Ban on "assault weapons" and/or high capacity magazines?

[North Calaveras]

I never said they are factually correct, if you read the post you can clearly see where i said might, it's a word people use when they are not 100% sure.

No, the parts that are factually incorrect are:

1. I hate guns.
2. Socialists and communists tend to not like firearms when others with differing opinions have them.

Okay let me repeat it

I also said I can't be sure....

1. I don't care
2. I really don't care

[Mavorpen]

Okay let me repeat it

I also said I can't be sure....

1. I don't care
2. I really don't care

FFS read your own posts.

Well I think you hate guns, as far as being dirty, a hippy or liberal, I'm not sure you might be a commnist or a socialist they tend to not like firearms when other with differing opinions have them.

You stated that you think I hate guns. There was no "I'm not sure" anywhere after that. You then stated that socialists and communists don't like firearms, making a claim, a presumably factual statement.

Granted, "I think," is more of an opinion statement, but that doesn't keep you from being completely wrong. I don't hate guns and it's silly to believe so with no evidence just because you desire to act like a child and hold grudges.

[North Calaveras]

Okay let me repeat it

I also said I can't be sure....

1. I don't care
2. I really don't care

FFS read your own posts.

Well I think you hate guns, as far as being dirty, a hippy or liberal, I'm not sure you might be a commnist or a socialist they tend to not like firearms when other with differing opinions have them.

You stated that you think I hate guns. There was no "I'm not sure" anywhere after that. You then stated that socialists and communists don't like firearms, making a claim, a presumably factual statement.

Granted, "I think," is more of an opinion statement, but that doesn't keep you from being completely wrong. I don't hate guns and it's silly to believe so with no evidence just because you desire to act like a child and hold grudges.

Oh I'm a a child now

You want to hold my hand while I suck my thumb

[Black Hand]

the undetectable glock that go shoot through bullet proof vests.

all glocks use pistol rounds that are by and large incapable of penetrating body armor
these rounds are .22 LR, 9mm NATO, 10mm Auto, .40 Smith & Wesson, .45 ACP, and .45 GAP. None of these are capable of penetrating even a basic kevlar vest let alone one with hard plates. An Additional problem is that a Glock has a plastic frame with all metal internal components this does not make the gun undetectable these guns are just lighter.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

the undetectable glock that go shoot through bullet proof vests.

all glocks use pistol rounds that are by and large incapable of penetrating body armor
these rounds are .22 LR, 9mm NATO, 10mm Auto, .40 Smith & Wesson, .45 ACP, and .45 GAP. None of these are capable of penetrating even a basic kevlar vest let alone one with hard plates. An Additional problem is that a Glock has a plastic frame with all metal internal components this does not make the gun undetectable these guns are just lighter.

Which is exactly why that post was sarcastic.

[Black Hand]

all glocks use pistol rounds that are by and large incapable of penetrating body armor
these rounds are .22 LR, 9mm NATO, 10mm Auto, .40 Smith & Wesson, .45 ACP, and .45 GAP. None of these are capable of penetrating even a basic kevlar vest let alone one with hard plates. An Additional problem is that a Glock has a plastic frame with all metal internal components this does not make the gun undetectable these guns are just lighter.

Which is exactly why that post was sarcastic.

Didn't say it wasn't i was repeating and clarifying for those that don't know better this is nonsense their is only ONE handgun round capable of penetrating body armor The FN-Herstal Five-Seven This entire forum is debating a moot topic as anyone that desires a fire arm that can cut through body armor holds 100 rounds and fires 750 rounds a minute can get one it is not difficult there is no easy way these weapons but it is more effective to ban excessive weapons no anti tank weapons or weapons in excess of 12.7X99mm. this is about it as long as it is not fully automatic it works fine.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting: 9mm pistol

Deer Creek Middle School: Winchester 70 bolt action hunting rifle in 30-06

Marinette High School: pistol

Aurora Central High School: pistol

Millard South High School: pistol pilfered from daddy

Martinsville West Middle School: Michael Phelps with a 9mm pistol

Cape Fear High School: .22 LR rifle

Virginia Tech II (Ross Truett Ashley): pistol

Chardon High School: .22 calibre pistol

Oikos University: .45 calibre pistol

Charles Whitman (U of T tower dude): Knife, .357 pistol, bolt action hunting rifle, and shotgun

Columbine: 9mm carabine with “low capacity” (10 round) magazine clips, a pump shotgun, a sawed off double barrelled shotgun, and yes, I will admit, one solitary TEC-9, but it was not a full auto conversion, so it counts as - you guessed it - a pistol. Oh, did I forget to mention the 99 bombs they made? With instructions from the Internet.

Red Lake senior high school massacre: .40 calibre pistol, .22 calibre pistol, and a pump shotgun

California State University, Fullerton massacre: .22 calibre hunting rifle

Oikos University shooting: .45 calibre pistol

Cleveland School massacre: 10 round capacity rifle and a 9mm pistol

Amish school shooting: bolt action .30-06 rifle, pump shotgun, and 9mm pistol

Northern Illinois University shooting: two 9mm pistols, one .380 pistol, and a two round capacity semiautomatic shotgun.

Westside Middle School: three of grampa’s hunting rifles, and four pistols

Lindhurst High School shooting: pump shotgun and a .22 varmint rifle

Olean High School shooting: .30-06 hunting rifle, shotgun

Frontier Middle School shooting: .30-30 hunting rifle, .357 calibre pistol, .25 calibre pistol

San Diego State University shooting: 9mm pistol

Heath High School shooting: .22 LR varmint rifle, pump shotgun, .22 calibre pistol


Appalachian School of Law shooting: .380 pistol


Louisiana Technical College: .357 revolver

Dawson College: .45 pistol & 9mm carabine with ten round clip magazines (the legal limit in Canada)

I put that last one in for contrast.

Sandy Hook was the mother’s fault. She kept guns that were accessible to the son whom she knew was bats--t insane and was planning on having committed. She told him she was going to. Nice job arming him and setting him off, Mom.

The Dawson jerkoff was a depressed, morbid, “trenchcoat goth” obsessed with death and living in a cave-like dwelling in his parents’ basement. They knew this. Yet thy STILL signed as personal references so he could get his PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence - no PAL, no gun of any kind, can’t even buy ammunition without one). They handed him his guns.

Capacity limits would not have changed any of this. Assault rifle bans would not have changed any of this.

There is a far greater number of killings with pistols than with all other types of firearms combined. When a bear and a mosquito are chasing someone, which one should he worry about first?




The deadliest school massacre in U.S. history? The Bath School disaster: Dynamite, Pyrotol (an incendiary explosive), and a club. 45 dead. No guns of any kind.

But the main problem is that each and every one of those killings was done by seriusly insane people. There are 280 some odd million firearms in civilian hands in the USA. If guns or gun types were a problem, there would be no one left (current pop. 314 million).

[Gun Manufacturers]

the undetectable glock that go shoot through bullet proof vests.

all glocks use pistol rounds that are by and large incapable of penetrating body armor
these rounds are .22 LR, 9mm NATO, 10mm Auto, .40 Smith & Wesson, .45 ACP, and .45 GAP. None of these are capable of penetrating even a basic kevlar vest let alone one with hard plates. An Additional problem is that a Glock has a plastic frame with all metal internal components this does not make the gun undetectable these guns are just lighter.

Glock doesn't make a pistol chambered in .22lr. There are companies that make conversion kits for Glock frames, however (Ceiner, Advantage Arms, and Tactical Solutions).

[Alien Space Bats]

As for whether or not an insurrection would be possible, remember that illiterate Afgans with no training and decades old weapons have annoyed the most highly trained, equipped, experienced military in the world for 10+ years.

Isn't "annoy" the key word here?

But even with those lessons, look at Afghanistan. The Taliban doesn't have tanks, or planes dropping bombs.

The Taliban hasn't defeated the U.S. and its NATO allies, either. At this stage, given the (lack of) progress they've made in this war against the West, you seriously have to ask this question: If the Western powers decided to simply stay in country and prop up Kharzai forever, would the Taliban ever be able to drive them out?

Right. Again, though, the case ended up being decided on the 14th, and didn't overturn a preceding decision that sustained a similar ban. That's kind of an important detail IMO, as it implies that the city can't ban handguns, not the federal government.

If you understood how the Constitution and incorporation work, you would realize that the Federal government has less authority than a city.

The reason for this? Cities are creatures of the States, and thus derive their powers from the States; the States, in turn, enjoy the powers reserved to them by the 10th Amendment, which simply says that the States can exercise any power that isn't either (a) explicitly denied them in the Constitution or (b) explicitly reserved to the Federal government and the Federal government alone by the Constitution.

In practice, this means that States (and thus municipalities — a category within which cities are included) can do a huge number of things the Feds can't do. Thus, in America, power isn't concentrated at the top, with the Feds having more of it than anybody else; it's concentrated in the States (and their municipal creatures), which have fewer restrictions on power than the Feds.

So if Chicago can't ban handguns, then you can damned well bet the Feds can't ban them, either.

I think hes kidding Farnhamia, most people think of detroit as a dump....

At which it's my job to come in and debunk whatever idiocy people think they "know" about Detroit.

There are more firearm homicides per capita in New Orleans. Can't we shit on the Big Easy for a while?

The deadliest school massacre in U.S. history? The Bath School disaster: Dynamite, Pyrotol (an incendiary explosive), and a club. 45 dead. No guns of any kind.

Technically not true. The perp used a Winchester to trigger the homemade bomb he'd packed in the back of his truck.

So none of the victims died by gunshot wound, but a rifle was employed... as a makeshift detonator.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I don't support a ban on assult weapons and/or high capacity magazines. I believe that it sets a dangerous precedence to ban all guns. I also think that a well armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime

Clearly...

I also believe that they are useful for preventing tyranny, be it from other nations, criminal syndicates or the government.

You're a bit deluded aren't you? Come on now, snap back to reality.

I don't really think guns affect crime rates in a negative way.

Maybe, maybe not - but they do affect the rate of gun crimes, which are often more violent.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

Space Bat, I stand corrected. The only thing I had read that he did with his Winchester was shoot the neighbour's dog before heading to the school.

But on topic, it was a Winchester model 54 bolt action hunting rifle (.30-30 I think). An assault rifle ban or capacity limit would have not stopped him, so I guess he can stay on my list.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

Copenhagen, did you read what I wrote about my Orwellian government up here in Canada? It is the very definition of tyranny. And it did not start until the government outgunned the citizens.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

Space Bat, neither the USSR nor the USA were able to win in Afghanistan because of a well armed population. They don't like being subjugated and told what to do and how to live.

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

[North Calaveras]

Space Bat, neither the USSR nor the USA were able to win in Afghanistan because of a well armed population. They don't like being subjugated and told what to do and how to live.

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

[Bafuria]

@Omnicidal maniacs.

You forgot about these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Borel
15 killed with .22 bolt action rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
13 killed with a .22 bolt action rifle and double-barreled shotgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Dornier
14 killed with a double barreled shotgun and a hunting rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsuo_Toi#Mutsuo_Toi
30 killed with an axe, sword and shotgun.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

Whoa! no one is suggesting insurrection. Just a deterrent against any government getting the bright idea of suspending the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the Citizen.

The whole point of 280 million firearms in the hands of the Sovereign citizen is so no one will want to get that idea. As long as it is understood that the REX 84 protocol is impossible to implement then it won't be. Take away that deterrent and it the Camps for anyone the government doesn't like.

Lincoln used the Constitution as toilet paper, and over a million died in the ensuing war, and that was fought with muzzle and breechloaders (requiring a separate primer cap so It was like loading the gun twice). The government and the military remember that.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

Fine examples Bafuria. I'm especially impressed with that last one.

[Alien Space Bats]

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

Why can't the U.S. stay in Afghanistan forever?

Seriously, it's costing us $100 billion a year, which is slightly more than we spend on agriculture subsidies, space exploration, and foreign aid combined. We're not talking chump change, but we're not talking about an amount that's exactly breaking the bank, either.

We're not leaving because the Taliban is kicking our asses and forcing us to leave. We're leaving because we never intended to stay there forever to begin with. And if we really wanted to stay, we'd cut out forces in half, subsidize the regime we've established to act as our proxy, and just back them up as needed from time to time to stabilize the situation. The Soviets may have gotten their asses kicked in Afghanistan, but we're not the Soviets.

The point is that guerrilla warfare is less effective than it looks. Successful guerrilla armies invariably have to make a transition to conventional warfare in order to win, and the Taliban aren't doing that, and — given their level of (dis)organization — will probably never be able to do that. They're not the Viet Minh; Hell, they're not half as capable as the Viet Minh.

The moral of the story? You can't just say, "Guerrilla war FTW, kthxbai!!!" Guerrilla armies can be and have been beaten down through the pages of history. It's not a surefire path to victory, let alone an easy one.

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

That reminds me... I was thinking of visiting New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I know I'll need my U.S. Passport; can anyone tell me where the Confederate consulate is in Chicago so I can go there to get a visa to enter the C.S.A.?

[Grinning Dragon]

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

Why can't the U.S. stay in Afghanistan forever?

Seriously, it's costing us $100 billion a year, which is slightly more than we spend on agriculture subsidies, space exploration, and foreign aid combined. We're not talking chump change, but we're not talking about an amount that's exactly breaking the bank, either.

We're not leaving because the Taliban is kicking our asses and forcing us to leave. We're leaving because we never intended to stay there forever to begin with. And if we really wanted to stay, we'd cut out forces in half, subsidize the regime we've established to act as our proxy, and just back them up as needed from time to time to stabilize the situation. The Soviets may have gotten their asses kicked in Afghanistan, but we're not the Soviets.

The point is that guerrilla warfare is less effective than it looks. Successful guerrilla armies invariably have to make a transition to conventional warfare in order to win, and the Taliban aren't doing that, and — given their level of (dis)organization — will probably never be able to do that. They're not the Viet Minh; Hell, they're not half as capable as the Viet Minh.

The moral of the story? You can't just say, "Guerrilla war FTW, kthxbai!!!" Guerrilla armies can be and have been beaten down through the pages of history. It's not a surefire path to victory, let alone an easy one.

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

That reminds me... I was thinking of visiting New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I know I'll need my U.S. Passport; can anyone tell me where the Confederate consulate is in Chicago so I can go there to get a visa to enter the C.S.A.?

Oh, ASB- I will vouch for ya.
Come on down for some boobs, beads and beer.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

Whoa! no one is suggesting insurrection. Just a deterrent against any government getting the bright idea of suspending the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the Citizen.

The whole point of 280 million firearms in the hands of the Sovereign citizen is so no one will want to get that idea. As long as it is understood that the REX 84 protocol is impossible to implement then it won't be. Take away that deterrent and it the Camps for anyone the government doesn't like.

Lincoln used the Constitution as toilet paper, and over a million died in the ensuing war, and that was fought with muzzle and breechloaders (requiring a separate primer cap so It was like loading the gun twice). The government and the military remember that.

There are times in my life where I really wish I had my legs back. I would be an unholy plague upon the people in the south of America who keep spouting this nonsense. Every time a senator spouted off about "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN" he'd wake up with the heads of his family leering down on him from the bedposts.

I'm almost positive these idiots don't understand how much this irritates me.

[Northern Dominus]

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

Why can't the U.S. stay in Afghanistan forever?

Seriously, it's costing us $100 billion a year, which is slightly more than we spend on agriculture subsidies, space exploration, and foreign aid combined. We're not talking chump change, but we're not talking about an amount that's exactly breaking the bank, either.

We're not leaving because the Taliban is kicking our asses and forcing us to leave. We're leaving because we never intended to stay there forever to begin with. And if we really wanted to stay, we'd cut out forces in half, subsidize the regime we've established to act as our proxy, and just back them up as needed from time to time to stabilize the situation. The Soviets may have gotten their asses kicked in Afghanistan, but we're not the Soviets.

The point is that guerrilla warfare is less effective than it looks. Successful guerrilla armies invariably have to make a transition to conventional warfare in order to win, and the Taliban aren't doing that, and — given their level of (dis)organization — will probably never be able to do that. They're not the Viet Minh; Hell, they're not half as capable as the Viet Minh.

The moral of the story? You can't just say, "Guerrilla war FTW, kthxbai!!!" Guerrilla armies can be and have been beaten down through the pages of history. It's not a surefire path to victory, let alone an easy one.

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

That reminds me... I was thinking of visiting New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I know I'll need my U.S. Passport; can anyone tell me where the Confederate consulate is in Chicago so I can go there to get a visa to enter the C.S.A.?

The entire point of guerrilla war is not to win any sort of major engagement. You need decisive strikes and a comitted campaign with lots of resources.

Guerrilla warfare is a bloodletting operation, a type of war designed to bog down a larger force rather than do any serious damage. The goal is simple: force the bigger force to commit more resources into a particular theater, bleeding them dry in other critical areas until two things happen. First there's the effort you mentioned, the transition to a conventional force and open warfare, and the other part is damaging morale back home.

In the US this couldn't happen for two reasons. First the US Military is on home turf and redistricting resources isn't a problem. More importantly however is the fact that the US Government employs the best psychological and information warfare specialist in the known world. Odds are that any "insurrection" would quickly be tied to rather heinous and unsavory acts, such another Alfred P Murrah Building bombing where innocent children were hurt. Whether they did it or not would be irrelevant, because once the story got started and blasted through the proper channels, public support and any sort of compunction about attacking citizens goes out the window the second they become baby-killing terrorists.

As far as the passport to get past the IHOP/Waffle House line... KFC usually does all of the basic paperwork for a reasonable price but as I understand it you still have to take a purity test...y'know to make sure you're not some half-black abomination or a damn heretic muslim or jew, obviously.

[Bafuria]

Fine examples Bafuria. I'm especially impressed with that last one.

Impressed?

[Grinning Dragon]

Why can't the U.S. stay in Afghanistan forever?

Seriously, it's costing us $100 billion a year, which is slightly more than we spend on agriculture subsidies, space exploration, and foreign aid combined. We're not talking chump change, but we're not talking about an amount that's exactly breaking the bank, either.

We're not leaving because the Taliban is kicking our asses and forcing us to leave. We're leaving because we never intended to stay there forever to begin with. And if we really wanted to stay, we'd cut out forces in half, subsidize the regime we've established to act as our proxy, and just back them up as needed from time to time to stabilize the situation. The Soviets may have gotten their asses kicked in Afghanistan, but we're not the Soviets.

The point is that guerrilla warfare is less effective than it looks. Successful guerrilla armies invariably have to make a transition to conventional warfare in order to win, and the Taliban aren't doing that, and — given their level of (dis)organization — will probably never be able to do that. They're not the Viet Minh; Hell, they're not half as capable as the Viet Minh.

The moral of the story? You can't just say, "Guerrilla war FTW, kthxbai!!!" Guerrilla armies can be and have been beaten down through the pages of history. It's not a surefire path to victory, let alone an easy one.


That reminds me... I was thinking of visiting New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I know I'll need my U.S. Passport; can anyone tell me where the Confederate consulate is in Chicago so I can go there to get a visa to enter the C.S.A.?

The entire point of guerrilla war is not to win any sort of major engagement. You need decisive strikes and a comitted campaign with lots of resources.

Guerrilla warfare is a bloodletting operation, a type of war designed to bog down a larger force rather than do any serious damage. The goal is simple: force the bigger force to commit more resources into a particular theater, bleeding them dry in other critical areas until two things happen. First there's the effort you mentioned, the transition to a conventional force and open warfare, and the other part is damaging morale back home.

In the US this couldn't happen for two reasons. First the US Military is on home turf and redistricting resources isn't a problem. More importantly however is the fact that the US Government employs the best psychological and information warfare specialist in the known world. Odds are that any "insurrection" would quickly be tied to rather heinous and unsavory acts, such another Alfred P Murrah Building bombing where innocent children were hurt. Whether they did it or not would be irrelevant, because once the story got started and blasted through the proper channels, public support and any sort of compunction about attacking citizens goes out the window the second they become baby-killing terrorists.

As far as the passport to get past the IHOP/Waffle House line... KFC usually does all of the basic paperwork for a reasonable price but as I understand it you still have to take a purity test...y'know to make sure you're not some half-black abomination or a damn heretic muslim or jew, obviously.

Nope none of that matters, just make sure you are not an Atlanta Falcons fan and you will be just fine.

[Northern Dominus]

Whoa! no one is suggesting insurrection. Just a deterrent against any government getting the bright idea of suspending the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the Citizen.

The whole point of 280 million firearms in the hands of the Sovereign citizen is so no one will want to get that idea. As long as it is understood that the REX 84 protocol is impossible to implement then it won't be. Take away that deterrent and it the Camps for anyone the government doesn't like.

Lincoln used the Constitution as toilet paper, and over a million died in the ensuing war, and that was fought with muzzle and breechloaders (requiring a separate primer cap so It was like loading the gun twice). The government and the military remember that.

There are times in my life where I really wish I had my legs back. I would be an unholy plague upon the people in the south of America who keep spouting this nonsense. Every time a senator spouted off about "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN" he'd wake up with the heads of his family leering down on him from the bedposts.

I'm almost positive these idiots don't understand how much this irritates me.

If they had any sense they'd be kowtowing before the Lincoln Memorial. You know, to thank their lucky stars that he didn't sign an executive order to have everyone who was an active soldier in the Confederate Army and the Confederate Army tried before a federal court and face the death penalty...y'know, because technically what they did was treason and sedition for 4 years.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, and once they leave Karzai will hang and the Taliban will be back in control. The only thing the USA will have to show for 14 years of war is tossing a few thousand American and Allied troops into the meat grinder to make the industrial-military complex (the one Eisenhower warned about) that much more filthy stinking rich while bankrupting the government (the people).

Same goes for Iraq. Who's calling the shots there now? Tehran.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both lost causes from the start. Unwinnable.

Because of a well armed population that did not want to be subjugated and told how to live.

Why can't the U.S. stay in Afghanistan forever?

Seriously, it's costing us $100 billion a year, which is slightly more than we spend on agriculture subsidies, space exploration, and foreign aid combined. We're not talking chump change, but we're not talking about an amount that's exactly breaking the bank, either.

We're not leaving because the Taliban is kicking our asses and forcing us to leave. We're leaving because we never intended to stay there forever to begin with. And if we really wanted to stay, we'd cut out forces in half, subsidize the regime we've established to act as our proxy, and just back them up as needed from time to time to stabilize the situation. The Soviets may have gotten their asses kicked in Afghanistan, but we're not the Soviets.

The point is that guerrilla warfare is less effective than it looks. Successful guerrilla armies invariably have to make a transition to conventional warfare in order to win, and the Taliban aren't doing that, and — given their level of (dis)organization — will probably never be able to do that. They're not the Viet Minh; Hell, they're not half as capable as the Viet Minh.

The moral of the story? You can't just say, "Guerrilla war FTW, kthxbai!!!" Guerrilla armies can be and have been beaten down through the pages of history. It's not a surefire path to victory, let alone an easy one.

Also people thinking it would be crushed here are silly an armed insurrection inside your own country is a lot harder to fight than an insurrection overseas.

That reminds me... I was thinking of visiting New Orleans for Mardi Gras. I know I'll need my U.S. Passport; can anyone tell me where the Confederate consulate is in Chicago so I can go there to get a visa to enter the C.S.A.?

The thing about a guerilla insurrection is that it shows you just how simple people with a handful of exceedingly cheap weapons and a rudimentary chemistry skill allowing them to manufacture large quantities of explosive can fare against multi-million-dollar pieces of equipment.
That's a nice Abrams you have there. Cue six 152mm artillery shells detonating under its belly.
Those are nice Harriers you have there. Cue the storming of a base with rocket launchers.

They're far more demoralising as conflicts, and seem to affect public opinion far greater than conventional wars do. I'm not sure if it's a "how can we employ all of this death machinery on farmers?!" or "there's no clear goal to win, POINTLESS CONFLICT!", but the imbalanced conflicts at the latter half of the 20th Century and the beginning of this one seem to generate some heavily polarised public opinion.