The problem is that we have stupid guns in the United States

[Platapus]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/shane-smarter-guns/

I am not going to quote the entire article as it is a bit rambling. But here are the highlights

What if we could design guns to be smarter and safer -- with hardware and software? The right technology could neutralize the killing capability of an assault weapon, even in a madman's hands. The root of the problem is that guns are "dumb." Pull the trigger and they discharge bullets mindlessly, regardless of who is doing the aiming or where they are aimed. Guns should "know" not to fire in schools, churches, hospitals or malls. They should sense when they are being aimed at a child, or at a person when no other guns are nearby.

...

How might this work? Start with locational "self-awareness." Guns should know where they are and if another gun is nearby. [no more defending yourself against an attacker armed with a chain saw or sword] Global positioning systems can meet most of the need, refining a gun's location to the building level, even within buildings. Control of the gun would remain in the hand of the person carrying it, but the ability to fire multiple shots in crowded areas or when no other guns are present would be limited by software that understands where the gun is being used.

[so if there are two nutters with guns standing next to each other, every thing is kosher]


Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.


Guns used by the police would be exempt from such controls. [only the police should be allowed to shoot children or people holding children]


Finally, guns should be designed to broadcast their location when they are loaded. Police could see if high-powered assault weapons are entering or getting close to a public place. Gun owners, too, could choose to broadcast their guns' locations publicly to increase deterrent effect.

... Yikes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this guy? Guns like this would not only be big and heavy would probably cost $20,000 each. Perhaps that is the whole idea. Make guns so "safe" that no one could afford one.....if they were to purchase a legal gun that is.

[August]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/shane-smarter-guns/

I am not going to quote the entire article as it is a bit rambling. But here are the highlights

Yikes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this guy? Guns like this would not only be big and heavy would probably cost $20,000 each. Perhaps that is the whole idea. Make guns so "safe" that no one could afford one.....if they were to purchase a legal gun that is.

This is what comes to my mind when I hear "smart gun".

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/338T-leftside-quarterfront-640x241.jpg

TrackingPoint makes "Precision Guided Firearms, or "PGFs," which are a series of three heavily customized hunting rifles, ranging from a .300 Winchester Magnum with a 22-inch barrel up to a .338 Lapua Magnum with 27-inch barrel, all fitted with advanced computerized scopes that look like something directly out of The Terminator. Indeed, the comparison to that movie is somewhat apt, because looking through the scope of a Precision Guided Firearm presents you with a collection of data points and numbers, all designed to get a bullet directly from point A to point B.

[Stealhead]

This guy has no understanding of military technology.

Even a very expensive modern weapons system like that of say an Abrams MBT or the TADS system on an Apache attack helicopter require the person controlling them to positively ID what is being aimed at if they are incorrect they will kill an non combatant or allied unit these systems cost cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are not compact.

This ding bat expects technology that is not currently existent(in non operation under certain conditions form) to be available in a compact form his ideas are very ludicrous to put it mildly.

[August]

A gun with a brain. What he is essentially describing is an armed security detail with strong ethics.

[Stealhead]

Or any person that understands the safe and proper operation of any firearm they happen to own or use.

Another factor the author failed to take into consideration is hunting and sport shooting.How would a firearm know the difference between a human and a deer or a bear or boar or fowl?

The idea of a firearm broadcasting its location is the best to me the tracking system would look like the stars in the sky utterly useless.

It is funny to me how stupid Americans are people get all worried about gun violence yet they will drive down the road texting which is many times more likely to kill you.People run traffic lights all the time in the US another activity much more likely to cause your death or they try to out run a train at a crossing.

7,770 people died in accidents caused by a vehicle running a traffic light in 2008 around 2,000 people each year die in railroad crossing accidents(sadly they suffer a double whammy as they also failed physics).I read in a Time magazine that since 1984 375 people have been killed in shooting sprees but that list included 3 sprees that occurred outside the US.I list shooting sprees because this is what everyone is concerned about.


http://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/videoresource/fsrailroadcross.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/

[Catfish]

Here's a target-searching auto-gun run by Linux:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

And you can put that on a drone, and kill people abroad without needing a human anymore, via image recognition. Beautiful times ahead.

[August]

Here's a target-searching auto-gun run by Linux:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

And you can put that on a drone, and kill people abroad without needing a human anymore, via image recognition. Beautiful times ahead.

See the second post in this thread.

[Oberon]

Weren't they working on guns that worked on fingerprint ID and would only release the safety if the right person was holding it?

[Armistead]

Or any person that understands the safe and proper operation of any firearm they happen to own or use.

Another factor the author failed to take into consideration is hunting and sport shooting.How would a firearm know the difference between a human and a deer or a bear or boar or fowl?

The idea of a firearm broadcasting its location is the best to me the tracking system would look like the stars in the sky utterly useless.

It is funny to me how stupid Americans are people get all worried about gun violence yet they will drive down the road texting which is many times more likely to kill you.People run traffic lights all the time in the US another activity much more likely to cause your death or they try to out run a train at a crossing.

7,770 people died in accidents caused by a vehicle running a traffic light in 2008 around 2,000 people each year die in railroad crossing accidents(sadly they suffer a double whammy as they also failed physics).I read in a Time magazine that since 1984 375 people have been killed in shooting sprees but that list included 3 sprees that occurred outside the US.I list shooting sprees because this is what everyone is concerned about.


http://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/videoresource/fsrailroadcross.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/


Most states texting or using a phone when driving is illegal, yet everyone still does it.

[Stealhead]

Most states texting or using a phone when driving is illegal, yet everyone still does it.

That was my point people do things every single day that are in fact very likely to cause death or serious bodily harm yet they get worried about dying in a shooting spree which all things considered is very unlikely to happen to them.

How many people do you know that have been shot or killed by a crazed gunman?I know 0. I do know one person who was nearly killed by a jackwagon that ran a red light.I know that over the years several people that live in my area have tried to out run a train at a crossing and as a result killed themselves.In my area as far as I am aware only one fatal shooting occurred between undercover law enforcement and meth dealers the meth dealers lost the shoot out if I'd have been home at the time I'd have shot the one that ran away and hid down my road.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G08PKeaXkM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9bdnd2IY5Y

[JU_88]

Lol, that guy is total pillock! :D

Like with any software, criminals would just find ways to 'hack it' to make put them selves back in full control of their weapon. (Or just obtain 'dumb' guns on a black market from the some 200 million of them already in circulation or illegal imports).

Also where would it leave the 2nd amendment if the authorities had the means to hypothetically disable all non government issue firearms electronically? Doh!

[August]

Also where would it leave the 2nd amendment if the authorities had the means to hypothetically disable all non government issue firearms electronically? Doh!

Probably the real reason they'd ever enact such a law.

[Red October1984]

This tops it all...When i thought the BS couldnt get any worse...I see this.

Damn my country is stupid sometimes. :hmmm:

[tater]

Since apparently hammers are used as murder weapons in excess of semi-auto rifles (federal 2011 crime stats are latest I could find), perhaps smart hammers as well. Might stop some of us from hitting our thumbs towards the end of a weekend honeydo list when we've had a break or two with a beer into the bargain.

[JU_88]

Yes and lets have smart kitchen knives for the UK!
Street robbers will have no choice but to force their victims to hold up a kilo of carrots before they can stab them! Its genius I tell you :D

[Platapus]

Yes and lets have smart kitchen knives for the UK!
Street robbers will have no choice but to force their victims to hold up a kilo of carrots before they can stab them! Its genius I tell you :D


"We want to learn how to defend ourselves against carrots, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! (http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/loganbry.wav)"

[gimpy117]

to be honest, an RFID chip in guns would be nice, so It can be known if somebody is armed. Imagine how much easier for police it would be, Driving through the hood to be able to scan and know if there are guns in the area and how many, Also, when you walk through the door with one like oh lets say in a school, an alarm goes off etc.

People say:

"oh well whats the point of Concealed carry if people know you have a gun?" well, I for one don't have to worry because I do nothing Illegal with my firearms. Imagine having a sensor, like in front of your house that could instantly Alert you to some stranger entering your property with a weapon, and for that matter what if it even had the ability to alert the police if so chosen?

[August]

to be honest, an RFID chip in guns would be nice, so It can be known if somebody is armed. Imagine how much easier for police it would be, Driving through the hood to be able to scan and know if there are guns in the area and how many, Also, when you walk through the door with one like oh lets say in a school, an alarm goes off etc.

People say:

"oh well whats the point of Concealed carry if people know you have a gun?" well, I for one don't have to worry because I do nothing Illegal with my firearms. Imagine having a sensor, like in front of your house that could instantly Alert you to some stranger entering your property with a weapon, and for that matter what if it even had the ability to alert the police if so chosen?

Gun control schemes only affect law abiding citizens. All a criminal would have to do is remove the RFID chip or block it's signal. Worse it would easily create a false sense of security.

[Armistead]

Gun control schemes only affect law abiding citizens. All a criminal would have to do is remove the RFID chip or block it's signal. Worse it would easily create a false sense of security.

I can see all the criminals buying illegal guns off the street lined up at police stations to have chips installed...:har:

Will be interesting to see Biden and Obama's new gun plan, not that it will solve anything.

[JU_88]

Will be interesting to see Biden and Obama's new gun plan, not that it will solve anything.

No it wont, because the problem in this case is caused by 90% Richard Cranium and maybe 10% gun (if that much even).
Anyway I doubt Obama and co are too bothered if their plan works or not in practice, so long as they can give the perception of having delt with it sufficiently enought to make the media and anti gun campaigners put a sock in it for a while, its probably a job well done as far they are concerned.
Good perception & intention is all that is really required of any politician half of the time. But the bottom line is that government legistlation will never stop some wacko from murdering some one.

[Red October1984]

Okay. This is purely a What If question...

What if this gun control pitches the US into a Second American Revolution? :hmmm:

[soopaman2]

Gun control schemes only affect law abiding citizens. All a criminal would have to do is remove the RFID chip or block it's signal. Worse it would easily create a false sense of security.

This is the core of the gun conrol problem.

It effects people like me and you, who went through the courses, and the vetting to own a weapon.


Rather than Juan and Tyrone, who buy them out of a car trunk.

New Yorks new assault weapon ban has more rules than auschwitz, Usually anything New York spawns, Jersey adopts within a year (see the no smoking in bars thing)


All gun control does is take the weapons from people who have owned guns, and used them responsibly, and turn us into potential victims.

You think a thug cares about the law, when he is selecting a handgun? The law as it is, only hurts those who follow it.

Look around the inner city of your locale, and see what I mean. The criminals are armed to the teeth, Bloods, Crips, MS13 etc...

But all that seems to be legislated is vetted and legal gun owners.

Ohhhh, it is rascist to address anything thing the inner cities do anymore? Easier to kick around the guy who kills paper targets, rather than the Thuglet who kills people. Chicago? My kinda town, 300 plus black youths laid out by illegal guns last year, yet, Newtown spawns hate on legal owners, like nothing before.

White kids die=people finally decide to get mad, and be activists.

edit: Look at worldstarhiphop.com. look at those videos, they got guns, and flash them in broad daylight, no cop even shows up, even as they shoot into the air, why am I a villain?

I own a gunsafe, my crap is locked up, and legal.

[Stealhead]

Rather than Juan and Tyrone, who buy them out of a car trunk.



Sorry that is simply racist to be honest as if there are no white criminals running around with illegal weapons.Of people I know that have had guns stolen it was most often a white boy that had stolen them.Two of my class mates got a ten year ride for stealing several grand in firearms during a robbery spree they where both white.

I see a criminal not a race.

[JU_88]

Okay. This is purely a What If question...

What if this gun control pitches the US into a Second American Revolution? :hmmm:

It wont (at least I certainly hope not for all your sakes) but if it did I think I'd hedge my bets on the side that is equipped with drones, out of the millions of armed citizens, how many would be ready to take up arms against the frederal government? maybe a few thousand? ... Thats not a revolution, just a mass sucide :oops:
Things have to be rock bottom before you get to a civil uprising, America has had better days yes, but its surely no where near 'revolution' conditions. Look at what dire straights the Greeks are in right now, sure they started a few fires and threw some rocks, but most are still playing ball.

[Stealhead]

It wont (at least I certainly hope not for all your sakes) but if it did I think I'd hedge my bets on the side that is equipped with drones, out of the millions of armed citizens, how many would be ready to take up arms against the frederal government? maybe a few thousand? ... Thats not a revolution, just a mass sucide :oops:
Things have to be rock bottom before you get to a civil uprising, America has had better days yes, but its surely no where near 'revolution' conditions. Look at what dire straights the Greeks are in right now, sure they started a few fires and threw some rocks, but most are still playing ball.


Few are truly that hard core most are all talk.99% percent of humans will do what they are told.

[soopaman2]

Sorry that is simply racist to be honest as if there are no white criminals running around with illegal weapons.Of people I know that have had guns stolen it was most often a white boy that had stolen them.Two of my class mates got a ten year ride for stealing several grand in firearms during a robbery spree they where both white.

I see a criminal not a race.

Then take a walk around Long Branch, Patterson, Newark, Asbury Park, Jersey City, Elizabeth NJ.

Go alone.

I speak on what I see, and the problem is not the legal owners.

Call it what you want.

[August]

It wont (at least I certainly hope not for all your sakes) but if it did I think I'd hedge my bets on the side that is equipped with drones, out of the millions of armed citizens, how many would be ready to take up arms against the frederal government? maybe a few thousand? ... Thats not a revolution, just a mass sucide :oops:

You are wrong. I'd estimate that less than a quarter of the standing US Military and less than a 10th of National Guard would support an Administration that ordered it to attack Americans.

[nikimcbee]

I can see all the criminals buying illegal guns off the street lined up at police stations to have chips installed...:har:

Will be interesting to see Biden and Obama's new gun plan, not that it will solve anything.

Didn't already have a thread about the dope problem?

[nikimcbee]

Okay. This is purely a What If question...

What if this gun control pitches the US into a Second American Revolution? :hmmm:


Good luck disarming the Western US, Texas. Where can I volunteer for this job?:dead:

[Platapus]

RFID chips would work bestest if it also identified the weapon. Then I could hack in to the system and find out who I should rob to steal the gun I want.

Of course, some might thing it is better NOT to make it easier for criminals to illegally acquire guns.

[Red October1984]

Good luck disarming the Western US, Texas. Where can I volunteer for this job?:dead:

I'm not saying that it's gonna happen....(Something violent will happen though) but if it comes to that....

I feel sorry for the man who comes to take our guns... :stare:

I can see it now....it'll look like Zombieland without zombies... :shifty:

[Stealhead]

Then take a walk around Long Branch, Patterson, Newark, Asbury Park, Jersey City, Elizabeth NJ.

Go alone.

I speak on what I see, and the problem is not the legal owners.

Call it what you want.

You are talking about areas where most of the folks are not white so by default the criminals wont be either.Where I live most people are either white of hispanic therefore most of the criminals will be one of these races that does not mean that all white people are bad nor that all hispanics are either.

So you have seen a man named Tyrone that was black and a man named Juan that was latio walk up to a car open the trunk and buy an illegal firearm i very highly doubt it unless you where the one selling or your an ATF agent.

[soopaman2]

You are talking about areas where most of the folks are not white so by default the criminals wont be either.Where I live most people are either white of hispanic therefore most of the criminals will be one of these races that does not mean that all white people are bad nor that all hispanics are either.

So you have seen a man named Tyrone that was black and a man named Juan that was latio walk up to a car open the trunk and buy an illegal firearm i very highly doubt it unless you where the one selling or your an ATF agent.

Nope, you just have to drive by. Must be nice in your candy land world.

[August]

There are criminals in every race. Then again there are Black men named Juan and White men named Tyrone and Asian men named William. The bottom line is that this isn't about the color of a mans skin. Gun control threatens all Americans regardless of race.

[Méo]

Gun control threatens all Americans regardless of race.

I wonder if you would still think like that if it would have been your own daughter or your own wife that had been killed in these dramatic events. :hmmm:

[Red October1984]

I wonder if you would still think like that if it would have been your own daughter or your own wife that had been killed in these dramatic events. :hmmm:

I'm sorry if you lost somebody in the shootings, but Gun Control is a horrible horrible thing. It DOES threaten all Americans. It will cause more shootings than you realize.

[soopaman2]

For the record, I never gave the race of tyrone or juan, that was crammed in my mouth,

See my comment how you see it, but the people that suffer are the guys who went through courses, and massive paperwork to own like me and others, not the gangbanging, drug dealers, or in the case of most mass shooters, live at home with mommy crackers.

[tater]

Sorry that is simply racist to be honest as if there are no white criminals running around with illegal weapons.Of people I know that have had guns stolen it was most often a white boy that had stolen them.Two of my class mates got a ten year ride for stealing several grand in firearms during a robbery spree they where both white.

I see a criminal not a race.

Except that the reality is that the rate of black homicide is about 10X that for non-hispanic whites (US federal crime stats). The vast majority of black homicides are with african-americans as the perp and the victim, BTW. Whites almost never kill blacks (you hear about most as "hate crimes" though the larger % the other way around are just another day at the office).

Subtract non-asian minorities in the US, and the gun violence rate (note that the stats are by the race of the victim)is high by european standards, partially because minority on non-minority killings skew the average. Still, it is high like, say, Finland. High, but not outrageously high like the near 40:100,000 rate of gun deaths for blacks.

Newtown was terrible, but none of the current or proposed gun control legislation would have stopped it. If you magically made guns go away, a 20-something YO male could kill nearly as many with a KNIFE (a guy a year or two ago in the PRC did just that, and another recently wounded as many there). On top of that, a smart nut like the Newtown whacko could use google, then make a car or truck bomb out of common goods.

The solution to gun violence in the US is largely cultural, and related to mexicans and blacks, a fair bit as gang violence (at 10X the rate, the white rate is in effect nearly noise). For nut shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc, it's a mental health issue, and since some severe mental illness presents in the teens and 20s commonly, the first warning (from a legal standpoint of the government knowing there is a problem) might be the attack.

[tater]

I wonder if you would still think like that if it would have been your own daughter or your own wife that had been killed in these dramatic events. :hmmm:

That's an emotional argument, which results in the emotional cry for "gun control." It is ineffective. Lower gun violence rates in other cultures are cultural, not gun control related. Remove the offending culture if you want...

[Méo]

I'm sorry if you lost somebody in the shootings

No, not at all, it's just that we never realize it (be it a disease, or a shooting) until it really happens to us.

The key thing here is that we never really care when it happens to other people in other cities, it's never a severe problem until it reaches us and we get struck real hard by reality. :timeout:

[soopaman2]

No, not at all, it's just that we never realize it (be it a disease, or a shooting) until it really happens to us.

The key thing here is that we never really care when it happens to other people in other cities, it's never a severe problem until it reaches us and we get struck real hard by reality. :timeout:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/its-a-war-zone-more-murders-in-chicago-in-2012-than-allied-losses-in-afghanistan/

No one cares, because they are black faces killed by black gunmen.

Now a school full of white kids?

BAN EM ALLL!!!!!onE!!Exclamationpoint!!

[Méo]

That's an emotional argument, which results in the emotional cry for "gun control." It is ineffective. Lower gun violence rates in other cultures are cultural, not gun control related.

You might be right :hmm2:

I too think it's a lot more a question of culture, but what's the solution?

I hope you're not gonna tell me the same arguments than the NRA, put an armed officer in each school, because mad gunman are insane but they're not completely stupid, they're just gonna take out the armed officer first, by surprise... so now what will be the solution, a SWAT team in each school, seems to me like a ridiculous thought...:nope:

[Méo]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/its-a-war-zone-more-murders-in-chicago-in-2012-than-allied-losses-in-afghanistan/

It’s a War Zone! More Murders in Chicago in 2012 Than Allied Losses in Afghanistan

Damn! really, americans have a serious problem on their own. :nope:

[soopaman2]

Damn! really, americans have a serious problem on their own. :nope:


Just saying this is something we have been dealing with, why punish the legals?

Look at George Zimmerman, my opinion on him is moot, but how his incident was jacked up because of the racial bias.

Why did that not draw the ire? If Trayvon, shot another Trayvon, we never would have heard a word.

It just seems things become a problem, when white basement dwellers commit the crime.

South Central LA MS13 junior mexican cartel members, chopping off heads for fun. Chicago drops more people than an entire war zone, not my race! White guy kills a bunch of pasty white kids, ban em all!!!!!


Why do we care? We should treat these pasty whites like we treat the blacks/ minorities who die to guns. Like it never happened.


It is only a problem when middle class white kids die, which is what chaps my ass about the shootings, and the kneejerk reactions.

Shame

In other words...The media is shiesse

[Sailor Steve]

Damn! really, americans have a serious problem on their own. :nope:
Let's see...310 American deaths in Afghanistan, out of 90,000 troops there...that's 0.3444%, or 1 for every 290 troops. And then there's 532 homicides in Chicago, out of a population of 2,710,000...that's 0.01963%, or 1 for every 5094 citizens in Chicago. Also, that is total homicides, and I can't find the statistics regarding how many of those murders were committed by other means than guns.

To be fair, Chicago also had a total of over 2000 shootings last year, most of them nonfatal. Something does need to be done, but as has been pointed out both gun supporters and anti-gun people tend to get excited and jump to conclusions that aren't valid. One article cited the number of illegal guns confiscated and the number of gang members arrested, both of which were in the thousands. As has been mentioned many times, taking away the guns of legal owners is as bad an answer as doing nothing at all.

I see people on both sides making a lot of emotional noise, but I don't see anybody actually suggesting solutions.

[soopaman2]

A good solution would be fiercly attacking the illegal gun owners, and not the everyday-joe who jumped through all the hoops, paid all the charges, and passed all the tests.

I feel like I am getting screwed here, and all I ever shot was paper, and deer. Mostly paper.

I can start shooting humans, others seem to do it with impunity. That may be the best solution.

[Méo]

but if it did I think I'd hedge my bets on the side that is equipped with drones, out of the millions of armed citizens

There's no need for that, you just have to constantly put them in a state of fear, ignorance and disinformation then you can do whatever you want with your puppets, euh, I mean the people... (particularly referring to the last war in 2003).

Soopaman, I see what you mean.

Steeve, according to Wikipedia, Montreal has a population of 1,649,519 and there's about 30 homicides per year (and yes, a lot of them is caused by gangs), and if you want to do the math, go on...

[soopaman2]

I know I come across as a lunatic here with this, but I did everything right to own.

I should not be a criminal just because people misuse tools.

If I beat my wifes head in with a hammer, you gonna ban carpenters?

[Penguin]

RFID chips are a terrible idea. They don't belong in passports, they don't belong in guns either. So does a lot of the stuff suggested in the article like GPS devices - :nope: The potential for abuse is enormous. Apart from the potential abuse by citizens, the risk for abuse by the state is even bigger. History has shown that if you give instruments of surveillance to the government, they will use them, often only stopped by the courts, which remain one of the last resorts to defend citizen rights.

All the measures suggested in the article are too high tech solutions. This means a system could also have a high failure rate in situations where it must not. Despise the high tech, sensors, of any kind, are not that smart and can be fooled much easier than a human being.

A lower tech suggestion, to stop spontanious misuse could be fingerprint sensors. This way a weapon that is taken from you, can not be used against you - at least not directly. Of course the control, whose fingerprints are registered to the gun, should remain in the hands of the legal owner. For example your weapon for home defense could be green-lit to be shot by the owner, the spouse, the teenage kid, but not the 4 year old child.
I got this idea from Shadowrun, so there might be real life objections, or even tests which make my suggestion moot. I am open to hear which flaws you folks see in this idea.

Finally, the most efficient way to bring crime down in America, would be adopting a social security web that is worth its name. Maybe you would have more freeloaders, but imo the overall positive effects would trump the negative ones in any aspect.

[JU_88]

You are wrong. I'd estimate that less than a quarter of the standing US Military and less than a 10th of National Guard would support an Administration that ordered it to attack Americans.

Well, it depends doesnt it? Sure, if out of the blue the white house gave the order to armed forces to 'start rounding up and attacking U.S citizens, SS style" I doubt they would follow through on it either. But that is not how these things unfold is it?

Sometimes the Police are required to attack American Citizens in order to defend American Citizens, and of course (most of the time) American Citizens attack American Citizens, so I dont know what makes you estimate that 90% of the Military and NG would not be prepared to do it under circumstance that are still widley percieved to be justified.
Depends on the situtation and numbers of course, but dont underestimate the power of politics and psychological conditioning. In a scenario where 'militants' are still in the minority, Id expect they'd be presented to both the military and the people as 'Domestic terrorists' / 'traitors' / 'internal threat' /criminals' rather than merely as 'Americans' (Assuming they were significant enough to need the military to deal with them, rather than civil law enforcement)

For the U.S military (or even elements of it) to turn its back on the white house, you'd need to pass a point where the American people collectivley no longer support the actions of their government. So what do the military do before they reach that point? - for the most part, they do as they are told. Its The same rule that applies to any other nation that has undergone a revolution, when armed forces realise that they are approaching a situation where they will be fighting a people to defend a government - THAT is usually the point where they turn their guns around. But the whole process doesnt happen over night.

Anyway all I was really saying is that I dont belive America is anywhere near that kind of situation today.

[August]

Well, it depends doesnt it? Sure, if out of the blue the white house gave the order to armed forces to 'start rounding up and attacking U.S citizens, SS style" I doubt they would follow through on it either. But that is not how these things unfold is it?

Sometimes the Police are required to attack American Citizens in order to defend American Citizens, and of course (most of the time) American Citizens attack American Citizens, so I dont know what makes you estimate that 90% of the Military and NG would not be prepared to do it under circumstance that are still widley percieved to be justified.
Depends on the situtation and numbers of course, but dont underestimate the power of politics and psychological conditioning. In a scenario where 'militants' are still in the minority, Id expect they'd be presented to both the military and the people as 'Domestic terrorists' / 'traitors' / 'internal threat' /criminals' rather than merely as 'Americans' (Assuming they were significant enough to need the military to deal with them, rather than civil law enforcement)

For the U.S military (or even elements of it) to turn its back on the white house, you'd need to pass a point where the American people collectivley no longer support the actions of their government. So what do the military do before they reach that point? - for the most part, they do as they are told. Its The same rule that applies to any other nation that has undergone a revolution, when armed forces realise that they are approaching a situation where they will be fighting a people to defend a government - THAT is usually the point where they turn their guns around. But the whole process doesnt happen over night.

Anyway all I was really saying is that I dont belive America is anywhere near that kind of situation today.

I bow to your superior wisdom of my country, it's military and it's people... :roll:

[JU_88]

I bow to your superior wisdom of my country, it's military and it's people... :roll:

Im just going on past history. I dont know what makes your country so different from any other in this particular case? But feel free to educate me on what the basis is for your estimate.
Sorry I forgot the rule that I cant possibly know anything about a country if I dont live there, its not like their are books, websites, news articals, documentries and people talking about them or anything.
I'd pay more attention to UK politics, but ours is just not as interesting as yours.

[Sailor Steve]

Sometimes the Police are required to attack American Citizens in order to defend American Citizens...
In the normal course of duty the police don't "attack" citizens. They question citizens in an attempt to get information, but even forced interrogations are illegal. If you're refering to gunfights, then the police are defending citizens against criminals who by definition have relinquished their citizenship rights.

...and of course (most of the time) American Citizens attack American Citizens...
You mean criminals attacking citizens? Criminals by nature don't see other people as being real anyway. 'Center-of-the-universe' syndrome at its worst.

so I dont know what makes you estimate that 90% of the Military and NG would not be prepared to do it under circumstance that are still widley percieved to be justified.
Back in the heyday of the Vietnam war, the Utah National Guard was called out to disperse an anti-war protest rally being staged in one of our larger parks. When the Guard arrived they realized that many of the protesters were friends and family. The end result was the National Guard guarding a peaceful and lawful assembly of citizens in defiance of orders from the Governor.

Depends on the situtation and numbers of course...etc
Of course you're right about the persuasive powers of politicians, as has been pointed out by everyone from James Madison to Hermann Goering. This is always a potential problem. Part of the solution is the ingrained ideal that the Constitution is more important than any President or Congress.

For the U.S military (or even elements of it) to turn its back on the white house, you'd need to pass a point where the American people collectivley no longer support the actions of their government. So what do the military do before they reach that point? - for the most part, they do as they are told. Its The same rule that applies to any other nation that has undergone a revolution, when armed forces realise that they are approaching a situation where they will be fighting a people to defend a government - THAT is usually the point where they turn their guns around. But the whole process doesnt happen over night.
This is also true, but we're talking about a potential order from the Federal Government to forget the Constitution. If a significant portion of the American People, or more importantly the States themselves, rose up in defiance of that, I think you'd see major support, first from the National Guard, and then from major portions of the military.

My late friend Rocky once told me a story about one of his teachers. The teacher was Jewish, and jokingly blamed the Holocaust on the Jews themselves (and no, I'm not trying to Godwinize the thread). The teacher's justification for the statement: "If they'd shot the first SS SOB that came throught the door, the next SS SOB might have thought twice, and the whole thing might have been a little less one-sided!"

And if you don't think that armed civilians can do damage to the military, just remember what the French (and Polish, and others) underground accomplished against the Nazi occupation.

[Stealhead]

Anyone who enlists in the US Military or is commissioned as an officer swears an oath to defend the Constitution not necessarily the government.As a result it is highly likely if a seriously objectionable order where given that clearly violated the Constitution many troops would refuse to obey it and most likely side with the people.

This is the oath of enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Notice the first part that means that if an officer or the President of the United States gives an order that clearly violates the Constitution the order is null and void.The President of the United States also swears an oath to defend the Constitution if he or she ever does violate this their position becomes null and void and any order given would also be null and void.

Here is a National Guard oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

[JU_88]

Well if push ever comes to shove (and I hope it doesn't) I hope you are right in that the Military will stand by their oath to uphold the consitution and not the Government, because to be brutally honest, they (Government) dont seem all that bothered about doing unconstitutional things once in a while.

Welfare, The Patriot Act, Invasion & rebuilding of Iraq, The Monetary system, The Frederal Reserve, Bank Bailouts, Medicare (to name a few)

[tater]

You might be right :hmm2:

I too think it's a lot more a question of culture, but what's the solution?

I hope you're not gonna tell me the same arguments than the NRA, put an armed officer in each school, because mad gunman are insane but they're not completely stupid, they're just gonna take out the armed officer first, by surprise... so now what will be the solution, a SWAT team in each school, seems to me like a ridiculous thought...:nope:

Almost all mass shootings in recent decades have happened in areas where guns are expressly forbidden, even in the hands of employees, like schools, most theaters, etc. If a teacher wanted a CCW, it would not be allowed to take the weapon to school, for example. Of course if a teacher was already a homicidal nut, he/she would just bring the gun (or knife, etc) anyway. Allowing them to be armed would result in zero increase in school attacks, and might, just might, lower a death toll. That said I don't agree with guards in schools, or metal detectors, etc. It's wasteful for something so rare (yes, it's rare). Letting teachers, etc arm themselves voluntarily seems perfectly reasonable to me. Bottom line is you cannot prevent a crazy from arming themselves with some kind of weapon, and if you are a 100 lb teacher in a room of 6 year olds and a nut comes in, you need a tool, and the only tool that will do is a firearm.

The cultural issue is NOT the culture of the insane that do these mass shootings. That is a mental health problem and has exactly nothing to do with culture.

The current (mid 2000s are the best the DOJ has) rate for victims by race have the rate for blacks at 6X that for whites (they are 7X more likely to murder with guns, whites, OTOH, commit around 80% of the murders by poison). The majority of killers using guns are black. A majority, which is a lot considering they are ~12% of the population (and most are mean, dropping them to just 6% of the population committing 50.9% of gun murders).

The "white" rate of homicide is around 3 per 100,000. This is by all attackers, and includes many cultures within the US that are nominally labeled "white" by the US government. Not really far from a few places in Europe like Liechtenstein (2.8:100,000), or Luxembourg (2.5). Are their high (for europe) rates because of their culture, or perhaps an invasive culture?

While these terrible mass shootings get a lot of press, but more kids are killed in the inner cities almost daily. In 2012, something like 60 children were murdered, the vast majority black kids by other blacks.

What perhaps the non-gun people out there (at SS, and the world at large) don't "get," is that the vast, overwhelming majority of us with guns can state with certainty that we would NEVER use them criminally. As a result, the idea of armed people doesn't scare us. Guns don't make people violent. I've had guns for decades, and been VERY angry on numerous occasions, and it never even crossed my mind that a gun was a useful tool for my anger. This is true of 90-something % of gun owners, I'd wager. The ones it is not true of... already do crimes with guns, or think about it.

[TLAM Strike]

Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.
I'm reminded of this... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3wIDATpXak&t=3m19s)

Oh yea note to self: Use human shield...

:nope:

[Méo]

@tater

I don't want to go in a ''I'm right and you're wrong'' discourse, I think that leads nowhere. :down:

But I take the Montreal case again: it's a very multicultural city, in fact I hate this city, each time I go there I feel like I'm in a different country and it's very dirty. But nevertheless, it's the safest city (for a metropolis) in North America.

The only thing, I think there's less black people than in the U.S.

http://www.studyinmontreal.info/en/node/3092

In 2008, 8 of 29 murders were related to street gangs. Compared to the 14 street gang murders committed in 2007, this is a drop of 43%.

http://www.spvm.qc.ca/en/documentation/gd_19.asp

BTW, I know this city is only one city, and therefore isn't enough in a scientifical point of view.

----

And yes we have gun control laws, and that didn't prevent my friend (who's in the reserve) to spend nearly 10 000$ on several guns (maybe 5 or 6, I don't remember). There are maybe some limitations (I should ask him about it) but for sure I know he has a lot of fun whith it when he goes in the wood.

And I know laws are not the only solution, gun violence is surely a complex social problem (related to lot of things) to be examine by specialists.

----

That is a mental health problem and has exactly nothing to do with culture.

I'm glad you admit it, I think it's precisely one of the objective of gun control, to prevent nuts from having these, maybe also those who are on medication (and believe me you can be really ****** up on this, I know, I experienced it)

And the police really like to know what kind of weapon (if any) an individual can have when they go for an arrest (I know my own sister is a police officer).

----

On the other hand, let's face it, when you compare the stats between nations (by nations I mean western nations, not third world countries where gangs and drug dealers do almost whatever they want) US is by far the country where gun violence is at it's highest.

In the end it's a choice, I mean you could still think, ''no we want gun freedom at all cost'' everything is a question of values (although those values might change when you experience something dramatic).

I would even support those who want to create an independant country with their state (if they estimate their values to be dramatically different) as long as it's done democratically (even if I disagree with those values).

Peace out :sunny:

[Armistead]

See that Obama unveiled his gun law proposals, same old stuff and will never pass congress.

[August]

Welfare, The Patriot Act, Invasion & rebuilding of Iraq, The Monetary system, The Frederal Reserve, Bank Bailouts, Medicare (to name a few)

You're confusing controversial issues with unconstitutional issues. The only thing in that list that could be considered unconstitutional is the Patriot Act.

[August]

Almost all mass shootings in recent decades have happened in areas where guns are expressly forbidden, even in the hands of employees, like schools, most theaters, etc. If a teacher wanted a CCW, it would not be allowed to take the weapon to school, for example. Of course if a teacher was already a homicidal nut, he/she would just bring the gun (or knife, etc) anyway. Allowing them to be armed would result in zero increase in school attacks, and might, just might, lower a death toll. That said I don't agree with guards in schools, or metal detectors, etc. It's wasteful for something so rare (yes, it's rare). Letting teachers, etc arm themselves voluntarily seems perfectly reasonable to me. Bottom line is you cannot prevent a crazy from arming themselves with some kind of weapon, and if you are a 100 lb teacher in a room of 6 year olds and a nut comes in, you need a tool, and the only tool that will do is a firearm.

The cultural issue is NOT the culture of the insane that do these mass shootings. That is a mental health problem and has exactly nothing to do with culture.

The current (mid 2000s are the best the DOJ has) rate for victims by race have the rate for blacks at 6X that for whites (they are 7X more likely to murder with guns, whites, OTOH, commit around 80% of the murders by poison). The majority of killers using guns are black. A majority, which is a lot considering they are ~12% of the population (and most are mean, dropping them to just 6% of the population committing 50.9% of gun murders).

The "white" rate of homicide is around 3 per 100,000. This is by all attackers, and includes many cultures within the US that are nominally labeled "white" by the US government. Not really far from a few places in Europe like Liechtenstein (2.8:100,000), or Luxembourg (2.5). Are their high (for europe) rates because of their culture, or perhaps an invasive culture?

While these terrible mass shootings get a lot of press, but more kids are killed in the inner cities almost daily. In 2012, something like 60 children were murdered, the vast majority black kids by other blacks.

What perhaps the non-gun people out there (at SS, and the world at large) don't "get," is that the vast, overwhelming majority of us with guns can state with certainty that we would NEVER use them criminally. As a result, the idea of armed people doesn't scare us. Guns don't make people violent. I've had guns for decades, and been VERY angry on numerous occasions, and it never even crossed my mind that a gun was a useful tool for my anger. This is true of 90-something % of gun owners, I'd wager. The ones it is not true of... already do crimes with guns, or think about it.


Well said.

[Platapus]

Criminals, by their very nature, do not mind violating laws.

A criminal bent on committing a felony is not going to worry about violating a misdemeanor. :nope:

[Tribesman]

Criminals, by their very nature, do not mind violating laws.

yes they would have no qualms in buying a gun from a source that doesn't require a backround check even though they are not supposed to buy guns and wouldn't pass a simple check.

[August]

Criminals, by their very nature, do not mind violating laws.

A criminal bent on committing a felony is not going to worry about violating a misdemeanor. :nope:

Exactly

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555379_466711510059225_1901224157_n.jpg

[Platapus]

If you outlaw guns, you may make outlaws out of what are normally law abiding citizens. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Exactly

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555379_466711510059225_1901224157_n.jpg
That is an anti gun control arguement by dummies

[Tribesman]

If you outlaw guns, you may make outlaws out of what are normally law abiding citizens. :yep:

If you outlaw opium you may make outlaws of what are normally law abiding citizens.:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

If you outlaw opium you may make outlaws of what are normally law abiding citizens.:yep:
That's true. Your point?

[Tribesman]

Your point?
Does the application of the arguement make sense.
Just because something is true it doesn't neccesarily mean that it is a valid arguement for or against the issue.

Try another one.
Banning creosote may make outlaws out of people who are normally law abiding citizens.

[Méo]

Exactly

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555379_466711510059225_1901224157_n.jpg

Is it me, or those who committed mass murders in schools weren't gang members :doh:

[August]

Is it me, or those who committed mass murders in schools weren't gang members :doh:


Where do you see the words Gang Member in that cartoon? :88)

[Méo]

Where do you see the words Gang Member in that cartoon? :88)

He looks a lot like it :hmmm:

Or simply replace ''gang member'' by ''criminal''

Don't know much about this guy http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/16/adam-lanza-quiet-friendless-boy

But he didn't seem like a professional criminal before the tragedy. :hmm2:

Edit: BTW, the same goes for the colorado gunman.

[Sailor Steve]

Just because something is true it doesn't neccesarily mean that it is a valid arguement for or against the issue.
True, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a valid argument either. If the banning has the primary effect of making formerly law-abiding citizens into criminals then the law-abiding citizens have cause to object.

This is also true of creosote.

[Sailor Steve]

Or simply replace ''gang member'' by ''criminal''
The point of the cartoon was that if you disarm the law-abiding citizen, the criminal still has his gun and the citizen is now an easy target.

You're right, mass murderers aren't usually criminals in the common sense of the word. The cartoon wasn't aimed at that. The common criminal is not usually looking to kill people, but he will hurt them, or kill them, if he feels safe doing so.

[Méo]

The point of the cartoon was that if you disarm the law-abiding citizen

IMO, restraint (or limitations) would be a better word here than disarm.

I don't see why a law-abiding citizen would be disarmed, he's just gonna have some limitations (seriously, it's bit late now, but I think I'm gonna call my friend tomorrow he's gonna tell me every weapons he has, I've seen some, and he's far from being disarmed)

[August]

He looks a lot like it :hmmm:

Or simply replace ''gang member'' by ''criminal''

Don't know much about this guy http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/16/adam-lanza-quiet-friendless-boy

But he didn't seem like a professional criminal before the tragedy. :hmm2:

Edit: BTW, the same goes for the colorado gunman.

Madmen don't need a firearm to commit mass murder. McVeigh and Kehoe both killed more people than lanza and Holmes combined.

But none of that is the point of the cartoon. Which is that anytime you disarm law abiding citizens you're telling criminals, be they professionals, amateurs, gang members, junkies and yes most definitely madmen, that their victims, ie the law abiding saps who obeyed the law, will not be able to stop them.

A far better name for "gun free zone" is "defenseless victim zone" because that's the message we're sending to criminals.

[Tribesman]

The point of the cartoon was that if you disarm the law-abiding citizen, the criminal still has his gun and the citizen is now an easy target.

Yes, but there is no proposal to disarm the law abiding citizen so the whole line of arguement is just repeated parrot fodder.

True, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a valid argument either.
Exactly, so you have to take the statement apart further to see if it makes sense.
The line platapus gave doesn't make sense when you go into it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, but there is no proposal to disarm the law abiding citizen so the whole line of arguement is just repeated parrot fodder.


Only the move to take away assault rifles and clips capable of carrying multiply cartridges. Yes, the law abiding citizen my still purchase other specific types of arms. Criminals will purchase all types available. Legally or not.

[Tribesman]

Only the move to take away assault rifles and clips capable of carrying multiply cartridges. Yes, the law abiding citizen my still purchase other specific types of arms. Criminals will purchase all types available. Legally or not.

So outlawing the guns doesn't mean only criminals can have guns then.
Thanks, I just wanted confirmation that the "gun control for dummies" was mindless parrot fodder.


Criminals will purchase all types available. Legally or not.
The nature of criminal purchases is that they are clearer to define and so address, plus by their nature they have the black market premium charge.

[Méo]

Only the move to take away assault rifles and clips capable of carrying multiply cartridges.

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

mindless parrot fodder.
So having repeatedly condemned people for using pointless catch-phrases, you make up your own and repeat it ad infinitum.

[Sailor Steve]

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here. :hmmm:
No, it's not misleading at all. Whether you agree or not, and whether the cartoonist is right or wrong, his point was still valid. "If this, then that." It's how logic works.

You can call gun-owners wrong if you like, and you may be right. That said, they are always worrying about the possibilities of the future, not the limitations of today. "Slippery slope", "Camel's nose in the tent", "Domino effect" and all that.

[Tribesman]

So having repeatedly condemned people for using pointless catch-phrases, you make up your own and repeat it ad infinitum.
If I was to repeat incorrect sensationalist slogans from gun nut weekly or the brady bunch and pretend it made a point then you too could call it mindless parrot fodder:03:

No, it's not misleading at all. Whether you agree or not, and whether the cartoonist is right or wrong, his point was still valid. "If this, then that." It's how logic works.

The flaw in the logic being that there has never been nor is likely to ever be that "if this" element at all.
He might as well say "If the sky fell on my head it would hurt because there is a lots of sky" pure nonsense isn't it.

[August]

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here. :hmmm:


It's not misleading. In my state it takes months to get a firearms license and it can be denied by the local chief of police on a whim. Other jurisdictions like New York will make you wait for years. If you are accused of a crime (not convicted just accused) your firearms can be confiscated.

The gun banners have on numerous occasions stated that their ultimate desire is to see all firearms banned from civilian ownership. I have no reason to doubt them. Their agenda has been quite clear for decades.

[Méo]

No, it's not misleading at all.

Alright then, as you wish.

In the end, it's not my country, not my problem.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here. :hmmm:

No, he has a shotgun from what I see. The law to be shoved up our keesters entails removal of assault rifles and large clips. The citizen is totally disarmed. There are just a few less types of weapons on the shelf to buy. In way, it is misleading in the respect that he is totally disarmed in the second picture which is not the case in reality.

[August]

No, he has a shotgun from what I see. The law to be shoved up our keesters entails removal of assault rifles and large clips. The citizen is totally disarmed. There are just a few less types of weapons on the shelf to buy. In way, it is misleading in the respect that he is totally disarmed in the second picture which is not the case in reality.


Not yet but once they establish a list of banned models it'll be easy peasy to add to it at their convenience. Robber sticks up a store with a M1911, add them to the list. A murder is committed with a .357 revolver, add them to the list. Someone shoots themselves with a .22 bolt action rifle, add them to the list. It's Gun rights elimination by degrees. That's why this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not yet but once they establish a list of banned models it'll be easy peasy to add to it at their convenience. Robber sticks up a store with a M1911, add them to the list. A murder is committed with a .357 revolver, add them to the list. Someone shoots themselves with a .22 bolt action rifle, add them to the list. It's Gun rights elimination by degrees. That's why this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.

Yes, one would believe this sets a precedence. I don't believe this is the underlying goal because the fight for it is not what the country needs at the moment. Throw out some legislation on assault rifles. Make a legacy. Retire to HI. For decades the "establishment" has tried to get rid of the guns. The guns are still here and will be for a long time.

[Tribesman]

It's not misleading.
It is totally misleading.

In my state it takes months to get a firearms license

Not outlawed then.


it can be denied by the local chief of police on a whim.

Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.

Other jurisdictions like New York will make you wait for years.

Not outlawed then.

If you are accused of a crime (not convicted just accused) your firearms can be confiscated.

Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
So it can be restrictions on travel, surrendering passport, curfew, drug testing, signing on at the police station, not associating with certain people and ...not having firearms.
Crazy stuff eh:rotfl2:

The gun banners have on numerous occasions stated that their ultimate desire is to see all firearms banned from civilian ownership. I have no reason to doubt them. Their agenda has been quite clear for decades.
Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it.
He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.
So more bull

[Sailor Steve]

I just had a remarkable thought. Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people, at putting people down, and at mocking people. The remarkable thought, though, is this: What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question. He seems to live for making fun of other people, but know one I know could say what he really thinks on the subject, because he's never said so himself.

So, do you actually have any thoughts on anything at all, or is your entire reason for existing to mock others?

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribesman never commits to a stance on any subject. :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people, at putting people down, and at mocking people.

For the first part, I disagree. Tribesman presents no evidence or data to the contrary of any argument, which is why he has to rely on vague quoting and poor grammar to obscure the content. As for the second and third parts, absolutely. His posts are all disdain and vitriol.

The remarkable thought, though, is this: What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question. He seems to live for making fun of other people, but know one I know could say what he really thinks on the subject, because he's never said so himself.

So, do you actually have any thoughts on anything at all, or is your entire reason for existing to mock others?

I would also like to see this. You and I have both called him out on this before, and have gotten nowhere. I suspect that all he really wants is for us to be talking to and about him. He craves that sort of attention, not unlike yubba, who he, with no small amount of irony, rails against.

[Armistead]

"According to TV station WABC (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116), the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which bans magazines that carry more than seven rounds, does not provide an exemption for law enforcement officers, who typically carry handguns with a 15-round capacity"

Police trying to have this law changed.....Just goes to show when they start passing dumb laws how they don't pay attention.

[Tribesman]

What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question.
Try remembering.


For the first part, I disagree.
Disagree all you like, though you might be hard pushed to explain how bringing up simple bail conditions and conditions of release doesn't counter Augusts moan about some individual alledged criminals having their right to guns temporarily removed.
Then again recently you did have difficulty in understanding how all I had to do to show that one set of numbers didn't display the manipulation of another set of numbers was point out that they were in fact two different sets of numbers.:yep:
See how easy it is to present data that is contrary to the arguement.

Would you like the USC on bail conditions or would you like a state level breakdown?
How about some backround on further amendments because US citizens moaning to their government to impose tighter bail conditions because alledged criminals were re offending while on bail?

Or Perhaps would you like to see again that 2012 is not 2011?:03:

not unlike yubba, who he, with no small amount of irony, rails against.
I rail against yubba for his conspiracy theories and extreme yet naive political partisanship.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman never commits to a stance on any subject. :03:
All the stances are highly conditional, that is why terms and conditions always apply.

[Sailor Steve]

Try remembering.
Ask a simple question, get an evasion. What else is new?

[Takeda Shingen]

Disagree all you like, though you might be hard pushed to explain how bringing up simple bail conditions and conditions of release doesn't counter Augusts moan about some individual alledged criminals having their right to guns temporarily removed.
Then again recently you did have difficulty in understanding how all I had to do to show that one set of numbers didn't display the manipulation of another set of numbers was point out that they were in fact two different sets of numbers.:yep:
See how easy it is to present data that is contrary to the arguement.

What data? Am I to take your word for it? Would you like me to get into what exactly your word is worth around here?

Would you like the USC on bail conditions or would you like a state level breakdown?
How about some backround on further amendments because US citizens moaning to their government to impose tighter bail conditions because alledged criminals were re offending while on bail?

Or Perhaps would you like to see again that 2012 is not 2011?:03:

Right now, anything would be better than what you are giving us, which is nothing. Well, not nothing, I'm getting a lot of rude remarks and emoticons, which may impress yubba but you have been around long enough to know that it won't fly with me. So, again, where are your facts?

Right, you have none.

I rail against yubba for his conspiracy theories and extreme yet naive political partisanship.

I think you rail against yubba because level water always finds itself. Don't like the comparison? You are in charge of you. It's what I always had to tell kids when I was teaching elementary school. It is also what I frequently have to tell you. Interesting, that.

[AVGWarhawk]

All the stances are highly conditional, that is why terms and conditions always apply.

Teflon comes to mind. :haha:

[August]

Of all the people on this forum and of all the trolls, bots and other assorted idiots that have passed through here, Tribesman is the only one that I use the ignore feature on.

It's because he literally has nothing worth reading. Ever. You never seen him wish someone a happy birthday or express his condolences at someones loss or post anything that is not just another iteration of his own special brand of sardonic hate speech that adds nothing to the conversation except vitriol. I'll pass on that.

[eddie]

:sign_yeah:

[Cybermat47]

The best solution to gun crime is easy. Finding it is not.

[Tribesman]

It's because he literally has nothing worth reading. Ever. You never seen him wish someone a happy birthday or express his condolences at someones loss or post anything that is not just another iteration of his own special brand of sardonic hate speech that adds nothing to the conversation except vitriol. I'll pass on that.
Isn't it amazing how that troll can spew such obvious lies.
I suppose that is the price of ignorance for August.:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

What data? Am I to take your word for it? Would you like me to get into what exactly your word is worth around here?

You are expected to read and to digest what is written, if you fail to do do so then it is you who is at fault and you should not be complaining because you have not understood.



Right now, anything would be better than what you are giving us, which is nothing. Well, not nothing, I'm getting a lot of rude remarks and emoticons, which may impress yubba but you have been around long enough to know that it won't fly with me. So, again, where are your facts?

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Or considering the claim you made about it show one line which does not counter the line it was responding to.
3 of course is slightly different as that is a question for someone to provide the legislation of "whim" they say covers firearms.
5 is a rather good example, as that was someone else providing the data but not reading it and also not managing to notice the difference in what he was claiming and what I and his data was saying.
It also provides an example of August again parroting something which has already been shown as false.

[Tribesman]

Ask a simple question, get an evasion. What else is new?

Ask a simple question get a simple answer.
Can you remember my position on the registration of firearms?
How about the eliminating of loopholes on backround checks for firearms sales?
Can you remember why I think the NRA proposed "list of mentals" is a useless database to work with?

[Tribesman]

:sign_yeah:
Feeling bad over the Mali topic eddie?
if you had decided to get even a little basic information on the recent history of the place you would have avoided all the "why US" claims you made.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is all I have to say about it. :rotfl2:


And that's final!:stare:

[Sailor Steve]

Isn't it amazing how that troll can spew such obvious lies.
I suppose that is the price of ignorance for August.:rotfl2:
Troll? Pot-kettle. From where I sit he got it pretty much right.

[Sailor Steve]

Ask a simple question get a simple answer.
Not an answer at all.

Can you remember my position on the registration of firearms?
How about the eliminating of loopholes on backround checks for firearms sales?
No. Why don't you tell me rather than dance around?

Can you remember why I think the NRA proposed "list of mentals" is a useless database to work with?
Yes, but that was you reacting again. What is your stance on the question of gun control? You've never said.

[Sailor Steve]

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Not one of those lines actually says what you think about the subject. Every single one is a negative reaction to something someone else has said. This is your modus operandi: Always react, but never actually say anything concrete, and make sure that what you do say is an insult.

So...What is your stance on gun control?

[Sailor Steve]

Feeling bad over the Mali topic eddie?
if you had decided to get even a little basic information on the recent history of the place you would have avoided all the "why US" claims you made.
Actually, he's expressing a feeling that more than a few people here have about you. You are the most intelligent troll this forum has ever seen, and you manage to get away with dancing right on the line over and over again, yet you are still a troll. Once in a blue moon you actually say something worth reading, but mostly it's these hit-and-run attacks, without actually stating a real opinion of your own.

So, what is your stance on gun control?

[Takeda Shingen]

You are expected to read and to digest what is written, if you fail to do do so then it is you who is at fault and you should not be complaining because you have not understood.

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Or considering the claim you made about it show one line which does not counter the line it was responding to.
3 of course is slightly different as that is a question for someone to provide the legislation of "whim" they say covers firearms.
5 is a rather good example, as that was someone else providing the data but not reading it and also not managing to notice the difference in what he was claiming and what I and his data was saying.
It also provides an example of August again parroting something which has already been shown as false.

So your answer is "but...but....August!".

[Tribesman]

So your answer is "but...but....August!".

No the answer is plain.
Your claim was false.
It is demonstrated as being false.
Simple isn't it.:yeah:

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

That explains why you have problems, you are supposed to read the words.
I did wonder how you couldn't identify facts that were plainly presented to you.

[Takeda Shingen]

No the answer is plain.
Your claim was false.
It is demonstrated as being false.
Simple isn't it.:yeah:

No, all you demonstrated was that you tried to deflect the criticism by pointing at someone else. This is a textbook example of a tu quoque ad hominem used to obscure the point. Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque


That explains why you have problems, you are supposed to read the words.
I did wonder how you couldn't identify facts that were plainly presented to you.

You did not pick up on the metaphor. I am not surprised.

[Tribesman]

Troll? Pot-kettle. From where I sit he got it pretty much right.
Really Steve? You only have to look at the front page to positively and unquestionably confirm that Augusts claim is a lie.

Which comes to....
Actually, he's expressing a feeling that more than a few people here have about you
He agreed with a post that is demonstably false:yep:
Would you like me to point out the most obvious lie it contained?

Not one of those lines actually says what you think about the subject.
It does actually, it says that all those lines of arguement which were countered must be rejected as an answer as they are not true.

Removing the answers that are not true is the method of reason you are objecting to.

Yes, but that was you reacting again.

Can you remember what was the reason I gave for objecting to that proposal?
It did go on for quite a while and I had to repeat the points often so it should have "registered", though on that occasion it was someone else who missed out the key details of legislation that I put in not you.

Always react, but never actually say anything concrete, and make sure that what you do say is an insult.


Strange, that objection was concrete and the reasoning behind and around it was presented and solid.

So, what is your stance on gun control?
It is still evolving.
Is your view no longer evolving?

[Tribesman]

No, all you demonstrated was that you tried to deflect the criticism by pointing at someone else.
No, it demonstrates that your claim is false.
Would you like to be reminded of your words as yopu seem to be having problems with words?
Follow the sequence.

Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people
For the first part, I disagree. Tribesman presents no evidence or data to the contrary of any argument

The reply to that shows your thoughts on the post in question are clearly incorrect.
Unless of course you can show how my reply was not factual and didn't counter Augusts attempted defence of that silly slogan:smug:
Very simple isn't it, if you want to object to what was written about a particular post you have to use both posts.
You manage to take it a step further by including Steves post yet fail to gather your information on the other two posts.
You are like the NRA mental database proposal, missing the key ingredients.

[Takeda Shingen]

No, it demonstrates that your claim is false.
Would you like to be reminded of your words as yopu seem to be having problems with words?
Follow the sequence.

Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people
For the first part, I disagree. Tribesman presents no evidence or data to the contrary of any argument

The reply to that shows your thoughts on the post in question are clearly incorrect.
Unless of course you can show how my reply was not factual and didn't counter Augusts attempted defence of that silly slogan:smug:
Very simple isn't it, if you want to object to what was written about a particular post you have to use both posts.
You manage to take it a step further by including Steves post yet fail to gather your information on the other two posts.
You are like the NRA mental database proposal, missing the key ingredients.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, kiddo. You're beaten. Move on and learn from it.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Tribesman]

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, kiddo. You're beaten. Move on and learn from it.

Yeah right young man, you said that when you didn't understand that different years are different years.:har:
Saying it again doesn't make it true, being true makes it true
Unless you can show that the post didn't counter the false statements then all you are showing is that you are very wrong and seem to have a real problem understanding the word true.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah right, you said that when you didn't understand that different years are different years.:har:
Saying it again doesn't make it true, being true makes it true
Unless you can show that the post didn't counter the false statements then all you are showing is that you are very wrong and seem to have a real problem understanding the word true.

Actually, you have demonstrated that what everyone has been saying about you has been completely true. Steve and I have been talking about four points regarding your behavior.

1. You substitute polemics for facts.
2. You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.
3. You utilize ad hominems to deflect criticism.
4. You evade lines of direct questioning.

You have demonstrated for several pages now that these things are completely true, which is the only reason that I have been content to allow you to run your mouth for so long. I didn't defeat you; you defeated yourself.

[Tribesman]

Come along Takeda dear, you made a claim that the post didn't counter the points.
Don't try and run away from it. Stand by your words.
Either show that your claim was true or accept that it was false and has been shown as false.:smug:
You cannot deflect it.

I didn't defeat you; you defeated yourself.
Yoo hoo, look in the mirror:har:

BTW as it is words you are having problems with , do you know what this word means "everyone" ?
Or are you just demonstrating that you have a hard time when it comes to simple facts.

[Sailor Steve]

Really Steve? You only have to look at the front page to positively and unquestionably confirm that Augusts claim is a lie.
I was referring to the things he said about you.
It's because he literally has nothing worth reading. Ever.
Not quite true. You have from time to time actually contributed something. I'd say 20% contribution and 80% attack mode.

You never seen him wish someone a happy birthday or express his condolences at someones loss or post anything that is not just another iteration of his own special brand of sardonic hate speech that adds nothing to the conversation except vitriol.
That pretty much nails it.


Which comes to....

He agreed with a post that is demonstably false:yep:
Would you like me to point out the most obvious lie it contained?
The things he said about you are demostrably false? I think he has you pegged.


It does actually, it says that all those lines of arguement which were countered must be rejected as an answer as they are not true.
You counter lines of argument. True, but you do it in the most objectionable way possible, using it as a reason to mock people.

Removing the answers that are not true is the method of reason you are objecting to.
No, what I'm objecting to is the fact that you attack other people's arguments, but you don't make any of your own.

Can you remember what was the reason I gave for objecting to that proposal?
It did go on for quite a while and I had to repeat the points often so it should have "registered", though on that occasion it was someone else who missed out the key details of legislation that I put in not you.
The point now is that you didn't make any proposals of your own.

Strange, that objection was concrete and the reasoning behind and around it was presented and solid.
It was all in your head. You may think you have an answer, but you never come across that way. You come across as insulting and arrogant, and you seem to live to belittle people. We're not talking about an argument you may or may not have made. We're talking about the way you go about it.

It is still evolving.
Is your view no longer evolving?
Always, but on any given day I'm more than willing to say what it is. You never say what it is, you only say why others are wrong.

So, what is your stance on gun control?

[Takeda Shingen]

Come along Takeda dear, you made a claim that the post didn't counter the points.
Don't try and run away from it. Stand by your words.
Either show that your claim was true or accept that it was false and has been shown as false.:smug:
You cannot deflect it.


Yoo hoo, look in the mirror:har:

2. You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.
3. You utilize ad hominems to deflect criticism.

[Sailor Steve]

Come along Takeda dear, you made a claim that the post didn't counter the points.
Don't try and run away from it. Stand by your words.
Either show that your claim was true or accept that it was false and has been shown as false.:smug:
Why do you expect him to do what you never do? I have yet to see you present any facts of your own. Ever.

Yoo hoo, look in the mirror:har:
Yoo hoo, you're on his ignore list. :88)

[Takeda Shingen]

Why do you expect him to do what you never do? I have yet to see you present any facts of your own. Ever

The only point that either of us have been making is that he does the four things that I listed. Now he uses a combination of points 2 and 3 to attempt to worm out of the way and reframe the discussion. It's an elementary school trick.

[Tribesman]

Why do you expect him to do what you never do?
He made a definate claim about the post of mine.
He should be able to back that up.
The post in question backs itself up as it was so simple.
The fact that my post is so simple to back up by itself shows how bad the initial claims it countered were.

BTW Steve are you repeating his mistake with words.

"never" "ever"
Strong words and very innapropriate.

[Takeda Shingen]

See? He's nothing, if not predictable. I've been ignoring his attempts at this for about a page now, instead holding his feet to the fire. You can tell from the increased vitriol that it is a very uncomfortable thing for him.

[Tribesman]

Now he uses a combination of points 2 and 3 to attempt to worm out of the way and reframe the discussion.

No reframing of the discussion. You made a claim about a specific post and are completely unable to back it up.

[Takeda Shingen]

No reframing of the discussion. You made a claim about a specific post and are completely unable to back it up.

1. You substitute polemics for facts.

[Sailor Steve]

He made a definate claim about the post of mine.
He made a claim about your general posting habits, and his points were obvious to everyone but you.

He should be able to back that up.
Again, why? You never do.

The post in question backs itself up as it was so simple.
The fact that my post is so simple to back up by itself shows how bad the initial claims it countered were.
Again, neither one of us are talking about any single post. It's the fact that you habitually play games without ever posting any facts of your own.

BTW Steve are you repeating his mistake with words.
And again you try to divert the conversation away from yourself. You do like to play these games. You need to stop trolling and start contributing.

[Tribesman]

You can tell from the increased vitriol that it is a very uncomfortable thing for him.
Increasing vitriol:har::har::har::har::har::har:

1. You substitute polemics for facts.
Do you understand that third word or the fifth one?
It certainly doesn't seem like it.

[Takeda Shingen]

He made a claim about your general posting habits, and his points were obvious to everyone but you.

He knows that. But acknowledging it ruins his narrative. Here's the posts I made.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1995220&postcount=92

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1995286&postcount=97

He has attempted to reframe my replies in the second link to make them about specific data, rather than his lengthy and extensive posting history. At best it is dishonest. Again, grade school tricks.

[Tribesman]

He made a claim about your general posting habits
Read it again.
You can read what it quoted too if you want and what that quoted.

And again you try to divert the conversation away from yourself
Nope, that is in fact returning to the core of the discussion.
Remember the problem you had with the word ALL?

Again, neither one of us are talking about any single post.
Notice a problem with absolutes?

[Sailor Steve]

Read it again.
You can read what it quoted too if you want and what that quoted.
He said you present no evidence or data. That is true. He said you rely on vague quoting and poor grammar to obsure the content. I might argue a couple of points, but for the most part that is also true.

Nope, that is in fact returning to the core of the discussion.
Remember the problem you had with the word ALL?
And again you dance away from our real complaint, which is that consistently rely on ridicule, and only rarely provide anything positive, and that you attack other peoples facts, but never provide any of your own.

Notice a problem with absolutes?
Yet again you try to turn attention away from your trolling habits. You need to start adding something to these forums, rather than constantly subtracting.

[Tribesman]

He said you present no evidence or data.
Notice a problem with absolutes?
A single example proves it to be false.

In the matter of data and evidence, in this topic I did offer to list US laws covering bail conditions just in case anyone didn't realise that Bail comes with conditions and wished to challenge that fact.:03:

I might argue a couple of points, but for the most part that is also true.

Interesting
Notice what is missing?
Absolutes.

And again you dance away from our real complaint
That depends on which of the complaints is the real complaint.

which is that consistently rely on ridicule, and only rarely provide anything positive, and that you attack other peoples facts, but never provide any of your own.

That contradicts his claims plus at the end you slip in to the error of absolutes again.

Yet again you try to turn attention away from your trolling habits.
No, it is dealing with what is written.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-pictures-owl-wrong.jpg

[Tribesman]

What year is the owl from?
You may be using an owl from the wrong year and as such it cannot prove your point:O:

[Takeda Shingen]

What year is the owl from?
You may be using an owl from the wrong year and as such it cannot prove your point:O:

Look, it comes down to this: You've got moderators telling you that you need to shape up. Now, you can either do this on your own and stay here, or you can go somewhere else. The choice is your's but the trolling is going to stop one way or another. I do not intend to waste my time arguing this point with you anymore.

The Management

[Platapus]

Why do people here even respond to Tribeman's posts?

[Takeda Shingen]

Because for some of us it is our job to deal with complaints.

[Tribesman]

Why do people here even respond to Tribeman's posts?
For a proper answer you would have to ask everyone.

[August]

Why do people here even respond to Tribeman's posts?

That's what Neal once asked. Well I for one don't respond to his posts. I don't even read them unless someone quotes him. Too bad the ignore feature didn't extend to quotations as well.

[Tribesman]

I don't even read them unless someone quotes him
That explains some of Augusts ridiculous claims about what is written.:yeah:

[Jimbuna]

I reckon we're getting close to the finish line....hopefully common sense will prevail :hmm2:

[Sailor Steve]

That explains some of Augusts ridiculous claims about what is written.:yeah:
And that's the difference between making a comment (his) and trolling (yours). I was considering an infraction, but decided it was better this time to expand on what August said.

Neal did indeed ask people why they read any of your posts. He also asked some to stop quoting you, as he doesn't want to read what you write. If the forum's owner feels that way, maybe you should think about your bad habits.

[eddie]

I don't know if we have stupid guns here in the States, or stupid gun owners! Incredible!!

http://news.msn.com/us/2-hurt-in-accidental-shooting-at-nc-gun-show/

[August]

I don't know if we have stupid guns here in the States, or stupid gun owners! Incredible!!

http://news.msn.com/us/2-hurt-in-accidental-shooting-at-nc-gun-show/

Plenty of the latter I expect. They should charge that clown. At least mandatory training and maybe some community service.

[yubba]

I think my guns are either lazy or defective they sit in the corner and do nothing..

[Onkel Neal]

That's what Neal once asked. Well I for one don't respond to his posts. I don't even read them unless someone quotes him. Too bad the ignore feature didn't extend to quotations as well.


:yep: Yeah, now I don't even read the threads where this nonsense is being so thoughtfully carried on. This is my first foray into this particular thread; I'm thinking, do I really want to read this? I check the last page, now I'm out.

[Betonov]

I think my guns are either lazy or defective they sit in the corner and do nothing..

That's just wrong. They should be cleaned and oiled from time to time. Just like a wife :D

[Tribesman]

And that's the difference between making a comment (his) and trolling (yours).
Was my comment accurate?
It is demonstrably true?
When the answer to both is yes then perhaps the problem lies in what he writes, especially when it is easy to point to it and show that what he write is often a lie.
Would you like a demonstration of an obvious lie which is easily explained by his post "I don't even read them" as i offered earlier?

[TarJak]

:yep: Yeah, now I don't even read the threads where this nonsense is being so thoughtfully carried on. This is my first foray into this particular thread; I'm thinking, do I really want to read this? I check the last page, now I'm out.

This thread has been a waste of disk space for some time now.:nope:

[Jimbuna]

I reckon we're getting close to the finish line....hopefully common sense will prevail :hmm2:

This thread has been a waste of disk space for some time now.:nope:

Hence my earlier post.

[Platapus]

The intent of this thread was to cite an opinion that was pretty unrealistic and, in my opinion, reflected a lack of gun knowledge of Mr. Shane.

I think this thread has outlived its entertainment value. :yep:

[Platapus]

I don't know if we have stupid guns here in the States, or stupid gun owners! Incredible!!

http://news.msn.com/us/2-hurt-in-accidental-shooting-at-nc-gun-show/


Yeah, we grow em stupid here.

An oldie but a goodie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0

[soopaman2]

I got turned down to purchase a nuclear bomb.


Dammit, some guy called me a doody-head once in third grade, and I wanted to help him with his heating bills. The smarmy Russian guy said no, he didn't have change for a hundred, freaking cheapskate.:down:

[TLAM Strike]

The smarmy Russian guy said no, he didn't have change for a hundred, freaking cheapskate.:down:

Ah I miss the days when you could get your weapons grade fissile material on a street corner in Russia...
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/4177/pu239.png