I don't know if it's only me but every time I see a video like this I dream of seeing a truck with a mounted .50 cal machine gun roll out of an alley and start mowing down the police... Black Hawk Down style...

I kinda surprised that I disagree with a lot of what these people are saying. One point I hear all the time is that Gaddafi was going to "massacre" thousands of people. When did he threaten this? Seems to me his goal has always been to stop an armed insurrection. The real mistake seems to have been made when the Libyan "protesters" quickly/suspiciously picked up arms against the government. Did Gaddafi do something worse than the Bahrain and Yemen governments, who were firing machine-guns into crowds of unarmed protesters?

Great story, loved the sewing machine gun.

Obama is conservative as fuck. He's worse then Bush.

"Fact" and opinion. Both wrong.

More warrantless wiretapping.

Same if not a minor decrease in torture.

Sold us out to Big Pharma Banks & Military Complex.

For fuck sake, he cutting community organization budgets and heating assistance for low income groups.

Just proves my point about the leftmedia. If they'd done their job you would've known he'd turn out this way. It's too bad this Obamian "conservatism" you speak of stops well before low taxes, free markets and the rule of law. And not bowing like a serf to foreign kings and the mayor of Tampa, Florida for fk's sake.

What the fuck else do you want to happen to prove that Obama is in no way liberal or progressive or whatever pejorative label you have for left leaning ideology?

How bout that whole POS unaffordable socialized medicine scheme 26 states have now filed lawsuits against? Remember that? Remember the failed scamulus? TARP? Bailouts? And yes Bush is also to blame, but only for starting crap that a "conservative" Obama would've tried to stop. But as we all know, NO ONE outspends taxocrats and by gosh, they'll prove it! Ever stop and wonder why crony capitalism looks so much like socialism?

The entirety of United States politics has shifted more and more to this crazy neo-conservative free-market less government-but-we-still-want-govern-who-you-marry-&-force-you-to-have-babies mentality since 2000.

Really? Abortion is still legal. Civil unions are recognized by many states. Government is an ever-bigger gorilla with a machine gun. Taxes will go up and the 'crats know it: "someone" has to pay for all this indolence and the 50-fucking-percent of Americans who pay NO federal income tax but suck up plenty of government entitlements.

The entire world is owned my wealthy bankers and war profiteers. They all favor the "conservative" mentality you hold because it makes them more money.

Wrong and wrong. You're prejudiced against the wealthy because you believe that life is a zero-sum game. In other words, someone has to "lose" at economics so someone else can "win". You believe that life is a lottery and those who have money have simply been "fortunate" without doing anything to earn it. If the liberal phantasy of giving everyone an equal share of $$$ (by force) were to come true, as long as markets were allowed to work, by the end of the week the poor would be poor again. You've been brainwashed by 12 years of government schooling followed by indoctrination at 'kollij'. Where do you think all those otherwise unemployable 1960s marxist dinosaurs are hiding from reality? The universities. No one busting their ass in the real world to survive only to hand over 40% to the federal mafia believes this BS. Yeah, life is unfair and freedom is hard. And BTW, no, I am not rich, and I don't believe I have a "right" to plunder my neighbor's wealth.

You're too narrow-minded and indoctrinated to understand that.

I hope you don't have kids. I would feel sorry for them.


You undermine your "devastating" talking points with personal attacks. I would hope you own a library card. And use it.

p.s. - Obama is Political Science Major who taught Constitutional Law.

Palin majored in journalism.. yet can't name any newpaper or magazine she reads regularly.

The "scholar" who doesn't understand America and is a total ingrate for the opportunities he received, now reviled as a clueless idiot by all except the diehards and the leftmedia VERSUS the "dumb" beauty queen who loves America and recognizes American Exceptionalism, and thus so terrifies the left they're still attacking her.

Now you can continue your point about who is more qualified as a president.

It's done. I would vote for this over the dangerous crypto-marxist who believes in unlimited federal power.

The machine gun was meant to end conflicts because the losses would be to great. People will be the people they are regardless of the facts of life.

To quote Austin Powers

"Machine gun jubblies! How did I miss those baby?"

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

>> ^Fusionaut:

What he really means is "idiotic men who thought it was a good idea to stand in a line so the opposing side could shoot you with ease..."


You both are correct but when I look back at history and warfare being done in this manner, it makes me wonder why nobody thought of really doing things differently until World War I. I'm wholly guessing here, but I imagine that part of the reason trench warfare was invented was nobody really wanted to go line up on a battle field when you had stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun being pointed at you.

Repeating rifles, pistols and machine guns did not really come about until after the American Civil War... perhaps this was a good thing as well

Can he do the same with shotguns, machine guns, etc.?

Charges have been dropped. The mailman refused to press charges.... I guess Erika Winchester was right about one thing: his IQ is not that high. At this point it's too late to press charges considering this incident occurred last year.

Erika Winchester has also said some very silly things in the past, including suggesting that she mow down anyone who has ever done her wrong with a machine gun and telling an officer that she was going to cut his balls off. So, she is crazy, a nutbag, but doesn't seem to be any crazier or backwards than... QM is. :>

>> ^ant:

OK, explain why this is happening please!

Its probably just leftover kinetic energy, plus the fact that snow and ice has a very effective cushioning effect on bullets, it stops the bullet without any damage to it. I've seen 7.62 mm bullets fired by MG-3 (similar to the german ww2 MG-42 machine gun) stopping just by gently gracing the snow 1-2 meters, and they just lay there on the fine snow as if they stopped in mid-air, matrix-style. In addition bullets are given a bit of a spin out of the barrel, but in this video it was probably sped up by the kinetic energy. Essentially, it looks like the same effect you get when dropping a lid or something on the floor,and it goes on forever making noise and settling down while spinning.

I like how they are developing technologies that suppress rebellious citizens more easily. Sure that won't come back to bite us in the ass, ever. Don't get me wrong, I love watching tech porn...but you always have to be weary of the monster you are creating. The machine gun was invented to end all wars because it was supposed to demoralize anyone fighting against it to such a degree as to stave off conflict all together, akin to nukes. Didn't work, still kill, and now with extra lethal prowess.

The story behind the development of these planes must have been like this:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We will strike fear in the hearts of our enemies with our advanced Iranian technology!!!
Government Pansy: Sir, we don't really have enough money or resources to develop proper weapons. But we do have these 20 old canoes, and 40 leftover airplane wings, oh, and about 40 WW2 machine guns as well. Maybe we can glue some of them together.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: PERFECT!!! MUAHAHAHAHHA (evil laugh)

They are doing the opposite of that thought experiment...you know the one were you take a machine gun back to the past and kill entire armies. They are taking machines from the past, to the future to get killed by armies.

I'm curious about what this says about the rest of the NRA logic defending "Bearing Arms"... How this any more / less deadly than a hand gun? it's pointy? it doesn't make a bang? it's painfully slow to reload? I can own a machine gun - and bring it to a political rally... but not this? >> ^NordlichReiter:

These are very illegal.
In fact there is a federal law banning ballistic knives which was laid down in 1986.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s099-2411