Merry Christmas! And *Please* be kind to your barista (salesperson/ food service worker/whoever is working hard!), or they will get a bazooka for Xmas from Santa and come and get you January 1st!

>> ^imstellar28:
^your personal opinion may be to have a revolver or shotgun, but your opinion is not an appropriate argument for a law. if i want to defend myself with spoon, shotgun, cantaloupe, assault rifle, or bazooka, i'd say thats my personal choice as much as yours is to defend yourself with a handgun.

Seriously, a bazooka? This whole "fundamental principle trumps practicalities" approach is what puts most people off full blown libertarianism. Would you seriously expect to be allowed to carry a bazooka for self defense? You might well defend yourself successfully, but I wouldn't want my kids near you!

Funnily enough, one of the examples* you give of gun confiscation (the UK) illustrates this quite well. I have a feeling you have probably read up on the Dunblane massacre and know that the guns used were not legally owned, but that was not really the point. When the subject came up for debate no-one could really come up with a decent reason why anybody would want to own a handgun.

Concealed carrying of pretty much any offensive weapon is illegal in the UK, including knives, knuckle-dusters and of course guns. So handguns were never any good for personal protection. Guns could be kept in the home, but under very strict conditions. I have not researched this (sorry - I'm already spending too much time on this) but my Grandpa used to own target shooting rifles and the conditions for license included that they must be locked away at all times. If someone had broken into his home he would never have gone for the gun - unless they gave him 10 minutes notice to go unlock and load the guns. Basically, guns in the UK were used soley for sport and the need for sport shooters to have access to a type of gun not particularly well suited to sport shooting didn't seem too pressing.

Finally, to cap off my (far too long) post - This idea of gun control causing 56,000,000 deaths is ridiculous and meaningless. This is rather neatly illustrated by the fact that high gun-control countries like the UK have vastly lower murder rates than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates). If gun control causes death, why are we dying so much less frequently than you guys? I find it hard to believe that Americans are twice as murderous as Brits. What seems likely is that gun control "causes" some deaths when undefended people are attacked, but saves many more by reducing (frequently deadly) gun attacks overall.

*For the record, I don't question your point in that post - that gun confiscation could happen and has happened in other countries.

^your personal opinion may be to have a revolver or shotgun, but your opinion is not an appropriate argument for a law. if i want to defend myself with spoon, shotgun, cantaloupe, assault rifle, or bazooka, i'd say thats my personal choice as much as yours is to defend yourself with a handgun.

you forget that people also target shoot for sport, you would be hard pressed to make a case for banning an assault rifle for those who use it as a hobby. maybe its not your kind of hobby, but people have a lot of wacky hobbies and thats part of what makes life interesting.

i'm gonna send the 92 page document i have, if you read it and are still anti-gun at the end, i'd be surprised. for one, the statistics you are quoting are false. for two (and this is not part of that document) remember that statistics are not a valid basis of law, human rights are.

*promote Becuase I never thought of shooting a laser bazooka into the ground...I've been tearing my hair out, DOH!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gi joe, bazooka, psa, gop, sarah palin' to 'gi joe, bazooka, psa, gop, sarah palin, that one, waaaugghhh' - edited by calvados

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^rougy: They're no more a right than bazookas or hand grenades.
I'm not big on guns personally, but the right to keep and bear arms is clearly to enable the populous to overthrow the government by force. We do have a constitutional right to bazookas and hand grenades, it's just not very popular/politic to say so.


I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic.

You pull out your bazooka, they bring out their tanks and helicopters.

You toss your hand grenade, and they'll drop their bunker buster.

It's nothing short of romaniticism to think that we can overthrow our government by those means.

>> ^rougy: They're no more a right than bazookas or hand grenades.

I'm not big on guns personally, but the right to keep and bear arms is clearly to enable the populous to overthrow the government by force. We do have a constitutional right to bazookas and hand grenades, it's just not very popular/politic to say so.

No bazookas or grenades? How do you hunt deer?

The NRA has become an organization of clowns.

I'm a gun owner and a gun user, but let's stop this shit about assault rifles being a constitutional right.

They're no more a right than bazookas or hand grenades.

>> ^MINK:
what. the. fuck. is. the. battle. against. terrorism.


Several things at once:

1. The battle for politicians to benefit from people's fears after 9/11
2. The battle for revenge against the people who perpetrated 9/11
3. Preemptive attempts to destroy the support systems for people who might be thinking of another terror attack on the U.S.

Bush championed #1 over everything, Obama wants all three.

I'm not particularly in favor of any of the three, but 9/11, and the reaction to it has poisoned America into thinking that at least #2 and #3 are totally justifiable, to the point where you couldn't win an election without some sort of warlike posture towards terrorists.

I still think using the military to fight terrorism is like trying to fight mosquito swarms with a bazooka, but in Afghanistan there's actually a real opposing force (the Taliban) we're fighting. Unlike with Saddam, the Taliban was actually involved in 9/11, so we at least have some reason to be there, and fighting there might actually have a positive effect along the lines of #3.

I'm thinking we need to stop pretending this is the Cold War 2.0 though, and get real specific about just getting our revenge for 9/11 and then getting over it. I don't want this to be the defining paradigm of American foreign policy for the next 50 years.

Oh that's okay, I don't have any expectations regarding you getting back to my inane internet correspondence.

The one saving grace is that the US has an entirely volunteer professional army (for now), although you may have heard the phrase "backdoor draft" which entails making those "volunteers" "volunteer" a little more than they might wish, by extending and adding tours of duty and such. We also have the National Guard, which is a part-time force of civilians, who ordinarily offer their services for something like a weekend a month during peacetime, but may be in for extended duties during times of conflict, such as now. There are laws to protect them, such as making it a legal requirement of their employers to have their jobs open for them when they return. These 'Guardsmen' do a lot of the heavy lifting and convoy work, and are in harm's way as much as any other soldier in the case of Iraq. Maybe they do patrols, too.

But by and large, you can shirk any amount of military duty as an American. Every male has the slightly ominous duty of registering for the draft at age eighteen, but aside from that for most Americans the conflict is just pictures on a screen. I think that's part of the problem. Without any real experience, war is fun adventure, a bold crusade for freedom for some of couch-bound America.

Except for the Mothers, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters of the slain. Then it's an entirely different story of immense sorrow mixed with some justifiable pride, one by the grace of God I can't tell.

There are many of these large SUV vehicles driving around getting 30L/100km gas mileage, with these little ribbons on the back that say "support our troops". The drivers clearly can't connect the two concepts of consumption and empire.

Get this, the ribbons aren't even adhesive. They're magnets, so they can be removed at the slightest whim, should the war become unfashionable. I often remove them and toss them up on their tall roofs, surely not to be found for years.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Oh and sorry for the late reply, haven't had the time nor energy to do much of anything but work these past weeks. Just couldn't get anything remotely coherent written down, but hopefully you can discern what I wrote just now


In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Yeah we've got *sort of* a compulsory military service, in that we're all drafted at the year we turn 18. Then during the draft, we're going through a series of tests to decide what position within the military (if any) we're most suited for/would like the most, and hopefully we're trained for that position for 9-15 months. If memory serves, the tests are separated between physical strength, endurance, intelligence and mental health, all rated from 1-9 were 1 basically means you're dead and 9 means you're in excellent condition for that particular test.
Thing is, about 1 in 10 willing people are actually put in military service today due to cutbacks, and the general concensus is that about 1 in 10 drafted say they want to do their military service at all. And as you can see, the ones who are willing do get some perks, like being able to goof off like that
But the decline of our military is not at all bad if you ask me, first of all because we don't have any enemies, secondly because we don't have much of anything that other countries would want and thirdly because we're members of just about every treaty and defence agreement you can think of. It's just necessary to get enough new blood in order to keep our arms industry going, which sadly is too important for our economy to scrap.

Guess it's kind of different from the states, eh? Don't have a clue how you guys go about it to be honest, but it certainly must be more serious. What with you being the world's only remaining superpower and all. Quite a reputation to live up to for sure!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Well, I think that looks fun as hell! Is some amount of compulsory military service required of Swedish youth, as it is in some countries?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Basically the reporter explains the situation, that the group of youngsters doing their military service training are making a video showing off some cool bazooka action in true US marine spirit, or so they gather from having watched war movies. For some reason they thought it'd be fun to do it in the nude (DON'T ask me why) and the reporter tells us why they should have clothes on (to avoid getting burned by the hot shells and bazooka pipe), then speculates if there really is a rule saying a soldier have to wear clothes or not. We're also told some bigwig in the defence department doesn't approve of the image this video conveys of the Swedish army, but seriously who are we trying to kid. Let them have their fun while they can, they've been educated about the risks and dangers of those weapons.
Personally, I'm in favour of dismantling our the entire defence establishment and just keep the weapon sales industry, because sadly that's one business we can't afford to lose at the moment.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can you offer any additional insight, Kreegath? Personally I think it's perfectly healthy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Naked-Swedish-Artillery

Yeah we've got *sort of* a compulsory military service, in that we're all drafted at the year we turn 18. Then during the draft, we're going through a series of tests to decide what position within the military (if any) we're most suited for/would like the most, and hopefully we're trained for that position for 9-15 months. If memory serves, the tests are separated between physical strength, endurance, intelligence and mental health, all rated from 1-9 were 1 basically means you're dead and 9 means you're in excellent condition for that particular test.
Thing is, about 1 in 10 willing people are actually put in military service today due to cutbacks, and the general concensus is that about 1 in 10 drafted say they want to do their military service at all. And as you can see, the ones who are willing do get some perks, like being able to goof off like that
But the decline of our military is not at all bad if you ask me, first of all because we don't have any enemies, secondly because we don't have much of anything that other countries would want and thirdly because we're members of just about every treaty and defence agreement you can think of. It's just necessary to get enough new blood in order to keep our arms industry going, which sadly is too important for our economy to scrap.

Guess it's kind of different from the states, eh? Don't have a clue how you guys go about it to be honest, but it certainly must be more serious. What with you being the world's only remaining superpower and all. Quite a reputation to live up to for sure!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Well, I think that looks fun as hell! Is some amount of compulsory military service required of Swedish youth, as it is in some countries?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Basically the reporter explains the situation, that the group of youngsters doing their military service training are making a video showing off some cool bazooka action in true US marine spirit, or so they gather from having watched war movies. For some reason they thought it'd be fun to do it in the nude (DON'T ask me why) and the reporter tells us why they should have clothes on (to avoid getting burned by the hot shells and bazooka pipe), then speculates if there really is a rule saying a soldier have to wear clothes or not. We're also told some bigwig in the defence department doesn't approve of the image this video conveys of the Swedish army, but seriously who are we trying to kid. Let them have their fun while they can, they've been educated about the risks and dangers of those weapons.
Personally, I'm in favour of dismantling our the entire defence establishment and just keep the weapon sales industry, because sadly that's one business we can't afford to lose at the moment.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can you offer any additional insight, Kreegath? Personally I think it's perfectly healthy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Naked-Swedish-Artillery

Well, I think that looks fun as hell! Is some amount of compulsory military service required of Swedish youth, as it is in some countries?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Basically the reporter explains the situation, that the group of youngsters doing their military service training are making a video showing off some cool bazooka action in true US marine spirit, or so they gather from having watched war movies. For some reason they thought it'd be fun to do it in the nude (DON'T ask me why) and the reporter tells us why they should have clothes on (to avoid getting burned by the hot shells and bazooka pipe), then speculates if there really is a rule saying a soldier have to wear clothes or not. We're also told some bigwig in the defence department doesn't approve of the image this video conveys of the Swedish army, but seriously who are we trying to kid. Let them have their fun while they can, they've been educated about the risks and dangers of those weapons.
Personally, I'm in favour of dismantling our the entire defence establishment and just keep the weapon sales industry, because sadly that's one business we can't afford to lose at the moment.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can you offer any additional insight, Kreegath? Personally I think it's perfectly healthy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Naked-Swedish-Artillery

>> ^schmawy:
There's plenty of Swedes 'round these parts. Perhaps they can offer some kind of explanation. That's some hot bazooka action right there, though. Sorta reminds me of KP's old avatar.


Unfortunatly there's very little explanation to be had on this topic. This film created quite the stir in sweden when it was first shown a few years ago. A few conscripts decided to goof off at the firing range and film it, and thier officer apprenetly allowed it. Ofcourse the video was spread, ended up with the press and created somewhat of a PR faux pas for the swedish army.

You get a bunch of 19 year old guys together for 10-15 months things like this sometimes happen, lack of good judgement for sure, but even more so for the officer that didnt stop it.

I also heard rumours that they changed regulations on account of this incident to require soldiers to wear clothes when firing weapons (apperently because, as you can see, they got burned when they did not wear them ). Formly the regulations apperently only mentioned helmets (which they are wearing). Most of this was also mentioned in swedish in the clip.

Basically the reporter explains the situation, that the group of youngsters doing their military service training are making a video showing off some cool bazooka action in true US marine spirit, or so they gather from having watched war movies. For some reason they thought it'd be fun to do it in the nude (DON'T ask me why) and the reporter tells us why they should have clothes on (to avoid getting burned by the hot shells and bazooka pipe), then speculates if there really is a rule saying a soldier have to wear clothes or not. We're also told some bigwig in the defence department doesn't approve of the image this video conveys of the Swedish army, but seriously who are we trying to kid. Let them have their fun while they can, they've been educated about the risks and dangers of those weapons.
Personally, I'm in favour of dismantling our the entire defence establishment and just keep the weapon sales industry, because sadly that's one business we can't afford to lose at the moment.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can you offer any additional insight, Kreegath? Personally I think it's perfectly healthy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Naked-Swedish-Artillery