Liberty Control

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Should I recount the story of the mighty Russian bear and his defeat at the hands of a band of loosely organized tribes?
Afghanistan proves conclusively and forever that it can be done where there is enough will and enough small arms.

Afghanistan?

Be serious, the Russians, who were invaders, not an opressive government we were really talking about, were without question victorious in what they were up to: namely invading the land. Afterwards, they had to secure some puppet government and face guerilla war in order not to loose face.
The escalation of this full fledged guerilla war cannot be compared with an uprising of some upright citizens with small firearms:

the Mudjahedin were hand fed with hundreds of millions by US government and the Saudis.

They were given first class high tech equipment, like the stinger missile launcher

Likewise, they received training how to set up explosives, conduct ambushes etc.

The CIA provided the guerilla with vital military information like satellite photos or decoded sowjet radio messages.

The society of afghanistan is in no way comparable to a modern society of the western world. The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us.

After the war, the “loosely organized” and “good people” of afghanistan went directly to war with each other to create an optimal society. Apparently, you my fellow americans were’t so happy with the outcome because, well, you DID wage war with them didn’t you?

The losses: 15 000 fallen soldiers on soviet side.
The people of afghanistan lost over a million. Now tell me something about resisting a modern army.

Without help from outside, it is highly doubtful that the “russian bear” would have even flinched. Also, the soviets were experiencing greater problems at that time than to maintain a prestige occupation which was getting useless.

In rural parts of Afghanistan, guns are an essential part of the patriarchy. A man without a gun is not a real man.
It’s a good example of a society who shoots first, asks questions later. A society which claims to be just and moraly firm. A society I wouldn’t like to be part of. I like democracy and a government which may be shitty, but which I can dismiss on the next election.

Afghanistan won’t do the trick, so please provide us with reasonable arguments (statistics, historical data etc.) as why allowing the masses to arm themselves would be beneficial to a society.

@WMD: I already told in previous posts that in an armed society, I probably would get a weapon myself. I’m not telling you not to get a gun and stay helpless, whatever the cost.
Since Varqanir did not open this thread to talk about inner US politics, I contributed my general opinion. Which is: Allowing everyone to have access to weapons leads to more troubles.
Also, I’m pretty clueless if it’s really possible to disarm an already
armed society.

@varqanir: Please tell me straight and simple: in which century man has been more free than today? I really want to know.

Last request-

Would you rather live in a society where

a) no one has guns except police and military ?

b) everyone has full access to pistols rifles, automatic machine guns ?

I know this is simplified but let’s just assume it, kay? I’m curious.

And please, no more fairy tales (“just a few good men i say…”) or Heinlein poetry (“You can have peace or freedom, not both”).
[/quote]

Fairy tales?

I predicted you would have every excuse in the book. I even laid out the bulk of your hollow counterargument before you made it! Still, you follow through posting the exact nonsense I said you would.

None of us claimed that an armed civilian populace would not suffer horrible loss in battling an organized modern military. Also, like I said, sure the Afghans had a lot of aid in terms of equipment, although you refuse to spot us such aid should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

The fact remains that Russia packed up its military and went home. What the hell does it matter that we went to war with SOME of the people in Afghanistan years later? That statment alone shows how perverted your attempt at logic is.

Im done with you. Like I said, your mind is made up and you have the freedom
to continue ignoring/distorting the truth any way you wish.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote
“The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us”

Please edit your post to read “me” instead of “us”. It clearly doesn’t include me, a lot of the posters on this thread, and millions of Americans.

Your missing the point. The American Citizen-Soldier will always rise to the task at hand. Always has. You underestimate the potential of one man with a rifle. That’s good. A lot of amatuers do.

[/quote]

This is hilarious. You can’t seem to back up your arguments -which are mere assumptions- with examples.
“The potential of one man with a rifle”,
Sounds good - but prove it!

And do not speak so lightly of the afghanistan war. To assume that a lot of people in this forum and millions in the US could stand the life of an afghan mudjahedin is a bit ridiculous.

You may have a fine army, but even the russians were scared of afghanistan, and they are a tough bunch. In contrast the US Forces are known to enjoy a lot of comfort when going to war. Now imagine a war where you spend most of the day hidden in a dark cave, eating two meager meals per day, waiting for orders. The enemy is far superior and has massacred a good part of your family. The day’s highlight is, like always, Qur’an study. Tonight you’re gonna place some rusty pakistanian mines under the road. Tomorrow - who knows, since you’ve not seen your commander on his donkey for weeks now…
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It’s pretty safe to assume that, even when you’re not a weakling but a strong T-man, you’re simply not cut out to live and endure this life.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Pandoras Box is open. Guns are in society. We can only go in two diections. Outlaw them so only outlaws have them or embrace their ownership, practice and be good and safe with them. [/quote]

This is a good post. I read somewhere a long time ago that it is far easier to deny a right to the people in the first place then try to take it away after it has been in place.

Had the government of this country, in its inception, decided that guns were a bad thing, and outlawed them, it would be a different thing.

However, being that guns are something that has been ingrained into our cultural mindset, it would be nearly impossible to take that right away outright. The only way to do so is to slowly make laws that infringe a little more each time, to the point where trying to get one is damn near impossible.

And there are people out there that would love to do this. Which is why I am glad the NRA is around- one extreme (the anti gun lobby) is balanced by the other (the gun lovers). Either way, it ensures that the right will never be taken away.

Don’t blame the German guy for having a twisted outlook on the subject. He just doesn’t know any better.

Imagine growing up a country that recently murdered millions of people and had to be invaded and split up by the major world powers.

It is no wonder he has no concept of the benefits of responsible gun ownership.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
I predicted you would have every excuse in the book. I even laid out the bulk of your hollow counterargument before you made it! Still, you follow through posting the exact nonsense I said you would.

None of us claimed that an armed civilian populace would not suffer horrible loss in battling an organized modern military. Also, like I said, sure the Afghans had a lot of aid in terms of equipment, although you refuse to spot us such aid should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

Im done with you. Like I said, your mind is made up and you have the freedom
to continue ignoring/distorting the truth any way you wish.[/quote]

Let me “distort” the truth a bit more:

Historically, it’s clear that if Russia had invaded Afghanistan for some real gain (like oil), not political agenda and/or there wouldn’t have been a soviet crisis, the taliban would do some time not in Guantanamo, but in the Lublianka.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
The fact remains that Russia packed up its military and went home. What the hell does it matter that we went to war with SOME of the people in Afghanistan years later? That statment alone shows how perverted your attempt at logic is.
[/quote]
You do not seem to understand. I wasn’t flaming the US, not even in the slightest.
Let me tell you: The afghan rural society has lots of guns, in fact, the region is one of the most heavily armed in the world. And did it create a better, a “polite society”?
No, actually it was pretty shitty if you ask me. I think that if you’d ask your countrymen, they would give you even harsher opinions about the afghan society, or else I wouldn’t understand why you paid at least a billion per month fighting them.

Most important: the afghanistan war has no connection to your claim, having lots of guns at home would keep you from a bad regime: you’re talking about a civil war.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t blame the German guy for having a twisted outlook on the subject. He just doesn’t know any better.

Imagine growing up a country that recently murdered millions of people and had to be invaded and split up by the major world powers.

It is no wonder he has no concept of the benefits of responsible gun ownership.[/quote]

This is so primitive, it’s funny.

I could top it and make Vietnam, Kuba, CIA, Nicaragua, Abu Ghureib or whatnot jokes but that would be childish.

Please, if you cannot add something intelligent to this debate, then remain silent.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Last request-

Would you rather live in a society where

a) no one has guns except police and military ?

b) everyone has full access to pistols rifles, automatic machine guns ?

I know this is simplified but let’s just assume it, kay? I’m curious.

And please, no more fairy tales (“just a few good men i say…”) or Heinlein poetry (“You can have peace or freedom, not both”).
[/quote]
I vote b.

Pre-1934 NFA for me. Tommy guns and dynamite from the Sears catalogue :slight_smile:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
hedo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote
“The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us”

Please edit your post to read “me” instead of “us”. It clearly doesn’t include me, a lot of the posters on this thread, and millions of Americans.

Your missing the point. The American Citizen-Soldier will always rise to the task at hand. Always has. You underestimate the potential of one man with a rifle. That’s good. A lot of amatuers do.

This is hilarious. You can’t seem to back up your arguments -which are mere assumptions- with examples.
“The potential of one man with a rifle”,
Sounds good - but prove it!

And do not speak so lightly of the afghanistan war. To assume that a lot of people in this forum and millions in the US could stand the life of an afghan mudjahedin is a bit ridiculous.

You may have a fine army, but even the russians were scared of afghanistan, and they are a tough bunch. In contrast the US Forces are known to enjoy a lot of comfort when going to war. Now imagine a war where you spend most of the day hidden in a dark cave, eating two meager meals per day, waiting for orders. The enemy is far superior and has massacred most a good part of your family. The day’s highlight is, like always, Qur’an study. Tonight you’re gonna place some rusty pakistanian mines under the road.

Tomorrow - who knows, since you’ve not seen your commander on his donkey for weeks now…
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It’s pretty safe to assume that, even when you’re not a weakling but a strong T-man, you’re simply not cut out to live and endure this life.

[/quote]

Please tell me where in the US is like Afghanistan? I sincerely doubt there’d be a whole lot of Koran reading in an American spider hole. Probably more sharing of porno mags and beef jerky. The point that you keep missing is that armed people are able to return fire when someone tries to kill them or take their things. Otherwise, you should prepare to bend over and be someones bitch, whether to the government or the guys who just busted down your door.

I think you underestimate the ability of a determined person to put up with physical discomforts in the name of freedom and liberty. We call them soldiers here in America. I was one and I’m just a wee lass. I think you overestimate the amount of comfort enjoyed by our soldiers when they aren’t in a secured zone. If an armed revolt ever becomes necessary in the US, the landscape won’t suddenly transform itself into Afghan mountains.

The cities will still be here and while the government would want to kill the rebels they will also not want to destroy important bits of infrastructure like cities. Cities would most likely be the battlefields in an industrialized nation like the US. So comparisons to mujahedin spider holes and caves don’t hold up.

I could even show you how to take down a tank or fighter jet with small arms fire. You just have to know how and where to shoot. You may not be aware of this because you aren’t watching what is happening in Iraq, but people with lesser forms of weaponry are giving the greatest military of the Modern Era fits with their IEDs. You think Americans couldn’t figure out how to make these?

As far as the Russian experience in Afghanistan, the Russians came, occupied a few settled areas, fought tooth and nail with the mujahedin who gave NO ground, and the Russians finally had to abandon the effort. The Stingers and RedEyes and everything else the US gave would have meant nothing in the hands of less determined people. Technology helps, but it does not win wars. Determined people do.

If you want proof of what one good man with a rifle can do, please walk down range of hedo. Or read about Sgt. Alvin York. Or Audie Murphy. You’d be amazed at what a rifle can do.

Gun control is using two hands.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Let me tell you: The afghan rural society has lots of guns, in fact, the region is one of the most heavily armed in the world. And did it create a better, a “polite society”?
No, actually it was pretty shitty if you ask me. I think that if you’d ask your countrymen, they would give you even harsher opinions about the afghan society, or else I wouldn’t understand why you paid at least a billion per month fighting them.

[/quote]

The horrors of Afghan society under the Taliban is due to the negative aspects of Islamic law. It has nothing to do with the existence of firearms.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
hedo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote
“The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us”

Please edit your post to read “me” instead of “us”. It clearly doesn’t include me, a lot of the posters on this thread, and millions of Americans.

Your missing the point. The American Citizen-Soldier will always rise to the task at hand. Always has. You underestimate the potential of one man with a rifle. That’s good. A lot of amatuers do.

This is hilarious. You can’t seem to back up your arguments -which are mere assumptions- with examples.
“The potential of one man with a rifle”,
Sounds good - but prove it!

And do not speak so lightly of the afghanistan war. To assume that a lot of people in this forum and millions in the US could stand the life of an afghan mudjahedin is a bit ridiculous.

You may have a fine army, but even the russians were scared of afghanistan, and they are a tough bunch. In contrast the US Forces are known to enjoy a lot of comfort when going to war. Now imagine a war where you spend most of the day hidden in a dark cave, eating two meager meals per day, waiting for orders. The enemy is far superior and has massacred a good part of your family. The day’s highlight is, like always, Qur’an study. Tonight you’re gonna place some rusty pakistanian mines under the road. Tomorrow - who knows, since you’ve not seen your commander on his donkey for weeks now…
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It’s pretty safe to assume that, even when you’re not a weakling but a strong T-man, you’re simply not cut out to live and endure this life.

[/quote]

Your funny too! Funny in a pathetic way but funny none the less.

I’ll take a wild guess here but I don’t think you have ever done a day of military service in your life. I’ve no doubt defended more German land then you ever have or will. Your illusion of what you think military life is like is based on news clippings and reading. That too me is funny beyond description.

Your German…go away now.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
hedo wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote
“The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us”

Please edit your post to read “me” instead of “us”. It clearly doesn’t include me, a lot of the posters on this thread, and millions of Americans.

Your missing the point. The American Citizen-Soldier will always rise to the task at hand. Always has. You underestimate the potential of one man with a rifle. That’s good. A lot of amatuers do.

This is hilarious. You can’t seem to back up your arguments -which are mere assumptions- with examples.
“The potential of one man with a rifle”,
Sounds good - but prove it!

And do not speak so lightly of the afghanistan war. To assume that a lot of people in this forum and millions in the US could stand the life of an afghan mudjahedin is a bit ridiculous.

You may have a fine army, but even the russians were scared of afghanistan, and they are a tough bunch. In contrast the US Forces are known to enjoy a lot of comfort when going to war. Now imagine a war where you spend most of the day hidden in a dark cave, eating two meager meals per day, waiting for orders. The enemy is far superior and has massacred most a good part of your family. The day’s highlight is, like always, Qur’an study. Tonight you’re gonna place some rusty pakistanian mines under the road.

Tomorrow - who knows, since you’ve not seen your commander on his donkey for weeks now…
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It’s pretty safe to assume that, even when you’re not a weakling but a strong T-man, you’re simply not cut out to live and endure this life.

[/quote]
(sorry for the double post but I thought my previous post had disappeared into cyberspace. I like this one, too, though.)

schwarz, you seem to be missing the point. For info on what one good man with a rifle can do, read some stuff about Audie Murphy or Alvin York. Or just walk down range from hedo. I’m sure he could illustrate the point for you. I could do it, but, you know, I’m not a man.

Did you know that American Marines are riflemen first? Did you know all American soldiers have to qualify with the rifle? I wonder what the reason could be. Funny thing, the most commonly issued weapon on earth is the rifle. Not Stingers, SAWs, RPGs, Dragons, TOWs, or even 20mm Vulcan cannons. Rifles. Go figure.

I would imagine that if armed rebellion became necessary in the US, the landscape and culture would not suddenly transform itself into Afghanistan. The is Americanistan. There would still be cities, the most common battlefield of the modern era and there would be none of that Koran reading, but much sharing of porno and beef jerky. There would be no need of spider holes and caves what with the cities and stuff. While the government would want to destroy the rebels, they would be reluctant to destroy an important bit of infrastructure like a city, so they would most likely be forced to do house to house combat, kinda like in Iraq today (I bet Americans could figure out how to make IEDs, too) or even in WWII.

Perhaps you are not aware but US forces are on the ground in Afghanistan and seem to be enduring it. You overestimate the physical comforts enjoyed by American soldiers outside of secured zones. At least if my experience in war is an indicator.

The Russian experience in Afghanistan was not a pleasant one (nor was it for the British, or Persians or Alexander the Great). Afghans have been known as hard, determinined fighters for centuries. What happened for the Russians was they came, they got their asses handed to them, they left. Their “occupation” was brutal, backed by a great deal of fire-power and technology and they got their asses kicked by guys some of whom were carrying wheelock jezails. Mostly what they had were RIFLES and some anti-aircraft weapons. At no time did they enjoy strategic parity with the invaders. They did manage to bring down heavily armored Russian helicopters using nothing but Kalashnikov rifles. I bet Americans could, too.

Gun control is using two hands.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Let me tell you: The afghan rural society has lots of guns, in fact, the region is one of the most heavily armed in the world. And did it create a better, a “polite society”?
No, actually it was pretty shitty if you ask me. I think that if you’d ask your countrymen, they would give you even harsher opinions about the afghan society, or else I wouldn’t understand why you paid at least a billion per month fighting them.

The horrors of Afghan society under the Taliban is due to the negative aspects of Islamic law. It has nothing to do with the existence of firearms.

[/quote]

I bet it would have been a hell of a lot more polite if the women had firearms training and the will to use them.

And I vote for b on your questionnaire. I hate to break it to you, but in countries where only the police and government have guns, it is but a short hop to a police state. Have fun with that.

What would you rather have, the right and means to protect yourself and family or the right to be someones bitch?

[quote]hedo wrote:
I’ll take a wild guess here but I don’t think you have ever done a day of military service in your life. I’ve no doubt defended more German land then you ever have or will. Your illusion of what you think military life is like is based on news clippings and reading. That too me is funny beyond description.
[/quote]
Actually I served as a paratrooper, (I think that’s how you call it)and I was the best in my platoon with both rifle and machine gun (But lousy with pistols).

Because I’m German, I should go? Apparently, doing your duty in Germany hasn’t made you a man who respects other nations. What irony, that you were defending other countries with such an attitude.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t blame the German guy for having a twisted outlook on the subject. He just doesn’t know any better.

Imagine growing up a country that recently murdered millions of people and had to be invaded and split up by the major world powers.

It is no wonder he has no concept of the benefits of responsible gun ownership.

This is so primitive, it’s funny.

I could top it and make Vietnam, Kuba, CIA, Nicaragua, Abu Ghureib or whatnot jokes but that would be childish.

Please, if you cannot add something intelligent to this debate, then remain silent.
[/quote]

This is no joke, your lack of understanding disturbs me.

About 15 years ago I worked for a gentleman that was a Hitler Youth back in the war.

He was very well travelled, still had family in Germany and went to Germany about 8 to 10 times a year for business and pleasure.

His contention was the collective national shame in Germany has skewed German society (even more than the rest of Europe).

All war is bad. There can never be a reason to go to war or commit any violence. Self defense was made unacceptable after the war.

It will take another 50 years (or a horrendous event) to change these attitudes in Europe (especially Germany).

Schwartzy,

I’d take WMD and her rifle over your arguments anyday when facing the enemy.

York is a great example. So are:

Vasily Saitsev
Nikolay Yakovelvich
Billy Sing

They all killed German infantry by the hundreds. Saitsev made the life expectancy of your ancestors quite short in a place called Stalingrad.

Carlos Hathcock
Joe Ward
Phil Moran

They were US snipers who killed hundreds of men, themselves with rifles. One man with a rifle can do quite a bit of damage on the battlefield. If you ever find yourself on one you’ll understand. If your facing me, WMD or some of the other weak, comfort craving Americans, think about it fast because because you will not have much time left.

[quote]WMD wrote:
I would imagine that if armed rebellion became necessary in the US, the landscape and culture would not suddenly transform itself into Afghanistan.
[/quote]
You’re right , but that wasn’t my point. I merely suggested that comparing the two scenarios- american civil war in the 21st Century & the 80s Afghanistan War - makes no sense.
The fight of an opressed american folk would be different. Nonetheless, I still think that poorer nations tend to cope better with extreme circumstances that a war brings along. I may be wrong on this one, but it’s really not my point.

[quote]WMD wrote:
They did manage to bring down heavily armored Russian helicopters using nothing but Kalashnikov rifles. I bet Americans could, too.
[/quote]
I know it is possible, for I saw the unarmored spots of a Hind myself during my military training. We had the luck to actually take a look a real Hind in an army museum.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Huzzah, everybody! our first Armed Vixen on the thread!

WMD wrote:
The reason armed societies are polite is that if you get out of line, you are aware that there are several folks available and willing to shoot your ass. Therefore you learn to keep yourself under control.

Self-control being the first requirement of being a man, so says Kipling, an Englishman. Wonder what he’d say about his homeland today.

The United states was founded upon an armed rebellion by free people rejecting oppression by an imperial power. Our founders were almost uniform in their praise of private firearms ownership. It is no accident that the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd of our enumerated freedoms. It gives us the power to defend the rest of our rights.

You tell 'em, sister!

It would be really great if the world was such that we could all just get along and there were no need to defend oneself from predation, but it isn’t. From the riots in France,

FRENCH!!!

The police do their best but they can’t be in all places all the time. Unless of course you advocate a police state. Ask some of the older Jews in your part of the world what they think about that. Hitler outlawed private firearms ownership for Jews. Wonder why?

One of the most outspoken men on gun rights in America today is Aaron Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. That is obviously his thesis as well: More guns = less genocide.

I bet it’s true that where there are no guns no one can be shot. Where is that place? Do you imagine that people would stop killing one another if all guns suddenly vanished off the earth tomorrow?

Yes, the thousands of years prior to the development of gunpowder were completely free of violent crime. “When pointy stick outlawed, only outlaw have pointy stick.”

The point is, why should I as a law abiding person not be able to defend myself against a violent armed criminal using the best means to do so? Perhaps I should just cower and hope someone else will come to my rescue before I am raped or murdered? NO, I’ll keep my guns handy, thank you very much.

Yes. This is the essence of what we are saying. It’s not necessarily handguns that we are ardently in favor of, but handy guns.

Thank you very much, WMD.

[/quote]

I feel so welcome among my armed brethren. It is a good feeling.

Except for when I think about the FRENCH! Then I want a hand(y) gun.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’ll take a wild guess here but I don’t think you have ever done a day of military service in your life. I’ve no doubt defended more German land then you ever have or will. Your illusion of what you think military life is like is based on news clippings and reading. That too me is funny beyond description.

Actually I served as a paratrooper, (I think that’s how you call it)and I was the best in my platoon with both rifle and machine gun (But lousy with pistols).

hedo wrote:
Your German…go away now.

Because I’m German, I should go? Apparently, doing your duty in Germany hasn’t made you a man who respects other nations. What irony, that you were defending other countries with such an attitude.

[/quote]

Yes I’m sure you were…right. 17 posts you have no credibility. I knew lot’s of German military. You don’t sound like any of them. You do sound like a student though. A little closer to the truth perhaps? You don’t really have a handle on the US military and what they are all about. Unusual for a German who relied on them so much throughout the cold war.

Are you a man schwartzy?

I was a volunteer by the way. Defending Germany was a choice not my duty. It was your duty…and you did it poorly.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is no joke, your lack of understanding disturbs me.

His contention was the collective national shame in Germany has skewed German society (even more than the rest of Europe).
All war is bad. There can never be a reason to go to war or commit any violence. Self defense was made unacceptable after the war.
This is no joke, your lack of understanding disturbs me.
[/quote]

You find it disturbing that I’m not aware of Germany’s collective mental problem? Do I tell you how Americans feel or think? Course not.
So please leave this rassistic crap about “I know everything about you cause I know where your from” out and come back to topic or leave.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Yes I’m sure you were…right. 17 posts you have no credibility. I knew lot’s of German military. You don’t sound like any of them. You do sound like a student though. A little closer to the truth perhaps? You don’t really have a handle on the US military and what they are all about. Unusual for a German who relied on them so much throughout the cold war.
Are you a man schwartzy?
[/quote]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Defending Germany was a choice not my duty. It was your duty…and you did it poorly.
[/quote]
You question my gender and my military service. How old are you? Get a behavioural therapist, you would-be-seer. I assume, your next taunts include homosexuality and a small dick.