Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - noel c.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 14, 2022, 02:36:57 AM »

Of course, you are absolutely correct. Trump was restraining the natural impulses of his murderous, sociopathic, buddy out of genuine concern for preservation of the noble Russian kleptocracy.

Sometimes I just lose perspective.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: October 14, 2022, 01:08:07 AM »

”I honestly find that as offensive as the suggestion that I should consider Grosskreutz to be a like-minded fellow traveler.”

Take offense as you choose, I honestly do not care. If you would not claim them, the mob would certainly identify with you.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: October 14, 2022, 01:01:30 AM »

”I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completely within his right to try to detain or neutralize someone who had already fired his weapon at Rosenbaum. He was your ‘good guy with a gun’ and his big mistake was that he hesitated and also wasn't sufficiently armed with his own semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.”

Umm, no.

Grosskreutz pursued Rittenhouse, who intermittently had his rifle shouldered, down a street crowded with rioters, one of whom had just drop-kicked him in the head, and a second clipped him in the neck with the edge of a long skateboard. Rittenhouse was on the ground when approached by Grosskreutz. In close quarters, a long gun is at a disadvantage to a concealed pistol (which Grosskreutz was not legally entitled to possess). He was criminally stupid to pick a fight with someone who had already showed competence in the deadly use of force. Grosskreutz is fortunate not to be dead, and a jury of peers agreed.

”According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completel
According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.”[/i].

On this, we agree entirely.

According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse was legally entitled to open carry a long gun with a barrel exceeding 16”. Law enforcement had no jurisdiction over him until shots were fired. Following shots, they declined to accept Rittenhouse’s surrender.

”The argument that got Rittenhouse off was that the unarmed Rosenbaum posed enough of a threat walking toward Rittenhouse that he was justified in ending his life. In my worldview, the moral thing to do would have been a tactical retreat by Rittenhouse, which he made no attempt to do.”

If you watch the audio/video, you will hear shots coming from a gun other than the AR-15 that Rittenhouse carried during his engagement with Rosenbaum. They were both hidden from view behind vehicles at the time Rittenhouse fired. The jury determined that Rittenhouse acted rationally given the information available to him, and I agree with them.

”If you saw a guy shoot an unarmed man in the crowd, and you are carrying a firearm Noel, are you going to watch him go or are you going to Judge Dredd the guy before ever finding out what was going on? There's a reason why cops shoot the ‘good guy’ when he's toting a weapon after taking down the actual criminal.”

You seem to have answered your own question. Do not engage in the use of deadly force unless you have a full awareness of what is going on.

”Rittenhouse might have been a good shot, but his tactical awareness was atrocious. Even a cursory reading of Sun Tzu would have indicated that numbers matter. he was completely banking on the entire crowd cowering at his manly image with an eagle soaring over him. Not a great strategy. If more members of the crowd were armed, as you advocate, he would be dead now. And they also would have got off as being justifiably in fear for their lives.”

I totally disagree. Rittenhouse’s tactical awareness was textbook, which is quite an achievement for a minor. If other members of the crowd were either conforming with open carry statues, or as in the case of Grosskreutz, not violating the law, the stakes involved in physical conflict would have been clear. Reasonable people would disengage, which one of Rittenhouse’s assailants was actually video-recorded as doing.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 11:30:41 PM »

Stop digging.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 11:19:42 PM »

Are you daft? Do you need an explanation for the existence of NATO? That is, by far, the most inane statement that I have read from you, and there have been some whoppers.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 10:56:00 PM »

Poland raised its defense budget to 3% GDP for next year. Finland followed, raising theirs to 2.25% for 2023. The number is set by perceived threat. Trump perceived the threat a little more accurately than others, which is somewhat strange given all the democratic drivel about an alleged Trump/Putin bond.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 10:43:05 PM »

”Man, Trump really should have had a Kenyan father.”

Coming from the man who sees the prospect of American military hegemony as reprehensible, your comment is entirely believable, and consistent.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 10:17:56 PM »
4%?  Based on what?  Where did that number come from?  Out of some *censored*?  If Germany is taxing it's GDP at 22%, that means 4% would be 18% of it's entire federal budget.  Why should Germany have to pay that much while the United States, France, Italy, or the UK does not?  Do they all not have a dog in the fight?  Is Germany's dog that much bigger?  If so, due to geography, doesn't that mean that Germany will pay a higher price in destroyed property and killed civilians?  What are you and Orange Jeezus basing your judgement of a nation's contribution to a military alliance on?  Money?  Doesn't always win wars.  Russia had a pretty expensive military until recently.  Now it's holding a steaming pile of turd.

You are being creative in your accounting again Grant. We spent 3.3% GDP on our defense last year, and do not have a bear in our backyard threatening “Armageddon” every few weeks, and a Winter fuel dependency withdrawal. If Germany cannot suspend its socialist tendencies in favor of survival, it is their political right. They are not, after all, a population of Amish, and Mennonites. Money does not always win wars, but an absence of resources absolutely does. As an aside, give the straw-man “Orange Jesus” crap a rest. You are tilting at windmills.

”If the Germans want to spend 4% of their GDP on defense, more power to them.  Yeah, it probably could have helped prevent a war if the Germans had spoken up clearly and said that they would have defended Ukraine from Russian attack.  But they didn't.  And having 4% allocated wouldn't have made a difference, because with 2% it would have been enough.  But that's up to the German people to decide.  They're a democracy.”

Yes, as I said; “it is their political right”. So is national suicide, and they seem to have an enduring cultural penchant for it.

”It's not always easy to get a promise of money from a democracy, because that goes to their legislature.  The Chancellor of Germany can say whatever she or he wants. If you want to get more money for defense from Germany, you need to go direct to the German people. The German people basically went pacifist after 1990. A whole generation grew up without any concept of a possible war in Europe.  They were all *censored*ing wrong, but that doesn't mean the Great Declassifier was right.”

Ah, but he was right, wasn’t he?

”Dispite the difference in funds, Germany can still bring a great deal to the table to defend Europe, outside of it's budget.  Germany can bring two armored divisions to bear in Europe right now.  The United States cannot do that.  The United States brings other things to the table quickly.  In fact the United State's contributions to European defense are even higher than it's defense budget would represent.  So trying to measure contributions to a war effort or a military alliance with spending is useless.” 

I disagree that spending is not a reasonable measure of contribution to a war effort.

At the present time Germany is unable to drive a single diesel-powered Leopard II across the Ukrainian boarder, and the 30 Gepard anti-aircraft tanks (which they did send) initially had no application, or ammunition. The Ukrainian army recently found a use for them in taking down Iranian drones, so I suppose that is a start. It is leagues above the initial “5,000 free helmets” offer. So much for your artificially assigned value to geographic proximity. In spite of the 4,600 mile distance between New York, and Kiev, the overwhelming technical maintenance challenges, and training obstacles, there are 200 Marine M-1 A1 Abrams tanks that will likely find a home in Ukraine next year; not quite “two divisions”, but close to it.

”Cheeto Jeezus is wrong about measuring a nation's value in it's own self defense in terms of dollars.  But yes, the United States has a practical obligation to defend any nation whose sovereignty is violated by another's by invasion, regardless of their value in their own self defense.  Why let a hostile nation suck up a peaceful one?  Doesn't sound wise.  From a moral standpoint, am I not supposed to help a Quaker being mugged?  Who are you?  I mean, that's specifically why, morally, people want to fight wars.  To defend the helpless and the powerless.”

What a tangle of equivocal double-talk. Germany is not “powerless” (yet), “Quaker”, or being “mugged”. It is aging, materialistic, self-indulgent, and wealthy by international standards.

”Yes even the foolish.  That's what great power is supposed to come with.  Responsibility to use it.  I mean *censored*, even Spider-Man has that figured out.  He didn't need a *censored*ing philosophy degree.  But I guess you do need some help with that idea. I know *censored*ing Chatte Grabber doesn't understand it.  He's never fought for anything but himself in his life.  He doesn't defend people.  He wanted Germany and ROK to pay the United States for defense.  He's a *censored*ing shake-down artist.  A gangster.  I don't think I have a derangement.  I think I can see him pretty clearly.  Maybe you don't.” 

Once again, you are chasing your tail. Ask me sometime what I think of Trump personally. Great powers do not enable sloth, they inspire greatness in other nations. I think Washington, and Jefferson, were excessively isolationist. John Quincy Adams struck an acceptable balance when he advised Congress on July 4, 1821, saying America “… goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Her “own” in this context I read to mean those nations that value their independence, freedom, and put their lives where their mouths are. Ukraine meets that standard.

 ”No, but I'd point out that the United States has been pointing that out to Germany long before Lord T-Rex came on the scene.”

… Hardly in the way that Trump pointed it out to Angela.

No, but he is always a POS.  Because you can't change that, no matter how right or wrong you are.  I know some real idiots that are still better men than him

I know some very bright people that are worse than Trump regarding American interests, lots of them in fact. It is odd how that works. The important question is always; what is in the national interest, and Trump seems to have believed that the nation actually belonged to him during his presidency, and behaved to reflect that belief. I much prefer that to the dreams of a self-appointed apologist championing the politics of his Kenyan father.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 07:49:11 PM »

Can you bring yourself to openly agree that Trump was correct; that Germany should be shouldering a 4% GDP defense budget as the world’s front-line economic power in Europe (and probably now will)? Read the linked article more closely please. Your emotion is getting the better of you. I believe a derangement syndrome was coined to describe your condition.

Is the United States under any practical, or moral, obligation to defend a nation which does not place a high value upon its own self-defense? Was Trump wrong about that?

Likewise Germany should have been more receptive to Trump’s objection to European dependence upon Putin’s energy fix. You have no problem with that proposition, correct?

Complain as you wish about the great dissembler, he is not always wrong. Reading is fundamental, try a reread of the text, and You’re right; math can be tough. Work on it.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 06:45:09 PM »

What exactly doesn't wash?  If anything my calculation was low.  Apparently it isn't $40 billion, but $50 billion.  Not 1/20th of the entire military budget, but 1/16th.  As much as all F-35s purchased by the DoD and two Virginia class nuclear submarines in 2021.

You are flailing here with creative accounting. Germany’s relative contribution to NATO is not a function of geography, the cost of Virginia class submarines, the price of an F-35, or even the military budget of Italy.

But I have a suspicion that you already understand that. Your numbers are plain wrong. :

Our first third-world President, to his credit, extracted a 2% GDP commitment from Germany for defense spending in 2014. They were still not meeting that promise under Trump. He called them out, and you freaked. I understand that you have a distaste for the orange one. That is meaningless to me. Contrary to your angst, Germany did not respond negatively but is still lagging;

”However, the German pledge is still a major development — and a potential huge increase in spending. Of the 29 members of NATO, only seven currently meet the 2 percent pledge: the United States, Greece, Estonia, Britain, Romania, Poland and Latvia.”

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 06:29:32 PM »

”Persons used to count as 3/5th of a citizen, no, for purposes of representation?”

No, not exactly; negro “persons” counted as 3/5 of a person.

Is your point that States south of the Mason Dixon line should have had greater representation in Congress prior to 1860, that in 1870 persons of ”African nativity… and descent should not be entitled to naturalization” (15th amendment), that the 14th amendment has some application in to issues contained in this thread, or some combination thereof?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 05:26:35 PM »

There is only an eighteen year lag between the appearance of a third-world squatter, and a voting “American”. If the founders only had the foresight to anticipate the potential conflation of the words “persons”, and “citizens”.

I am not even talking into account census tallies that determine representative districts. Gerrymandering was no secret to those of us who grew up in California. Where are you from?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 05:20:20 PM »

Your healthcare calculation does not wash. Is Germany, even now, a NATO slacker?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 05:01:05 PM »

Substitute the electorate in vote-laden San Francisco, and Los Angeles counties with illegal squatters, and statewide elections are permanently skewed. There is no way that California will ever grow its economy again.

The election commission is powerless to eject illegal colonists. I must hand it to your crowd, the dems do play a long-game.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 04:45:06 PM »

Without exhausting yourself, did NATO spending decline beginning with Bush, and increase under your nemesis… small hands and all?

Is Germany, even now, a NATO slacker?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 04:42:25 PM »

”Noel, rather than going through all that irrelevant stuff, you could have summarized your response to yossarian's question by simply saying, ‘You're right.’  ;D

The problem with saying that is that you apparently do not understand what I said.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 03:07:31 PM »

Maybe that should clue you in to how important being polite is?  All you "JUST TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!" and ‘KEEPIN IT REAL!’ dumbasses.”

I do not recall the NATO response to Trump being wholly unsuccessful in prompting increased investment in defense. Did you witness a different reality? I do recall the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years as overseeing a disastrous decline in NATO preparedness.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 03:00:10 PM »

“I would be fascinated to hear how California redistricted in such a way to prevent Republican governors.

California does a poor job of maximizing their gerrymandering capabilities. About 47% of registered voters are Democrats, 24% are Republicans, and 23% are independents. With that state wide break down if they drew the most broken gerrymandered districts possible there would be zero Republican representatives from the state of California. As it is they get 11 or about 20% of the seats from California. So California's independent redistricting commission massively favors Republicans. If the state legislatures drew it for maximum party advantage (see Republicans in Wisconsin/NC/Penn) the Republicans would not have representation at the national level from California.”

Let your ”fascination” run wild.

Even plumbers, those “critical individuals” understand that stuff runs downhill. The leftist agenda of transplanting third-world politics into cash-rich western republics has been spectacularly successful in California, and succeeded in consolidating wealth/power into the hands of Los Angeles and San Francisco Democrats who now preside over the northern most states of Mexico. As a career promoter it has served the likes of John Podesta; , and Rahm Emanuel;

both in the service of our first third-world President. ”Needy Latinos” to be sure.

This is how that nonsense manifest in California:

It got so bad, in a bipartisan manner I might add, that voters intervened in 2008, with sporadic results;

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 28, 2022, 12:17:28 AM »

I hesitate responding to your posts, because you have made it clear more than once that your presence is to provoke. There is no equivalence between Rittenhouse, and Grosskreutz, particularly in their relative competence in handling firearms.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 11:46:28 PM »

Don’t go sophist on me. Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse down, threatened him physically, feigned retreat, and then pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Rittenhouse. He lost his right bicep over his actions, and complained that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse.

If the word “deserve” confuses you then substitute “invited”. Does your man Grosskreutz have a moral basis for complaint?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 10:34:33 PM »
Drake, Tom,

I just recalled that Gaige Grosskreutz, the self-styled “medic” who had his right bicep vaporized by a reasonably well aimed shot from Rittenhouse, is one of you. He pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Mr. Rittenhouse after feigned submission, and immediately regretted it.

Did he deserve to be shot?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 10:19:24 PM »

“That's hard to break down. My opinion could be disregarded by the unsavy (sic) voter?”

Yes, and all similar opinions

“Assuming you meant unsavvy, that would mean that the ignorant could ignore my arguments?”

Yes, but do not be so quick to flatter yourself. The general population has no apriori reason to expect that you, and others of your persuasion, are playing language games intended to deceive.

Simply saying; “We do not want you to own a semiautomatic rifle.” would not persuade, or fool anyone.

“They usually do, they usually do.”

They usually should, they usually should.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 09:22:11 PM »

“Would it make a difference if we called them the McGuffin Rifles? It's still going to be the same list.”

Yes, it would make a difference unless a McGuffin rifle was capable of select fire. As an aside; if I desired, I can own an assault rifle and there is not a thing you, and yours, can do about it.

“If me and my people have their way, you won't get to have AK47s, Ar-15s, or any other nonsense rambo weapon that you all pose with on social media to look tough, like Rittenhouse. How about we just say semiautomatic rifle, that's clear enough and to the point, is it not?”

Yes, that is clear, and your crowd should have been saying that from the beginning. Your opinion could be disregarded by the unsavy voter decades ago.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 09:15:19 PM »
“It doesn't cause me physical pain to indulge you or anything, so I was going to humor you until you got actively unpleasant.”

So, you are baiting “unpleasantness”.

“My involvement certainly isn't necessary; it doesn't take three people to say "the terminology doesn't matter and is just being used for bull*censored* gatekeeping." But for some reason you seemed to want it.”

Actually, the language does matter in an identical way that the abortion issue is termed alternatively “pro-life”, and “pro-choice”. Implicit is the fundamental issue of which life, and whose choice. I am certain that you have a preferred way of characterizing those questions, and have zero doubt where you fall. There is one significant distinction. People who design firearms were also purposeful in their use of language when the term “assault rifle”/“sturmgewehr” was coined. Since you are hopelessly disinterested in knowing what you are talking about, I will spoon feed you.

Suppressive fire, forcing an opponent to keep his head down, is essential to maneuver on any modern battlefield. America used two primary forms during WWII, heavy artillery and the Browning automatic rifle. That leaves a huge gap in firepower which the Germans equivalently filled with the full-auto MG-34, and the MG-42, firing a full size 8mm cartridge. That is still pretty heavy volume. To give you an appreciation, a single German corporal manning an MG-42 (and supported by 60 ammunition carriers) killed ~2,000 Americans at Omaha Beach. Interestingly, they loved our semi-auto M-1 carbine which fired a 30 caliber bullet from an unnecked case of low volume. It would kill at most typical engagement  ranges, was light, had low recoil, and probably inspired the first “assault rifle” design; the StG-44, which fires an intermediate volume 8mm cartridge in either semi-auto, or full-auto, from a 35 round box magazine, or a 71 round drum magazine. This allows every soldier to unleash suppressive fire in an “assault” role, and is not remotely similar in application to an AR-15.

Notwithstanding, liberal knuckleheads insist on using the term “assault rifle”, because they are artful in abusing language for political effect. I do not need an assault rifle for three reasons; first, I will never be in a squad suppress and maneuver situation. That is an assault strategy, and I am only interested in defense. Second, automatic fire is not particularly accurate fire. Third, it burns through a large amount of ammunition. That is not my style.

You are framing the debate dishonestly.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 07:50:02 PM »
“  I figured that at some point you'd move on.”

When did you figure that you would?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 07:30:21 PM »
“I think it misrepresents liberal intent to say that they aspire to ban "assault rifles." “

How should that misrepresentation be corrected?

“For what it's worth, though, I believe the previous ban on "assault weapons" was unambiguous enough in its definitions to be reasonably effective.”

Would you please provide that definition as originally drafted?

Politicians (at least liberal ones), are not qualified to differentiate, or define, anything firearms related. As an example; California attempted to ban the 50 BMG “cartridge” because it was “big”, and scary. That was stupid. An enterprising competitive shooter simply bumped a 50 BMG case neck back a few thousandths, and it was no longer the same cartridge. It was, however, more accurate than the parent loading.

“Seriously, though, why do you think I should focus on this topic?”

Because, for reasons known only to you, this exchange is happening.

“It is of virtually no interest to me.”

Seriously then… why are you participating?


You just proved my point.

“A semiautomatic assault rifle” is oxymoronic terminology. That is why we laugh at, and deride you.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 06:33:10 PM »

Focus please; do you believe that the definition of an “assault rifle” is fluid, and is that issue relevant to liberal aspirations to “ban” them?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 05:28:46 PM »
“I'm not sure what you're talking about, Noel.”

I believe you, Tom.

“I don't actually give a damn how you personally define the term "assault rifle," since that's not remotely pertinent to the conversation.”

You actually focused upon precisely that issue a few posts ago, Tom.

“Is there something else you'd like to know?”

Is there something else you know, Tom?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 05:20:58 PM »
“The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a photographic recollection of the faces of local law enforcement and a solid tactical risk assessment, apparently.”

You need to be less anxious to use an answer that enamors you, in the event that it is unresponsive, Tom.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 05:12:52 PM »

Do you still need the definition of an “assault rifle”, or have you taken the trouble to find the answer yourself?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 05:10:33 PM »

“Noel, is your argument in response really that no one should try to stop an active shooter unless they know the shooter is not an undercover cop?”

You must be baiting me, because that question is just too stupid.

Okay, I’ll bite; you stop an “active shooter” (your pejorative)

1- When you know from personal knowledge that the subject is, in fact, an active shooter.

2-  They are threatening serious bodily injury to you, or someone else, which is essentially synonymous with the definition of an “active shooter”.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:58:02 PM »
Um, Ouija, you really did not need me to tell you that, correct?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:52:47 PM »
If you do not know the answer, I would give you the same advice that I just gave Tom.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:49:37 PM »
“I have personally observed that conservatives like to change up the definition of "assault rifle"

This statement is very likely false. I believe that you made it up. Do you need the definition of an assault rifle clarified for you?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:46:59 PM »

“noel, how much force should you use to disarm an unknown shooter that would not retroactively justify your murder?”

You are clearly referencing an idiot, presumably someone other than yourself. If a shooter is “unknown” to you, get out of the way, Tom.

By your reasoning undercover police officer can become fair game as targets of lethal force. You respond with force when you, or someone else, is threatened with serious, or fatal, bodily injury.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:39:01 PM »

“That's why I asked when I used it, and if there was ever a time I didn't use it without clarifying meaning.”

To “use it without clarifying the meaning” is double talk. The term has a meaning independent of your memory.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:28:55 PM »

“Rittenhouse unnecessarily murdered two people, “

He took one boot to the head, and a skateboard edge to the neck. He was justified is responding with deadly force, and a jury agreed. You do not count, Tom.

“… having first created a situation in which he felt it necessary to defend his life by murdering people. It is not substantially to his credit that he did not murder more.”

There you go again.

You would have probably been part of the mob but for your age, and address.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 04:17:15 PM »

“To be fair… “ really?

That kid did a superb job of exercising restraint. You will notice that when one of his assailants raised his hands, Rittenhouse backed down. To be fair, most LEOs would have been more aggressive.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 03:56:20 PM »

“How many times have I used the term "assault rifle"? And when I used it how many times have I been clear that I mean semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines?”

Okay, so you are being intentionally misleading. You honestly believe that your argument is aided through equivocation?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 03:38:57 PM »

“How many times have you (or someone you know personally) used a high capacity magazine in a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself from criminals? Is it more or less than the number of school shootings using those weapons during the same time span?”

Red Herring. All that I need to know is that if my eyes can remain on the sight picture, a followup shot takes less time. A 1911 semi-auto, in hand, would have helped this guy. :

It did help this guy. :

I can hear your objection already; but the latter did not use an AR platform.

This guy did, and held off a mob. Imagine Rittenhouse trying to cycle a bolt in this situation. :


Most people would “… choose a cop all day”. Unfortunately, law enforcement is rarely present when needed, and officers have no obligation to risk their safety to protect you. There are a lot of dead school children because local police exercised their right to remain safe.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 27, 2022, 03:06:41 PM »

“Where have I said that citizens shouldn't be able to own firearms? I have only argued for the limits on the type (particularly around rate of fire and magazine capacity). If you are going to paraphrase my position at least get the general idea right.”

Is that really where your comfort level ends, or what constitutes your perception of possible limits, ie.; “… the low fruit”?

You are hiding behind a distinction without a difference. If I find myself in a situation where the use of lethal counterforce is justified, I do not give a damn what you believe my magazine capacity should be, or whether my action has select-fire capability. I am not in the least interested in a “fair” fight.

As an aside; unless you are being intentionally misleading, you do not understand what an “assault rifle” is, and are ignorant regarding to the defense advantages of semi-auto firearms such as the AR-15.

Stick to what you know.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 26, 2022, 10:53:53 PM »

“I don't think most LEOs can be trusted to routinely carry guns, … “

I know personally of one officer, a Sergeant, that does not handle his sidearm professionally. That is a training issue which some smaller departments suffer from. In my opinion, most law enforcement is well trained, even in small communities.

“… but recognize that at present there are simply too many guns on American streets to use more successful international policing models that would restrict their use to specific dispatch.”

That luxury is a function of demographics, cultural values, and even climatic conditions. The Scandinavian countries provide a good case study;

In Sweden all of that began to change in 2000. Would you like to know why?

“I think we'd have to accept all the costs of demilitarization -- which I personally would prefer, but which I recognize would require some seriously courageous cultural maturity -- to preemptively de-escalate in that fashion.”


“I think the "defund the police" model, which despite its facile and reductive slogan is a pretty good idea, might be a useful step along that path.”

Why am I not surprised?

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 26, 2022, 10:25:10 PM »

“I would like to submit that a thief does not in fact deserve to die, and that few enough innocent people are threatened by lethal violence that expecting them or their compatriots to equip themselves with the means to easily kill someone in the rare event that their own life is threatened may actually create more opportunities for escalation, confusion, and wrongful death. I personally wish that the federal government were allowed to fund studies using data collected on this subject, but of course it currently is not available.”

Data on victims of homicide is available.

In 2019, 19,100 people were killed by criminals. You, and Y-22 appear to want it both ways. He thinks that too many people are killed by firearms to allow the citizenry to own them, ant you think too few people are killed in violent crimes to justify lethal defense. Do you believe law enforcement personnel should be allowed to carry side arms, and why?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 26, 2022, 10:11:58 PM »

I always look forward to your responses.

“noel, please. I responded to your questions because, interestingly enough, they could be answered fully and correctly without actually making the point you thought you were making, and that amused me.”

It appears that fancy yourself a 3D intellect. I do not see the evidence.

“But I'm not under the illusion that you actually want someone to explain to you that, yes, N-95 masks are easier to get now than they were two years ago, or why that might be, or whether or not that had anything to do with the Biden administration.”


“Or that, no, the FBI eventually getting a hard drive does not mean that the contents of the drive had not been tampered with before they received it. Or, y'know, all the other context you're asking for, but which you do not actually want.”

Right, the blind technician created text, and video, that Hunter Biden’s business associate Anthony Bobulinski corroborated, and the FBI is unable to detect tampering. From whence cometh such analytical insight?

“I will say that American democracy is not remotely safe, and it is because Republicans have been working since Gingrich to put systems into place that guarantee them control over districting, apportionment, and certification in any competitive states.”

Democrats do not gerrymander when opportunity presents itself?

“Speaking as a resident of Wisconsin, this has been an obvious and explicit ploy here for nearly 15 years, where they've worked tirelessly to tear down the safeguards my state had previously erected to ensure free and fair elections.”

Do you want me to lecture you on California’s re-districting practices? We were able to elect Governors like Reagan, and George Deukmejian Jr., as recently as 1991.

“Between this and their determined approach to tearing at the very suppositional foundations of truth -- the idea that truth is in fact knowable and not a product of bias -- I personally believe that anyone who still votes Republican can only do so out of venality, self-interest, celebrity worship, and/or spite.  But your impressions may vary.”

Spare me Tom. Sophomoric pontification on truth is uninspiring.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 26, 2022, 09:40:52 PM »

“We no longer have a lying POS as POTUS.”


“Biden is not a braggart, bully and  He doesn't make headlines every week--excuse me, every day--over the latest outrageous thing he did or said.  He hasn't insulted or pushed-away our allies, but rather has drawn them together to oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  He's made some progress on climate change instead of opposing it.”

… And armed the Taliban to the tune of $85,000,000,000. Yes, that is nine zeros. Tell me, how many degrees has Biden changed the Earth’s average temperature?

“But the main thing is he hasn't made this country even more polarized than it already was.”

All due respect, B.S..

“Sure, many on the Right try to make him as a polarizing figure, but they would (and do) use anyone as that.”

Do you appreciate that, but for Democratically controlled media, Trump would not have prevailed in the Republican presidential primary? He was not in my top ten choices. Your side made my choice for me. Are you going to cry foul when he wins in the next primary, and is democratically re-elected?

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 26, 2022, 09:26:11 PM »

“Why bring up Defense. Republicans vote for that.”

True, but Democrats usually find other priorities, correct? Did you check what states some of the last defense contracts were assigned to? Is that hypocrisy?

“As to vaccines Trump did what was needed. However, it would have been done with out him.”

Just leave it at the first sentence, the rest is your speculation.

“ So I have no worries about armed IRS agents. Why do you have worries?”

One name; Louis Lehrner.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 26, 2022, 09:15:50 PM »

“I've said before and I'll say again. Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings but they would lower the body count. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting.”

If you are hunting mass shooters, singular shooters, or varmints, a semi-auto 223 is useful. I will grant that it is not a first, or even second choice for large game. An AR-10 would be a much better option. You clearly do not understand the efficacy of a semi-auto action for staying on target. That is the reason that we adopted the M-1 in the 1930s. The Mauser K-98, Carcano M-38, and Arisaka, bolt guns were thoroughly outclassed by U.S. forces during WWII as a result.

Regarding hunting, I agree that 223 is not ideal for large game, but the semi-auto AR-15, chambered in 223, is an excellent choice for criminals, small game, and varmints. It is easier to stay on target with follow-up shots. The AR-10, in 308, is a better general purpose hunting option in my opinion.

“Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns?”

Yes, stop regulating machine guns beyond a clean background check for the purchaser.

I am not certain what you mean by “absolute”, but Federalist #46 makes it pretty clear that the Second Amendment had an “absolute” function of guarding against government use of force upon its citizenry. Any citizen can own an M-2 with a clean background check, and a class 3 stamp. I personally do not need one because it is not a close quarters firearm (100 yards or less), for which a side arm is more applicable. I can outshoot any 50 BMG cartridge at distance with a 375 Cheytac, or even a 338. You have no idea how lethal a trained citizenry can be.

“Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine. I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.”

No, it is more like; “I want to maximize my ability to kill criminals in a timely manner.”

“I know this only addresses a very small subset of gun violence, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit.”

Good reasoning; do it just because you can.

“The bigger step would be to find a way to track guns to find out how gangs and criminals are being armed. Shut down the bad gun dealers and straw purchases and get guns out of the hands of criminals.”

That one seems pretty obvious; shoot criminals.

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 26, 2022, 08:38:00 PM »

“I've said before and I'll say again. Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings but they would lower the body count. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting.”

Repeating a statement will not add to its substance. First, no citizen can purchase an “assault rifle” without a class 3 stamp, and anyone who passes a background check can purchase, yes, even an M-2 with a class 3.

“Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns? Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine.”

I am not certain what “absolute” means, but generally modern government draws its gun control lines where they could potentially be outgunned, which is nonsense because the second amendment was specifically formulated as defense protection afforded the citizenry against its government (See Federalist #46).

“I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.”

I do not understand attempting restriction of weapons that can rapidly take out mass shooters. As an aside; you do understand that an AR is not an “assault rifle” correct?

“I know this only addresses a very small subset of gun violence, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit. The bigger step would be to find a way to track guns to find out how gangs and criminals are being armed. Shut down the bad gun dealers and straw purchases and get guns out of the hands of criminals.”

This seems pretty obvious; shoot criminals.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: September 26, 2022, 08:18:52 PM »

“I suspect that distribution would have been slower and more uneven without Biden in charge of the WH.”

Setting aside the unprecedented speed with which the Trump administration developed two viral vaccines, you “suspect” that we needed Biden to act as the delivery boy? Can you bring yourself to give any credit to Trump? Just curious.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9