Our Biggest Immediate Terrorist Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Please demonstrate anywhere in this thread where I’ve advocated a modicum of firearm restrictions. I’ve expressed nothing but pro-gun sentiments in my posting history.[/quote]

ummmm, I seem to remember something about surrender the monopoly of force to the state… Am I wrong here?

Your argument falls on itself. We’ve had the same basic rifles for decades, same basic procedures for getting them for decades, and people have been training for centuries… Yet they still keep using bombs. (Or jet planes that act as a bomb.)

They keep using bombs…

bombs…

[/quote]

That’s the problem with accusations based on vague recollections. Not only are they often grossly inaccurate, they are irresponsible. I’ve quoted the Weberian conception of what constitutes a state numerous times on this forum. Weber writes that a state is “a human community [government] which has successfully claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.” Nothing in that definition implies disarmament of the populace, it is merely a variation of Hobbesian social social contract theory. If you actually looked at my posting history, you’d see that I’ve written in no uncertain terms that I’m a proponent of the horizontal proliferation of small arms. The ruler who attempts to disarm his populace shows that he is either afraid or suspicious of them, which breeds contempt against himself.

Your second paragraph indicates that you have yet to grasp what my argument is. No one is denying that terrorist plots on U.S. soil post 9/11 have predominantly relied upon IEDs as the mode of violence. I have argued that the thread’s OP is viable. A squad sized element of terrorist operatives equipped with high capacity, semi-automatic rifles chambered in assault or battle rifle calibers could not only be used to devastating effect, but is a tactic well within the operational capabilities of several FTOs. In fact, this has been demonstrated numerous times outside of the U.S. I’ve produced more evidence of this tactic’s efficacy in one case study (the 2008 Mumbai attacks) than you have for the “primacy of bombs” in this entire thread.

82

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Please demonstrate anywhere in this thread where I’ve advocated a modicum of firearm restrictions. I’ve expressed nothing but pro-gun sentiments in my posting history.[/quote]

ummmm, I seem to remember something about surrender the monopoly of force to the state… Am I wrong here?

Your argument falls on itself. We’ve had the same basic rifles for decades, same basic procedures for getting them for decades, and people have been training for centuries… Yet they still keep using bombs. (Or jet planes that act as a bomb.)

They keep using bombs…

bombs…

[/quote]

That’s the problem with accusations based on vague recollections. Not only are they often grossly inaccurate, they are irresponsible. I’ve quoted the Weberian conception of what constitutes a state numerous times on this forum. Weber writes that a state is “a human community [government] which has successfully claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.” Nothing in that definition implies disarmament of the populace, it is merely a variation of Hobbesian social social contract theory. If you actually looked at my posting history, you’d see that I’ve written in no uncertain terms that I’m a proponent of the horizontal proliferation of small arms. The ruler who attempts to disarm his populace shows that he is either afraid or suspicious of them, which breeds contempt against himself.

Your second paragraph indicates that you have yet to grasp what my argument is. No one is denying that terrorist plots on U.S. soil post 9/11 have predominantly relied upon IEDs as the mode of violence. I have argued that the thread’s OP is viable. A squad sized element of terrorist operatives equipped with high capacity, semi-automatic rifles chambered in assault or battle rifle calibers could not only be used to devastating effect, but is a tactic well within the operational capabilities of several FTOs. In fact, this has been demonstrated numerous times outside of the U.S. The logistical and oraganizational obstacles you’ve raised are not substantial enough to write off such an attack. I’ve produced more evidence of this tactic’s efficacy in one case study (the 2008 Mumbai attacks) than you have for the “primacy of bombs” in this entire thread.

83

[quote]Bismark wrote:

That’s the problem with accusations based on vague recollections. Not only are they often grossly inaccurate, they are irresponsible.[/quote]

That’s the problem with posting on the internet… Things are kept there, for people to go back to. Not only do people often have to do it when their positions aren’t their own, but parroted from some source they deem worthy, but it is irresponsible

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The irresponsible but non disabled individual is morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. The mentally disabled, however, are not, because they lack moral agency.[/quote]

But your social contract deems we take care of all of the above…

[/quote]

Where have I ever stated the above sentiment? I subscribe to a Hobbesian social contract.
[/quote]

Huh? Hobbes’ social contract stipulates man must submit to be ruled by an absolute monarch - divine right of kings. So according to Hobbes, Obama is appointed by God and has absolute authority to do whatever he likes and if you disobey Obama you are challenging God. Perhaps you should look into Hobbes’ social contract theory and reconsider?[/quote]

Not his conception of an all powerful sovereign, no. [i]But individuals ceding to the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? Yes[/i].[/quote]

So… Someone can protect themselves with “small arms” but you know, can’t use force to do so?

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/amidst_backlash_dawkins_doubles_down_on_down_syndrome?id=6088051&pageNo=6

Please explain how my understanding of your own words is irresponsible.

Your argument is shit. Yes, I grasp that.

Holy fuck will you please stop talking about guns. You sound like a Moms Demand Action ad.

WTF is an “assault caliber”? lmao…

“Hold on guyz… I needz mah battle caliber for dis one her’”

Yes, and real life has shown that I’m right, and you’re playing pretend and “what COULD happen.” I’m talking about what has happened, and therefore is actually likely. You have admitted I’m right a couple times now, and then come back with this silly qualification language because, why, I haven’t the slightest.

What is our biggest immediate terrorist threat? Some asshole blowing up innocent kids with a bomb, not some paramilitary group of people who magically stop fighting in the war zone, fly to California, spend and plan for year a raid on some mall. If that was our biggest immediate terrorist threat, that is what would happen at any given college football game last weekend.

84

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Holy fuck will you please stop talking about guns. You sound like a Moms Demand Action ad.

WTF is an “assault caliber”? lmao…

“Hold on guyz… I needz mah battle caliber for dis one her’”

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.

85

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Holy fuck will you please stop talking about guns. You sound like a Moms Demand Action ad.

WTF is an “assault caliber”? lmao…

“Hold on guyz… I needz mah battle caliber for dis one her’”

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

Well, as far as the U.S. Military is concerned,

Assault- 5.56X45mm (or a comparable round)

Battle- 7.62X51mm (or a comparable round)

The irony of the fact that I have to explain this to you while you paint me as a hippy dippy anti gun advocate
Is not lost on me.

86

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

That’s the problem with accusations based on vague recollections. Not only are they often grossly inaccurate, they are irresponsible.[/quote]

That’s the problem with posting on the internet… Things are kept there, for people to go back to. Not only do people often have to do it when their positions aren’t their own, but parroted from some source they deem worthy, but it is irresponsible

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The irresponsible but non disabled individual is morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. The mentally disabled, however, are not, because they lack moral agency.[/quote]

But your social contract deems we take care of all of the above…

[/quote]

Where have I ever stated the above sentiment? I subscribe to a Hobbesian social contract.
[/quote]

Huh? Hobbes’ social contract stipulates man must submit to be ruled by an absolute monarch - divine right of kings. So according to Hobbes, Obama is appointed by God and has absolute authority to do whatever he likes and if you disobey Obama you are challenging God. Perhaps you should look into Hobbes’ social contract theory and reconsider?[/quote]

Not his conception of an all powerful sovereign, no. [i]But individuals ceding to the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? Yes[/i].[/quote]

So… Someone can protect themselves with “small arms” but you know, can’t use force to do so?

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/amidst_backlash_dawkins_doubles_down_on_down_syndrome?id=6088051&pageNo=6

Please explain how my understanding of your own words is irresponsible.

Your argument is shit. Yes, I grasp that.

Holy fuck will you please stop talking about guns. You sound like a Moms Demand Action ad.

WTF is an “assault caliber”? lmao…

“Hold on guyz… I needz mah battle caliber for dis one her’”

Yes, and real life has shown that I’m right, and you’re playing pretend and “what COULD happen.” I’m talking about what has happened, and therefore is actually likely. You have admitted I’m right a couple times now, and then come back with this silly qualification language because, why, I haven’t the slightest.

What is our biggest immediate terrorist threat? Some asshole blowing up innocent kids with a bomb, not some paramilitary group of people who magically stop fighting in the war zone, fly to California, spend and plan for year a raid on some mall. If that was our biggest immediate terrorist threat, that is what would happen at any given college football game last weekend. [/quote]

Do I need to hold your hand and explain every word of Weber’s definition? Force precedes and underpins law.

87

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, as far as the U.S. Military is concerned,

Assault- 5.56X45mm (or a comparable round)

Battle- 7.62X51mm (or a comparable round)

The irony of the fact that I have to explain this to you while you paint me as a hippy dippy anti gun advocate
Is not lost on me.

[/quote]

The irony that you don’t know how fucking dumb this is and think it’s a display of superior intelligence is hilarious. And not lost on anyone.

88

758×269 25.6 KB

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

I’m wondering if this takes assault or battle caliber.

89

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do I need to hold your hand and explain every word of Weber’s definition? Force precedes and underpins law.
[/quote]

Weren’t you crying earlier about ad hom?

If I use deadly FORCE to stop and attack, doesn’t Weber’s definition cover that use?

You got caught flop flopping, get over it, it isn’t relevant other than you underestimate me because I don’t always type in my good ol’ college learned fashion.

90

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

I’m wondering if this takes assault or battle caliber.[/quote]

NOw this sexy motherfucker… I don’t even know where to start, need a stamp for the barrel, looks like the ultra high capacity born in baby’s blood extra killy “assault” rifle, but takes pistol ammo…

Is the battle, assault or just causal baby killing caliber?

91

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

Dude at the club has a bushmaster 50 cal… I’m so confused…

It’s built on an AR platform, so its extra killy, but the caliber is way above battle.

I wonder if it becomes war caliber at that point.

92

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

Dude at the club has a bushmaster 50 cal… I’m so confused…

It’s built on an AR platform, so its extra killy, but the caliber is way above battle.

I wonder if it becomes war caliber at that point. [/quote]

This for sure doesn’t qualify as assault-caliber:

94

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Do I need to hold your hand and explain every word of Weber’s definition? Force precedes and underpins law.
[/quote]

Weren’t you crying earlier about ad hom?

If I use deadly FORCE to stop and attack, doesn’t Weber’s definition cover that use?

You got caught flop flopping, get over it, it isn’t relevant other than you underestimate me because I don’t always type in my good ol’ college learned fashion. [/quote]

Not an ad hominem. I produced the quotation in its most simplified form. You refuse ( or are unable) to understand its meaning. This isn’t an attack against your intellect. I don’t know dick about accounting 101 because I haven’t studied accounting 101. This link succinctly explains the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html

Private use of force in the pursuit of private security is permtted as long as it is its legitimacy from that of the state’s.

My position hasn’t changed. You simply do not understand what I’m writing.

95

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

Dude at the club has a bushmaster 50 cal… I’m so confused…

It’s built on an AR platform, so its extra killy, but the caliber is way above battle.

I wonder if it becomes war caliber at that point. [/quote]

This for sure doesn’t qualify as assault-caliber:

[/quote]

I actually have the GSG knock off (semiauto) of that rifle. Fun gun to shoot, but the bolt hangs and it light strikes like a motherfucker.

96

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

Dude at the club has a bushmaster 50 cal… I’m so confused…

It’s built on an AR platform, so its extra killy, but the caliber is way above battle.

I wonder if it becomes war caliber at that point. [/quote]

They are technical terms as designated by military doctrine. The .50 BMG is usually referred to in an anti-material capacity.

97

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, as far as the U.S. Military is concerned,

Assault- 5.56X45mm (or a comparable round)

Battle- 7.62X51mm (or a comparable round)

[/quote]

Bis, seriously, the U.S. military uses a standardized NATO round for most foot soldiers by agreement with other countries for various reasons, but the main one is just that, standardization, and they had to pick something. One of the reasons the round was selected is that testing shows its a more “humane” round than some others that just tear people apart, even though there might be better or more accurate rounds to kill people with. The other reasons and the history are laid out pretty well in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56Ã??45mm_NATO

Edit: well, fuck, the link’s not copying well. Google will find it.

98

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No such thing as “battle caliber.”[/quote]

The differention between an assault rifle and battle rifle is made by caliber. They are utilized in different capacities.

99

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, as far as the U.S. Military is concerned,

Assault- 5.56X45mm (or a comparable round)

Battle- 7.62X51mm (or a comparable round)

[/quote]

Bis, seriously, the U.S. military uses a standardized NATO round for most foot soldiers by agreement with other countries for various reasons, but the main one is just that, standardization, and they had to pick something. One of the reasons the round was selected is that testing shows its a more “humane” round than some others that just tear people apart, even though there might be better or more accurate rounds to kill people with. The other reasons and the history are laid out pretty well in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56Ã??45mm_NATO

[/quote]

The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/04183AF4-34EB-47F0-BCEE-29C93432DA49-1274564010088/3-21.8/toc.htm

Refer to the differention between a rifleman and a squad designated marksmen.

100

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

.22LR? They have lots of scary looking black, high capacity assault rifles at Cabellas in this caliber.
[/quote]

I’m wondering if this takes assault or battle caliber.[/quote]

NOw this sexy motherfucker… I don’t even know where to start, need a stamp for the barrel, looks like the ultra high capacity born in baby’s blood extra killy “assault” rifle, but takes pistol ammo…

Is the battle, assault or just causal baby killing caliber?
[/quote]

If capable of select fire, submachine gun.