round, and troops could carry more of those rounds. The Sovs started off with their Simonov SKS model, then moved to the Kalashnikov, both using the 7.62x39 round, smaller than the 7.62x54 but still effective out to 200m+. We actually moved to the M14, which originally used the heavier 30-06 round but then switched to the 7.62x51 NATO round (.308), and then in the 1960's switched to the Armalite design that became the M-16 in the .223 NATO 5.56mm round. France did something similar with their rifles, with the FN Model 49 being chambered for the 7.92x57 round (the German 8mm Mauser round), then their later FN FAL (.308) and FN CAL (.223). The German HKs, to my knowledge, were generally chambered for the .308, but knowing them, they surely had models that shot the smaller rounds. The Sovs, seeing that everybody was moving towards the smaller round, moved to their 5.45mm round in the AK-74 and subsequent designs.
So without going into the details of ballistics and lethality of the different sized rounds, we see that there's a split between the heavier semi-auto rifles and the lighter ones, with slightly different tactical purposes for each. The heavier ones were termed battle rifles, and the lighter ones assault rifles. The lighter assault rifles sacrificed some lethality in order to gain ease of use on the battlefield, and the ability to pump more rounds through them. The term assault rifle morphed into assault weapon in the public consciousness, and probably includes what were originally called battle rifles, even though relatively few people have used true battle rifles in mass shootings.
But your point remains - the rifle capabilities remain, regardless of cosmetics. My Ruger Mini-14 has the exact same capabilities as any of the AR-15s used in recent shootings, but it isn't on any ban lists because it isn't sexy enough.
And sensational shootings aside, most of the damage done in this country by people with guns is perpetrated by people with handguns, not assault rifles. So, yeah, most of the legislation is barking up the wrong tree, and legislators and interest groups are expending political capital on issues that don't address the biggest problem.
Thank you Blungld. As a Cal student who was drafted in 1966 but thanks to a quick enlistment in Cal ROTC managed to delay my active duty in the Army until 1970, all the macho war talk I find offensive UNLESS you served in the military during war time. Back in the 1960's and 1970's we used to refer to supporters of the Vietnam war who were not subject to active duty service as "Chicken Hawks".
All the talk of war takes on a different meaning if you are the one who is going to fight that war. it is not just a philosophical exercise. it is a life and death decision. Your own life and death. Further when your life is involved you have a special appreciation for what the soldiers on the other side are going through and their families and loved ones.
1979bear;842613509 said:
Yes. If you haven't put on the uniform, and you're not going to personally go kill whoever you think needs killing, shut up.
With all due respect, no, not quite. While I sincerely thank you for your service, I also say there is more than one measure for taking this seriously beyond having served yourself. The crap with ISIS and AQ (well, actually, the underlying stuff that leads to them) will continue to exist as my son enters service age. I fear for the possibility that he would some day have to go.
A step to some kind of "end" is enhanced when Trump feels egotistically offended when he was not selected as Time's Man of the Year, ignoring Time's wise reply that they don't select candidates as next year voters will select ... and then Trump trumps himself by declaring that Merkel was unworthy because she ruined Germany.
Trump is furthering his reputation as a racist demagogue. He really should run as an independent. Perhaps with his butt buddy Cruz on his ticket.
Also, where do people think ISIS came from in the first place? They came to power after the US invaded Iraq, took out Saddam, and left a power vacuum in the region. You think just dropping some bombs and taking out another powerful force is going to mean everything comes up roses after that? No more terrorist groups? Come on now.
Come on now, let's be level headed. Terrorism existed in that region before we invaded. Remember the whole 9/11 thing and who pulled it off?
I agree with you about the power vacuum. I might have thought a WW2/cold war response of keeping a presence in the region for stabilizing purposes (See Germany, et. al.) would have been the way to go. But that gets us on to another topic entirely (and yes, I'm aware of the reasons it wasn't done - no need to recount them).
Actually the term assault rifle came to be used several decades ago to differentiate the lighter select-fire rifles from the heavier ones, which were called battle rifles. Just about every major combatant in WWII went to war with a heavy rifle (US had the Garand 30-06, Brits had the Enfield .303 bolt-actions, Germans had the Mauser type 96 8mm bolt-actions, and the Sovs had the Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54 (Japanese had the Arisaka, but we don't need to discuss them). These rifles shot larger bullets, which were very lethal, but the rifles themselves were heavy and the rounds big, so not as many could be carried. We also started the war with the Thompson submachine gun in the .45ACP, while the Germans had their MP40 machine pistol in the 9mm, so there were big rifles and smaller things shooting pistol rounds, but nothing really in between that could sacrifice some lethality but be lighter, select-fire, and have smaller ammo so troops could carry more. By the end of the war we had the M-1 carbine shooting the .30 carbine round, pretty much an elongated roundnose pistol round, and the Sovs had the hugely successful PPSh submachine gun that shot the 7.62x25mm round. The Sovs realized that so much of infantry action took place under 100m, so you didn't need weapon overkill by equipping everybody with heavy rifles. So postwar there was this push to make smaller rifles that could reliably shoot the smaller round, and troops could carry more of those rounds. The Sovs started off with their Simonov SKS model, then moved to the Kalashnikov, both using the 7.62x39 round, smaller than the 7.62x54 but still effective out to 200m+. We actually moved to the M14, which originally used the heavier 30-06 round but then switched to the 7.62x51 NATO round (.308), and then in the 1960's switched to the Armalite design that became the M-16 in the .223 NATO 5.56mm round. France did something similar with their rifles, with the FN Model 49 being chambered for the 7.92x57 round (the German 8mm Mauser round), then their later FN FAL (.308) and FN CAL (.223). The German HKs, to my knowledge, were generally chambered for the .308, but knowing them, they surely had models that shot the smaller rounds. The Sovs, seeing that everybody was moving towards the smaller round, moved to their 5.45mm round in the AK-74 and subsequent designs.So without going into the details of ballistics and lethality of the different sized rounds, we see that there's a split between the heavier semi-auto rifles and the lighter ones, with slightly different tactical purposes for each. The heavier ones were termed battle rifles, and the lighter ones assault rifles. The lighter assault rifles sacrificed some lethality in order to gain ease of use on the battlefield, and the ability to pump more rounds through them. The term assault rifle morphed into assault weapon in the public consciousness, and probably includes what were originally called battle rifles, even though relatively few people have used true battle rifles in mass shootings. But your point remains - the rifle capabilities remain, regardless of cosmetics. My Ruger Mini-14 has the exact same capabilities as any of the AR-15s used in recent shootings, but it isn't on any ban lists because it isn't sexy enough.And sensational shootings aside, most of the damage done in this country by people with guns is perpetrated by people with handguns, not assault rifles. So, yeah, most of the legislation is barking up the wrong tree, and legislators and interest groups are expending political capital on issues that don't address the biggest problem.
Assault rifle != assault weapon. Assault rifles require a special permit to buy. They have mechanical characteristics that make them easy to identify (ie selective fire).
Come on now, let's be level headed. Terrorism existed in that region before we invaded. Remember the whole 9/11 thing and who pulled it off?
I agree with you about the power vacuum. I might have thought a WW2/cold war response of keeping a presence in the region for stabilizing purposes (See Germany, et. al.) would have been the way to go. But that gets us on to another topic entirely (and yes, I'm aware of the reasons it wasn't done - no need to recount them).
I am not saying that the USA invented terrorism. I'm saying our actions in the region allowed ISIS (one specific terrorist organization) to come to power.
As for stabilizing purposes, well, we tried that for a while. ISIS still happened, mostly because we don't really know what we're doing in that part of the world. We don't understand the tribalism specific to that region.
I am not saying that the USA invented terrorism. I'm saying our actions in the region allowed ISIS (one specific terrorist organization) to come to power.
As for stabilizing purposes, well, we tried that for a while. ISIS still happened, mostly because we don't really know what we're doing in that part of the world. We don't understand the tribalism specific to that region.
But ... but ... we were assured by the neo-con "experts" that ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan and taking out Saddam was the great alternative ... we were to be welcomed as liberators and the war would be relatively bloodless and paid for with Iraqi oil ... OMG, were the Bushie neo-cons wrong? Did those self-proclaimed geniuses not understand Sunni vs Shiite (and the Kurds)?
But ... but ... we were assured by the neo-con "experts" that ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan and taking out Saddam was the great alternative ... we were to be welcomed as liberators and the war would be relatively bloodless and paid for with Iraqi oil ... OMG, were the Bushie neo-cons wrong? Did those self-proclaimed geniuses not understand Sunni vs Shiite (and the Kurds)?
Wow. There are so many people here who obviously would have done better. Even better than all those Democratic congressmen and congresswomen who were for the war until they weren't.
Let's not pretend that the Iraq war was the only reason for ISIS. I was personally against the Iraq war since I was not convinced that Saddam was a threat to us and since I never would support a war unless I was truly ready to serve and have my kids serve on the front line. Even as a conservative Republican, I am more of a pacifist (and not a libertarian) when it comes to creating death and destruction over worldly principles. However, let's not conveniently forget the Arab Spring we supported and pushed (like some condescending blowhard tapping the poor ignorant folks on the head for seeing how great our form of Democracy is for any and every culture and region - sarcasm). Let's not forget that ISIS was an offshoot of AQ in Iraq that we had mostly contained before we pulled our troops before the Iraq armed forces were ready. Let's not forget that refocusing on Afghanistan before we stabilized Iraq and treating ISIS as the "JV" (if anything Obama is consistently arrogant, laughing at Romney for thinking Russia was a threat - ooh, look how smart I am and how ignorant the Republicans are; laughing at the Republicans worried about ISIS, calling them the JV team we shouldn't worry about) allowed AQ in Iraq to grow. Bush's foreign policy was a disaster, and he had really bad advisor (Rumsfeld and Cheney) and really bad intel. The only one who compares as a failure is Obama. Gee, Libya sure welcomed us as liberators when we forced Gaddafi out.
When I get turned off by the spin and bias within my party, all I have to do is read the rewrite of history on these boards and the representation of the other party to remember why I hate politics on both sides.
