|
While I admit to never having fired an M1 Garand, I suspect if I wanted to kill large numbers of people at close range, I'd rather have the larger magazine. Is the M1 really sufficiently more accurate and reliable that I can hit 4 time the number of people with each bullet? Easy targets at close range?
I do agree that the details of the 1994 ban where pretty silly. The pistol grip may make a difference for this kind of shooting, I'm not sure. The...
Well, the M1 Garand fires a bigger, heaver bullet further than an AR-15. Not only will an M1 go through more flesh, it will leave a bigger hole.
You can rapid hip-fire with an M1 just fine without a pistol grip.
|
"Hanged" men. And that's kind of monstrous of you.Hung men do not repeat offend, and yes i am ok with hanging anyone with a stolen gunNot really, im in favor of punishing the guilty not the innocent. Lax punishments for those that do wrong while taking rights and freedoms from those who have done nothing seems tyrannical and dickishQuick question for you, Citizen R., that doesn't really have anything to do with anything:
Is there ever a time when you don't think draconian punishment is a good idea?
Deterrence is more effective based on the chance of being caught than the actual punishment.
Draconian measures have been shown to increase recidivism amongst those caught, but no measurable effect on the wider public can be demonstrated either way.
Think of it like a group of kids. If one kid steps out of line and is immediately caught and given a punishment, the other kids know not to cross that line. It matters less what the punishment was, and more that the offender was caught immediately. If the person isn't caught, the behavior becomes seen as permissible and so more kids do it.
You support tyranny against the innocent, i want to punish the guilty. what is monstrous here?
|
|
I am in favor of gun control and I like guns.
Most of the folks in this debate aren't calling for gun bans HangarFlying, I wouldn't mind seeing gun show loop holes shut down, registration, and the phasing out of high capacity clips. The goal is to end these spree shootings, an M1 is a fine weapon, probably less prone to jamming then the AR-15 actually, but it doesn't have a high clip size and it's slow to reload. I'm not actually looking to remove either from public hands but of the two weapons I think the AR-15 has the greater potential for mass murder over a shorter period of time.
I guess I'm speaking to the larger national debate rather than the one in this very thread.
While the M1 only has 8-round clips to the AR's 30-round magazine, I disagree that it is slow to reload. Reload more frequently, certainly but no more time than it takes to put in an AR-15 mag.
I don't see a problem with requiring private purchase sales to go through a background check just like any purchase being made through an FFL. I don't think it's necessary to stop private purchase sales, just make them require the checks.
I don't agree with firearm registration on a national level. I certainly don't agree with treating "scary" semi-automatic rifles like NFA Class III firearms and all the BS associated with that.
High-capacity magazines...yeah I can understand the concern, and realistically they probably will get banned even though I don't agree with it. I mean, look at it this way: if an individual has been deemed to be safe, sane, and competent to own any firearm, why should anyone care how big the magazine is that he or she uses? If we ban things on the sole argument that "bad things might happen", there are a whole bunch of things out there other than guns or high-capacity magazines that could be banned.
|
|
I am in favor of gun control and I like guns.
Most of the folks in this debate aren't calling for gun bans HangarFlying, I wouldn't mind seeing gun show loop holes shut down, registration, and the phasing out of high capacity clips. The goal is to end these spree shootings, an M1 is a fine weapon, probably less prone to jamming then the AR-15 actually, but it doesn't have a high clip size and it's slow to reload. I'm not actually looking to remove either from public hands but of the two weapons I think the AR-15 has the greater potential for mass murder over a shorter period of time.
I guess I'm speaking to the larger national debate rather than the one in this very thread.
While the M1 only has 8-round clips to the AR's 30-round magazine, I disagree that it is slow to reload. Reload more frequently, certainly but no more time than it takes to put in an AR-15 mag.
I don't see a problem with requiring private purchase sales to go through a background check just like any purchase being made through an FFL. I don't think it's necessary to stop private purchase sales, just make them require the checks.
I don't agree with firearm registration on a national level. I certainly don't agree with treating "scary" semi-automatic rifles like NFA Class III firearms and all the BS associated with that.
High-capacity magazines...yeah I can understand the concern, and realistically they probably will get banned even though I don't agree with it. I mean, look at it this way: if an individual has been deemed to be safe, sane, and competent to own any firearm, why should anyone care how big the magazine is that he or she uses? If we ban things on the sole argument that "bad things might happen", there are a whole bunch of things out there other than guns or high-capacity magazines that could be banned.
The humor i see in that is that drugs bans were mostly because of potential problems but it seems that the same groups that hate guns like drugs.....
Nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance in forcing change on a government. That means when dealing with a government, nonviolence is more effective than violence, which suggests to me that a government is not an inherently violent organization, because otherwise violence would be the most effective means of change.Tell it to NATO and Africom.
Do you think there's a specific reason they'd listen to me in particular?
You support tyranny against the innocent, i want to punish the guilty. what is monstrous here?"Hanged" men. And that's kind of monstrous of you.Hung men do not repeat offend, and yes i am ok with hanging anyone with a stolen gunNot really, im in favor of punishing the guilty not the innocent. Lax punishments for those that do wrong while taking rights and freedoms from those who have done nothing seems tyrannical and dickishQuick question for you, Citizen R., that doesn't really have anything to do with anything:
Is there ever a time when you don't think draconian punishment is a good idea?
Deterrence is more effective based on the chance of being caught than the actual punishment.
Draconian measures have been shown to increase recidivism amongst those caught, but no measurable effect on the wider public can be demonstrated either way.
Think of it like a group of kids. If one kid steps out of line and is immediately caught and given a punishment, the other kids know not to cross that line. It matters less what the punishment was, and more that the offender was caught immediately. If the person isn't caught, the behavior becomes seen as permissible and so more kids do it.
Guns aren't required for freedom. I bet you can even think of at least two examples of how people have gained freedom without a gun. If freedom is possible without a gun, then taking away guns is not tyranny.
Do you think there's a specific reason they'd listen to me in particular?Nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance in forcing change on a government. That means when dealing with a government, nonviolence is more effective than violence, which suggests to me that a government is not an inherently violent organization, because otherwise violence would be the most effective means of change.Tell it to NATO and Africom.
No, I suppose not.
But I find your constant preaching of nonviolent resistance a little irksome when the biggest purveyors of political violence in this world is the United States and their various stooges.
But, whatever. I'm sure many find my constant preaching of international proletarian socialist revolution irksome. Kettle, pot, nice to meetcha.
Preach on IMO. A story about power being given to the workers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You support tyranny against the innocent,
Nope. Stop being crazy.
i want to punish the guilty.
You want to punish the guilty in a manner wildly disproportionate to the crime.
what is monstrous here?
Your idea of "justice".
The humor i see in that is that drugs bans were mostly because of potential problems but it seems that the same groups that hate guns like drugs.....
What do you mean by "like drugs"? Do you mean supporting the legalization of marijuana? Because, yeah, that's just sound policy. This may astonish you, but what you're seeing isn't a series of unconnected traits shared by a group of people. It's a shared respect for evidence and a shared distaste for empty rhetoric and shallow thinking.
Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Supposing the government is threatening me with something up here in Canada I have at least two different organizations I can turn too before I take legal action, first is the ombudsman, though appointed by the government, is usually quite independent of the government and has some powers to act as oversight, the second is the news media, be it television, print, or radio. These folks love a good story about government folly and politicians do often change their positions when they have microphones aimed at them.
Voting is another good option.
So that is somehow easier?
So that is somehow easier?Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Supposing the government is threatening me with something up here in Canada I have at least two different organizations I can turn too before I take legal action, first is the ombudsman, though appointed by the government, is usually quite independent of the government and has some powers to act as oversight, the second is the news media, be it television, print, or radio. These folks love a good story about government folly and politicians do often change their positions when they have microphones aimed at them.
Voting is another good option.
Voting and reporting your problem to the ombudsman/media is easier than taking down a modern military with your conventional weaponry?
Yes. Yes, I would say that's probably easier.
I'd offer to let you test it, but I doubt very much you'd survive the attempt.
The humor i see in that is that drugs bans were mostly because of potential problems but it seems that the same groups that hate guns like drugs.....What do you mean by "like drugs"?
I've never met a drug I didn't like. Of course, I don't particularly mind guns, either...
So that is somehow easier?Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Supposing the government is threatening me with something up here in Canada I have at least two different organizations I can turn too before I take legal action, first is the ombudsman, though appointed by the government, is usually quite independent of the government and has some powers to act as oversight, the second is the news media, be it television, print, or radio. These folks love a good story about government folly and politicians do often change their positions when they have microphones aimed at them.
Voting is another good option.
Voting and reporting your problem to the ombudsman/media is easier than taking down a modern military with your conventional weaponry?
Yes. Yes, I would say that's probably easier.
I'd offer to let you test it, but I doubt very much you'd survive the attempt.
But voting satisfies no one's Rambo-style mass murder fantasies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I didn't realize you had Rambo-style mass murder fantasies, Comrade Knife.
Of course, I only sided with Rambo in the first one. After that, I was down with the Vietnamese and the Soviets.
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.
Civil War-themed post bumped for Comrade Samnell's perusal.
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.Civil War-themed post bumped for Comrade Samnell's perusal.
Reminds me of a time one of the white power crowd started ranting about how the Union League and the Freedmen's Bureau brought such horrible woe on the South and destroyed a naturally peaceful society, creating the civil strife it took more than a century to calm.
Their crime: Mostly teaching the former slaves how to read. Thanks for making my point for me, bud. When I pointed that out, he didn't even bother to deny it.
But voting satisfies no one's Rambo-style mass murder fantasies.So that is somehow easier?Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Supposing the government is threatening me with something up here in Canada I have at least two different organizations I can turn too before I take legal action, first is the ombudsman, though appointed by the government, is usually quite independent of the government and has some powers to act as oversight, the second is the news media, be it television, print, or radio. These folks love a good story about government folly and politicians do often change their positions when they have microphones aimed at them.
Voting is another good option.
Voting and reporting your problem to the ombudsman/media is easier than taking down a modern military with your conventional weaponry?
Yes. Yes, I would say that's probably easier.
I'd offer to let you test it, but I doubt very much you'd survive the attempt.
Um. Once again that wasnt what was asserted. Seriously, where did you get this from?
Edit- so its easier to contact your ombudsman and hope he sides with you, contact the media and hope they cover your story, or vote and hope that you win, all while a government is trying to have you killed than it is to call the police on an individual trying to kill you?
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.Civil War-themed post bumped for Comrade Samnell's perusal.Reminds me of a time one of the white power crowd started ranting about how the Union League and the Freedmen's Bureau brought such horrible woe on the South and destroyed a naturally peaceful society, creating the civil strife it took more than a century to calm.
Their crime: Mostly teaching the former slaves how to read. Thanks for making my point for me, bud. When I pointed that out, he didn't even bother to deny it.
Yeah, this morning when I found the video, I was like, wtf?!?
German socialists (and some of them were comrades of Marx's in Germany) fighting slaveowners, scored with Morricone music?!?
Sometimes the internet's pretty f$~~ing amazing.
I also noticed that in this thread, it was Comrade Samnell who hit post # 420.
You want a hit off this, Sam, or should I save it for Citizen R.?
Oh, I didn't realize you had Rambo-style mass murder fantasies, Comrade Knife.
Of course, I only sided with Rambo in the first one. After that, I was down with the Vietnamese and the Soviets.
I didnt realise either.
and I liked the third one where Rambo helped (indirectly or not, its not specified) the Taliban take power. Indefinite Detention his ass!!!
I wish Ivan Drago had blown him away with an AK.
Down with Rambo!
Vive le Galt!
I also noticed that in this thread, it was Comrade Samnell who hit post # 420.
You want a hit off this, Sam, or should I save it for Citizen R.?
Weed just isn't decadent enough for me. I will not settle for less than moon rocks and ground up fetus smoked in a bong made out of the skull of a child. I have an image to maintain, after all.
If I lived in a country where my government was trying to kill me I doubt I'd be trying away on the internet.
Edit- so its easier to contact your ombudsman and hope he sides with you, contact the media and hope they cover your story, or vote and hope that you win, all while a government is trying to have you killed than it is to call the police on an individual trying to kill you?
Okay. But you chose to answer the question of which was easier to hold accountable: A government trying to kill you or an individual?
I take it that youre changing your answer?Edit- you'll also notice that there is no part of this question involving taking on a military alone rambo style. If anything its to illustrate that it cant be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Ivan Drago had blown him away with an AK.
Down with Rambo!
Vive le Galt!
Rambo doesnt believe in limiting magazine size. 8p
I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly.
umm the link you provided states that the fees are state sanctioned. I cant think of any state that allows violence done against citizens against the state's will. Hence, they are a monopoly of violence.
Second, governments use many means to try and enforce it's will, many of which do not include violence.
Maybe not directly. But boil it down, and its only coercion is violence.
Third, this presupposes the concept of government as being some sort of "other", instead of the government being a representation of our will. The government is always powered by the people. A lone dictator does not enslave a nation, he needs an army and bureaucracy to do so.
Sure, if the citizenry all existed of some sort of hive mind that all agreed on everything, they represent every citizens will. Since those conditions dont exist, governments use the threat of violence to keep outliers in line. Once again, not saying this is necessarily bad, it just is.
Nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance in forcing change on a government. That means when dealing with a government, nonviolence is more effective than violence, which suggests to me that a government is not an inherently violent organization, because otherwise violence would be the most effective means of change.
Ok. Give me an example of government coercion that isnt ultimately backed by violence then.
Also, guns aren't comparable to government. Government serves a purpose outside of harming. A community getting together and adopting a decision making process is a government, and many do so without violence or threat of violence. Since the purpose of doing so is usually to not do harm, but to actually solve problems within the community, government serves a utilitarian purpose other than causing harm.
Sure, they serve a utilatarian purpose, but they do so by using violence as coercion. Same as firearms. They feed people. They potentially stop evildoers. By using violence.
You can't even compare a gun to something like heroine. Because heroine comes from opium, which is also used to make effective pain control medicines which are useful for doctors.
Guns can't be compared to explosives. Explosives are useful as a construction and demolition tool.
Congratulations on refuting some things that nobody has claimed?
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.Civil War-themed post bumped for Comrade Samnell's perusal.Reminds me of a time one of the white power crowd started ranting about how the Union League and the Freedmen's Bureau brought such horrible woe on the South and destroyed a naturally peaceful society, creating the civil strife it took more than a century to calm.
Their crime: Mostly teaching the former slaves how to read. Thanks for making my point for me, bud. When I pointed that out, he didn't even bother to deny it.
Trying to tear myself away from Paizo, but...
IIRC, Fremont was the first Union general to free slaves.
Again, IIRC, as soon as the War started, vicious guerrilla fighting broke out in Missouri between the pro-slavery veterans of Bleeding Kansas (John Brown would have been against assault weapons bans, too, Comrade Knife) and the pro-Union German immigrant communities centered around St. Louis that would, in the future, give the world Budweiser, the King of Beers.
Anyway, IIRC, As soon as Fremont could get from California to Missouri, he was placed in charge of the Union forces, and I think he was the first one to free any slaves (although Lincoln countermanded the order).
I like to imagine that it was the commie Germans who gave Fremont the idea...
I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly.umm the link you provided states that the fees are state sanctioned. I cant think of any state that allows violence done against citizens against the state's will. Hence, they are a monopoly of violence.
Sorry, it's buried in there, but anecdotal accounts say that domestic abuse in North Korea is skyrocketing, because of these shifts in economies of the household. I say anecdotal accounts, because it's not like we can send in some pollsters and figure out the truth in NK. The point is, even in NK, the state can't control all the violence.
If you can't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it.
Trying to tear myself away from Paizo, but...IIRC, Fremont was the first Union general to free slaves.
Yeah. At the time Lincoln was like "Thanks for giving the Border States to the rebels, ass. Do me a favor and take it back before you lose the damned war?"
Fremot: "I don't do favors, thanks."
Lincoln: "Do I have to come out there and kick your ass personally?"
Fremont: "Holy crap you are one big dude. Ok, ok, was just kidding earlier!"
I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly.umm the link you provided states that the fees are state sanctioned. I cant think of any state that allows violence done against citizens against the state's will. Hence, they are a monopoly of violence.
Sorry, it's buried in there, but anecdotal accounts say that domestic abuse in North Korea is skyrocketing, because of these shifts in economies of the household. I say anecdotal accounts, because it's not like we can send in some pollsters and figure out the truth in NK. The point is, even in NK, the state can't control all the violence.
If you can't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it.
To keep with a North Korean theme: Since counterfeiters exist, the US government doesnt have a monopoly on creating dollar bills? After all, they cant control those counterfeiters. Thats absurd.
To keep with a North Korean theme: Since counterfeiters exist, the US government doesnt have a monopoly on creating dollar bills? After all, they cant control those counterfeiters. Thats absurd.I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly.umm the link you provided states that the fees are state sanctioned. I cant think of any state that allows violence done against citizens against the state's will. Hence, they are a monopoly of violence.
Sorry, it's buried in there, but anecdotal accounts say that domestic abuse in North Korea is skyrocketing, because of these shifts in economies of the household. I say anecdotal accounts, because it's not like we can send in some pollsters and figure out the truth in NK. The point is, even in NK, the state can't control all the violence.
If you can't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it.
If you don't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it. Seems pretty obvious to me. Or were you using some other definition of monopoly that I'm not aware of.
If neither havings guns or baning guns help you to not get killed by your goverment then I do not see how that example is relevant in this tread.But voting satisfies no one's Rambo-style mass murder fantasies.So that is somehow easier?Do you, Guy? If someone tries to kill me, I can call the police and have them held accountable. If a government tries to kill me, how do I hold them accountable?
But regardless, I think I made my point that it really doesnt matter that the only function of firearms is to do harm to something else. Because sometimes harming something else is the best option.
Supposing the government is threatening me with something up here in Canada I have at least two different organizations I can turn too before I take legal action, first is the ombudsman, though appointed by the government, is usually quite independent of the government and has some powers to act as oversight, the second is the news media, be it television, print, or radio. These folks love a good story about government folly and politicians do often change their positions when they have microphones aimed at them.
Voting is another good option.
Voting and reporting your problem to the ombudsman/media is easier than taking down a modern military with your conventional weaponry?
Yes. Yes, I would say that's probably easier.
I'd offer to let you test it, but I doubt very much you'd survive the attempt.
Um. Once again that wasnt what was asserted. Seriously, where did you get this from?
Edit- so its easier to contact your ombudsman and hope he sides with you, contact the media and hope they cover your story, or vote and hope that you win, all while a government is trying to have you killed than it is to call the police on an individual trying to kill you?
It wasnt. It was a tangent of a tangent in the off-topic forums. Do at least make an effort to read a post before you respond to it.
Edit- Look, Guy asserted that it would be easier for him to hold a hostile government accountable than a hostile individual. Im just trying to give him an opportunity to walk that statement back, because its absurd. I mean my fellow posters can assign words to my mouth about Rambo fantasies and such all they like, but thats all this is.
If you don't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it. Seems pretty obvious to me. Or were you using some other definition of monopoly that I'm not aware of.To keep with a North Korean theme: Since counterfeiters exist, the US government doesnt have a monopoly on creating dollar bills? After all, they cant control those counterfeiters. Thats absurd.I disagree, a state is not a monopoly on violence. First, it holds no such monopoly. Even in North Korea, the state does not hold a monopoly on violence. Since violence occurs against the states wishes, you can't consider it to be a monopoly.umm the link you provided states that the fees are state sanctioned. I cant think of any state that allows violence done against citizens against the state's will. Hence, they are a monopoly of violence.
Sorry, it's buried in there, but anecdotal accounts say that domestic abuse in North Korea is skyrocketing, because of these shifts in economies of the household. I say anecdotal accounts, because it's not like we can send in some pollsters and figure out the truth in NK. The point is, even in NK, the state can't control all the violence.
If you can't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it.
No we're using the same definition. Its just that you seem to operate on a standard that a monopoly only exists if and only if its under 100% control, which hasnt existed anywhere at anytime. So you agree that the US government doesnt have a monopoly on printing US dollars? Or that the North Koreans wont arrest someone for domestic abuse? That is absurd.
Feel free to answer any of these questions.
If you don't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it. Seems pretty obvious to me. Or were you using some other definition of monopoly that I'm not aware of.
If it's any help, the usual formula is monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Should a state lack that, it has become Somalia.
Ta-Nehisi Coates found a revealing passage from a conservative author relevant to this:
But what troubles me most about this suggestion -- and the general More Guns approach to social ills -- is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now -- but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
I rarely find occasion to agree with conservatives, and even more rarely find occasion to do so and then not immediately doubt my motives or the quality of my reasoning, but I can't argue with that paragraph at all. The absolute abandonment of civil society runs so thick across every gun discussion I've ever had that I can no more deny it than I can deny the wetness of water.
Down with Lincoln!
Vive le Django!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Canadians, Somalia and the monopoly on forceThat was an incident that shocked all Canadians. That entire regiment was disbanded as a result of this monstrous act. The fellow that did most of beating tried to kill himself and as a result has permanent brain damage. There was also some speculation that the drug Mefloquine may have played a role in this tragedy, it wouldn't excuse the results, but it might explain how a rational human being could do something like that to another . . . especially one that was just a kid.
Yes, it was pretty disgusting.
Those familiar with incidents ranging from My Lai to Haditha won't be surprised that most of the defendants got off pretty lightly.
In the book Shake Hands with the Devil, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire documents the racist indifference of the UN officials towards the genocide in Rwanda.
The pretty powerful book has served as one of the rallying points for "humanitarian interventionism," but, IIRC, buried in the book is a scene of Dallaire hanging out with a bunch of Belgian "peacekeepers" bragging about how many "nxxxxs" they killed in Somalia.
And meanwhile, Obama's sending troops to 35 African nations.
Yay monopoly of legitimate force!
In honor of Christoph Waltz's character, I'll link this.Civil War-themed post bumped for Comrade Samnell's perusal.Reminds me of a time one of the white power crowd started ranting about how the Union League and the Freedmen's Bureau brought such horrible woe on the South and destroyed a naturally peaceful society, creating the civil strife it took more than a century to calm.
Their crime: Mostly teaching the former slaves how to read. Thanks for making my point for me, bud. When I pointed that out, he didn't even bother to deny it.
Trying to tear myself away from Paizo, but...
IIRC, Fremont was the first Union general to free slaves.
Again, IIRC, as soon as the War started, vicious guerrilla fighting broke out in Missouri between the pro-slavery veterans of Bleeding Kansas (John Brown would have been against assault weapons bans, too, Comrade Knife) and the pro-Union German immigrant communities centered around St. Louis that would, in the future, give the world Budweiser, the King of Beers.
Anyway, IIRC, As soon as Fremont could get from California to Missouri, he was placed in charge of the Union forces, and I think he was the first one to free any slaves (although Lincoln countermanded the order).
I like to imagine that it was the commie Germans who gave Fremont the idea...
This is correct. On a side note they brought us some really fine German style wines as well. The wine country around Herman Mo south of St Louis is amazing.
Canadians, Somalia and the monopoly on forceThat was an incident that shocked all Canadians. That entire regiment was disbanded as a result of this monstrous act. The fellow that did most of beating tried to kill himself and as a result has permanent brain damage. There was also some speculation that the drug Mefloquine may have played a role in this tragedy, it wouldn't excuse the results, but it might explain how a rational human being could do something like that to another . . . especially one that was just a kid.Yes, it was pretty disgusting.
Those familiar with incidents ranging from My Lai to Haditha won't be surprised that most of the defendants got off pretty lightly.
In the book Shake Hands with the Devil, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire documents the racist indifference of the UN officials towards the genocide in Rwanda.
The pretty powerful book has served as one of the rallying points for "humanitarian interventionism," but, IIRC, buried in the book is a scene of Dallaire hanging out with a bunch of Belgian "peacekeepers" bragging about how many "nxxxxs" they killed in Somalia.
And meanwhile, Obama's sending troops to 35 African nations.
Yay monopoly of legitimate force!
The unfortunate side effect of training people to violence, and then sending them to do violence is that they often perpetuate violence you don't want later. *shrug* It sucks in so many ways sideways. It's shameful how its treated later but I think the ultimate reality is that the society that sends these men to do violence to a certain extent recognizes their hand in the perpetuation of these tragedies and that's why they don't get punished as severely as they deserve.
My evidence professor in law school was one of the Mai Lai prosecutors. Interesting and thoughtful guy. I think you'd like him citizen anklebiter.
That's usually the case when organizations investigate themselves.
Leaving the opening for Comrade Knife...