Moron

They wanted the carriers. We possessed three. One was away to the west coast another was delivering planes to Midway and I think a third was literally late getting back to Pearl. Such a fortune.

The Japanese also missed the machine shops and totally disregarded the entire supply of ship fuel. something close to 5 million gallons sitting there for the entire pacific navy. Untouched.

They also did another whoopsie. By sinking those fat slow battlewagons and revealing that those things were POS, no offense... we were to essentially start over and build very extremely dangerous battlewagons in a couple of years. FAST and LETHAL. Washington for example with her radar guided 16 inch destroyed the Japanese Kirishima in 9 minutes at night while the poor South Dakota sat there without electric power absorbing hit after hit for 8 minutes. She was able to get her power back online for everything and shoot back.

The old crappy slow original battle line was raised up with two exceptions and sent back out to bombard islands which is all they are good for until one night they earned their rightful revenge at night. Something that usually does not happen very often in war up to that time. But afterwards thats the end of the battle line.

One of the Iowas in Iraqi was fired on by Iraqi anti ship silkworm, a British escorting warship near her shot down the inbound vampire with a missile or two of her own. I think somewhat close aboard at about 8 km.

As it stands the old Iowas are stricken from the list, they have armor that can be cut like a hot knife through butter and require too much manning to function. We are past that now.

Its so incredibly easy to kill a ship. But not so fast. We put a old Carrier off Virginia and fired weapons at it for a month, it still refused to sink. Finally engineers placed charges of shaped to cut her bad in specific spots and down she went finally. Proving that carriers done right are very tough.

What does russia do? Build weapons that are truly horrible. The Slava has been fitted with such. 100 megaton of vaporizing whoopass. Turn norfolk into a hole in the ocean and 6 states a burning ruin around it in the mean time. So... we will have to find another way to fight at sea. And yes we are working on the problem.

What was not revealed to the Americans in WW2 was about 9 hours after Pearl was hit, Phillipines was hit really bad and essentially destroyed and forced to surrender. There is one exception. A concrete battleship. That thing took everything the Japanese fired at it and kept going. Finally when we returned there, they tried to use the thing themselves. We just poured gasoline down the vents and lit them cremating them inside of it. Its a war grave now.

 

Learned something new from your later link. Thanks.

Churchill did have a plan for an English Resistance movement called the Auxiliary Guards. Small groups of men who were outside of military age, not part of the local government, and knowledgeable of the local area were organized and trained. Each cell had at least one bunker and were issued sealed orders with target priorities along with weapons and explosives. Their basic orders were to go to ground until the main Nazi forces had passed by and then do their best to disrupt the Nazi war effort. They even had orders to kill mayors and police chiefs whom the government thought MIGHT collaborate.

I can't imagine Churchill authorizing the arming of the general public - he was too afraid of the "wrong sort" of people to let them have weapons. Now arming certain segments of the people, I could see. A significant amount of weapons that the British Army declared obsolete and "destroyed" ended up in the hands of the B-Specials and in Israel.

There was also the Coastal Defense Force (I may have the name wrong), basically men unfit for duty but issued a tin hat and a rifle and told to watch the beaches and the landing zones.

As to civilian weapons being collected it sounds like the initial start of the War Dog program. The War Department asked civilians to donate their dogs to be trained as sentry dogs. The initial program was a giant cluster with hundreds of random dogs being sent for training. It made for some good news reel footage, but other than that was a huge waste of time and effort.

I have no problem with responsible people owing guns. Notice the key word of that sentence. RESPONSIBLE.

Responsible people shouldn't have a problem planning ahead to accommodate a waiting period.

Responsible people train with and maintain their weapons.

Responsible people don't sell weapons to others without a background check.

Responsible gun store owners don't sell 9 cheap handguns to one guy in one visit.

Responsible gun owners don't allow others access to their weapons. They also know there is a time to carry and a time to lock the weapon in the glove box.

Responsible gun owners don't put an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year old.

Too many gun owners do not act responsibly.

Last fall I had a contractor in to clean the ducts in a rental property I own. In preparation I cleared out the entire basement and then put up storage cages for each of the tenants. Once the duct work was done the tenants could move their stuff back into the basement. The work was done on a Thursday and on Saturday morning I got a call from one of the tenants telling me she had found a pistol in the basement. I knew that one of the workers had a pistol on a hip holster when he arrived that looked similar so I called the contractor who called his guys, one of whom rushed over to retrieve his property. Dude was cracking jokes and thought my attitude was uncalled for.

Then there are the 2 knuckle heads down in Beaver Dam that did an "open carry" test - walk around down town with an unloaded rifle slung on their back. It's within their rights, but the morons walked through the campus of a private high school and then next to an elementary school. The whole district went into lockdown.

Or how about the "open carry" idiot Two Rivers who went into a restaurant then left his rifle slung on a chair when he went to use the restroom.

Or how about all the kids that get their hands on their parents or grandparents loaded weapon?

I think a lot of the gun laws in this country are counter productive. Limiting the type of weapon (5 inch grip illeagal, but 4.9 is okay; 10 rounds in the clip illegal, 9 okay; AR-15 banned but Garands are hunky dory; etc) isn't going to do anything. Limiting ammo sales won't do anything. Background checks, red flag laws, proficiency testing will.

I'll add that I don't think any big box store should be selling guns. Nor should a jewelry store run a "buy your wife a diamond necklace and get a free shotgun" promotion.


To your two questions:

Why is it that the same people who demand that criminals and mental defects be coddled and not locked up are the same people who demand that law abiding citizenry be disarmed and thus unable to defend themselves against the criminals & mental defects?

First while there is significant cross over between the two groups it is far from a homogeneous view point.

Second it depends on what you mean by coddled. Are you talking about:

• Police officers having to respect people's constitutional rights?
• Objecting to DA's overcharging defendants in order to get the defendant to plead down to a lessor charge while the DA knows he has a weak case? Or to entice a person to waive their 5th amendment rights.
  
• Objecting to the outcome of a criminal case having a direct correlation to a defendant's wealth?
• Objecting to defendants spending more time in jail awaiting trial than if they were convicted and got the maximum?
• Wanting prison to be both punishment and a pathway to a different life?
• Objecting to corporations profiting off the criminal justice system?
• Objecting to the fact that it's easier for the mentally ill to obtain their meds while in prison?
• Objecting to having police officers having to spend their time dealing with the mentally ill? (15-25% depending on who you ask)
• Objecting to spending almost $1 Billion on arresting, trying, and incarnating mentally ill people for minor offenses when we could spend half that treating them?
• Objecting to civil forfeiture laws which make a mockery of the 4th amendment?

At the 96 Republican Convention Bob Dole said "We are going to attack the root of crime - Criminals". The root of crime is not criminals. It is poverty, it is lack of education, it is lack of opportunity, it is an inability to notice opportunity. I don't care if you're talking about Back of the Yards, Chicago or Beckly, West-by-god-Virginia. In my opinion armed citizenry won't bring down crime rates. Education, jobs paying a living wage, and mentoring will.


Why is it that the same politicians & celebrity's that want to disarm law abiding folks have themselves surrounded by a security force armed with full auto weaponry?

Hypocrisy is rampant in every facet of life. I cannot speak for someone else's motives, but I would hazard a guess that they don't want to feel the need to have armed security.

 

Either you're blissfully unaware of how all that runs against the constitution or you don't care, either way I find scarier than a properly trained 9 year old with a gun. Let's be honest here, if a 9 year olds parent has a gun, the nine year old should be taught simple gun safety, hell there weren't any guns around our house and we were still taught not to point them at anything you don't want to shoot. I personally think they ought to bring gun safety class back to public schools, if the parents don't want their kid in it they can opt out.
Education and prosperity does not eliminate crime, I personally don't belive it even brings it down any, look at how many wealthy people end up in jail or paying huge fines for "white collar" crimes.

 

I truly enjoy having a debate with someone where it doesn't deteriorate into personal attacks and name calling.

That said, I hear what you're saying, but most I don't agree with. That's OK though, we can agree to disagree. My response is this.

Churchill most likely, like you pointed out, did not want to see the citizenry armed; however, at that point in time, he probably felt that he had no choice but to do it. Many Americans were glad they could help.

As far as responsibility goes, people have been irresponsible since the beginning of time, but why single out only the instances where a gun is involved? Why not mention other irresponsibility involving tools, power equipment, medicines, solvents, cars, etc. The fact is responsibility, like morality, cannot be legislated no matter how hard you try to do so.

As far as trying to distinguish a difference between a criminal or a mental defect that wants to kill you, I don't see any there. You can either defend yourself or chose to become a victim, your choice.

What I am saying is that if these folks were kept locked up, do the crime do the time, there wouldn't be as many roaming the streets looking for their next victim and causing havoc. I mean come on now, how many violent felonies and victims does it take to get the cretan off the street for 20 years or so, three, six, twelve? Intentional murder is a crime worthy of execution, no more 20 and out.

You say that the root of crime is not the criminals themselves. Au contraire, it is precisely the criminal himself that choses to commit crimes, not poverty, not a lack of education or opportunity, not someone else's fault, just his and his choice alone. Why heck, there are generations of able bodied folks that live their whole lives in poverty, live off the social welfare system, that never commit a crime. Many just chose not to work and leech off the system. Many choose to not even try to better themselves. Many drop out of school. Many choose to use drugs. Instead, they blame circumstance and everyone else for their problems, it's never them. Everyone is born with a good name, it is what he freely choses to do along the way that turns that name bad.

I do agree that the work opportunities are not what they once were. Most of the descent paying manufacturing jobs that were once here went overseas years ago, along with any hope and opportunities for many.

You are correct when you say that an armed citizenry won't bring down the crime rate. I never said it would; however, the armed citizen who defends himself and neutralizes the cretan intent on murder or rape, not only saves himself, but also ensures that the Cretan will harm no one else.

I already concurred with you regarding back ground checks; however, regarding "red flag" laws it depends how it is adjudicated. I'm not a big fan of it, but as long as there is due process, in accordance with the constitution, I'm ok with it; however, I can see how this could very easily be manipulated into simply a gun grabbing scheme by overzealous officials. As far as mandatory proficiency testing, this should be up to the individual to seek out, and he should want to seek it out; however the old irresponsible quandary comes back into focus again. Some States do require attending a class and show proficiency before issuing a concealed carry permit. Make no mistake, carrying a weapon is a huge personal responsibility that also comes with a huge liability if misused. One must be willing to accept that responsibility.

I got to hit the rack, but consider this. If your government doesn't trust you, a law abiding citizen, with a gun, tell me why should you trust your government? All through history, absolute power always corrupts, that's just the way it is. That is why the founding fathers established the form of government we have enjoyed up to now. They gave us the freedom to succeed or fail. The rest is up to us....

 

Law is something that is either good or bad. A Citizen has a oppertunity to fix that.

A bad guy on the other hand have divorced themselves away from the law. The law has no hold over them. The potential victim has two choices when the bad guy locks on them personally....

Fight or run. Both possess problems.

What the bad guy does not want is a armed sheepdog. What I do not ever want is to hurt anyone. Knots is one thing. But bullets? Now thats pretty pernament.

 

Like you said, laws are for honest people. Most Cretans chose to victimize sheep, much easier. Throw in minimal or no punishment for their crimes, what do they care. Already a convicted criminal, what does it matter to them if they commit more crimes.

The system currently is set up to protect cretans. It wasn't always this way. What about the victims you ask? Well, the current mentality is, that's just too bad, she should've known better than to jog alone mid-day on the park trails. Meanwhile, the cretan that chose to rape & murder her has a rap sheet for violent felonies five feet long. Why, it's not his fault though, he didn't have many opportunities growing up, bad childhood, no father, abusive mother, etc, etc. Just throw in any excuse to try and justify his criminal behavior. That's the mindset of our current criminal "justice" system.

Most people don't seek trouble and don't wish to injure or kill anyone. Most people try to avoid a confrontation. Arming oneself is a personal choice that comes with a huge responsibility, along with accepting the liability involved. Some people reject that responsibility and hope they are never victimized. Some just hope the police get there in time. I'm OK with that, but some of us accept that responsibility and choose to not become a victim....

 

I am not unaware nor am I uncaring about the Constitution. I do have a different opinion on what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means.

"Well regulated" means that limits can be instituted. Did you know that most towns in 1792 had laws about when and how someone could carry a firearm?

Have you read what Washington, Adams, Hamiliton, and Jefferson thought about militias? How they should be structured, who can/must join, training, equipment, etc was the subject of much debate in the first 20 years of the country. If we want to be strict constitutionalists then we should adhere to what words meant at the time the constitution was written.

There is some debate over the meaning of "bear arms". Some would argue that in the parlance of the day it meant to serve in an organized military unit. I can see the logic, but don't agree. I believe individual ownership of firearms to be a right. Rights come with responsibilities.

I also believe that the second amendment is under much less threat than the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Civil forfeiture laws, non-judicial forfeiture laws, overcharging to induce guilty pleas/testimony when the DA has no case, the rules/common practice over digital surveillance and searches is muddled and invasive, the weaponiszation of the court system by corporations to prey on individuals. These all represent existential threats to our civil liberties yet mention any to a run of the mill "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, hand" gun advocate and the typical response is "but those things help fight crime, so they are good". Ask them about tracing weapons from the crime to the initial point of sale to stop gun running and it infringes their rights somehow.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A 3-year-old boy accidentally shot his mother Thursday afternoon with his father’s handgun in a shopping plaza parking lot.

The father, who is licensed to have the gun, placed it beneath the seat before getting out of the car around 1:45 p.m. and going into a nearby business, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

The boy, his 1-year-old sister and their mother were waiting in the car. The boy got out of his seat, grabbed the gun and accidentally fired it, striking his mother, police said.

The mother was taken to a hospital. She is in stable condition and is expected to recover, the Sun-Sentinel reported.

It is unclear if any charges would be filed.
​

3-year-old Florida boy accidentally shoots mother, police say

Who, if anyone, should be charged and what should they be charged with? Does it change if the person shot was a passerby and not a family member? Should the father be allowed to own firearms going forward?


Gun ownership will not stop or diminish "white collar crime". I don't think anyone has made that argument.

 

At the time of the revolution, which is the reason we have the 2nd amendment, were they turning anybody away to fight?
The 2nd does not say the right for the militia to be armed, but the right for the citizens to be armed, as the citizens are the militia, just the way I interpret it.
The case of a small child accidently shooting his mother, nobody should be charged with anything. I do wonder what the mother was doing that her kid can get out of his seat, presumably in the back of the vehicle, crawl up front, dig around under the front seat and mother says and does nothing, my mother would've been waiting with a smack by the time I got to the front.

 

I like having conversations like this. Listening, learning, and broadening my understanding is good. One of the things I don't understand about this world is why so many people cannot disagree without being disagreeable.

Then why do we continue to legislate morality in other aspects of life? Why can't I buy a six pack after 2100? Why does someone need to by 21 to drive a cmv across state lines? Why can we revoke a driver's license for recklessness but not a gun permit?

I don't think I or society is singling out gun violence. It does get more attention, particularly when things like Columbine or Parkland happen. It's also harder to out run a bullet than it is a knife or a brick.

Here I think we are talking about two different things. I think you think all criminals are mentally ill, which I will concede there is some merit to. When I am talking about mental illness and crime I am talking about the schizophrenic who smashes a shop window because of the "person" who keeps mimicking them. I'm talking about the alcohol/drug addicts that are non-violent who end up in and out of the criminal justice system for petty crimes.

I have no problem warehousing those folks. I don't like it, but I don't see many other options. Ignoring any moral arguments, getting those types of people off the street and out of the criminal justice system saves us money.

I have no problem sending criminals to jail, but the punishment must fit the crime and must be designed to rehabilitate the criminal. Otherwise it's a revolving door.

I used to be in favor of the death penalty. In some cases I still am, I hate the idea of spending $1,000,000 or more to keep a scum bag in jail for the rest of their life. One of the few things I repsect George Ryan for his moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois. There were just too many cases that had proprietorial misconduct, police misconduct, judicial misconduct, and inept/non-existant defense council. If I believed in the integrity of the police and the court system then I would. But every trial like that of Brock Turner makes me hesitant.

Crime in the City of Chicago started to fall in the mid 90s, and pretty consistently dropped until 2012ish, when crime spiked. There are lots of theories as to why (one of my favorites is that Daley had been paying off the gang leaders and the deal ended when he left office). The one that carries the most weight is that after the 2008 Recession the after school programs and the crime prevention programs were cut or defunded to the point of being defunct. Coupled with the lack of jobs, gang banging rose. Add in social media being a $#!+ starter, and I think it explains things nicely.

It doesn't matter if a person has a choice if they don't know they have a choice. I counciled a driver today on some of the "how many times did your momma drop you on your head" choices he made last week. One of them was dropping a trailer with a tire side wall blown out. We do a double drop and hook at that customer so I know he was the last "driver" to touch the trailer and I highly doubt it blew out while in the dock (possible, but unlikely). Evan's said "I knew it was leaking but what could I do about it? The load had to deliver". I pointed out that we had a pre-approved tire vendor 5 miles away, he could have rolled in and had the tire patched no problem. If he didn't have hours, it's a simple message to ops saying "trailers not safe to move, loads not going today". Evan's repsonse was "I didn't know we could do any of that!"

How he didn't know is beyond me. If your daddy is a piece of trash and your mom's a lazy so and so, odds are you'll be a lazy piece of trash unless someone along the way steps up and shows you how to be a man.

What happens when the armed citizen misses?

What happens when the armed citizen escalates a non-situation into a shooting?

I recognize the potential for the misuse of red flag laws. They should be designed with an emphasis on due process and should be revised based on actual experience after implementation. There should also be a penalty option for false reporting that the judge has wide latitude to enact.

I don't trust my government. I spent my first 8 years on the South Side of Chicago before moving to the burbs. I was pretty jaded on government, then I went to college and became more so, then I went out into the "real" world and realized just how crappy society is. Despite my reputation on here for being a commie socialist, I actually believe in limited government with as much local control as possible. I believe an individual should be free to make the best choices they can for themselves, but should make those decisions with enlightened self interest - what hurts me in the short term but is in the best interest of my neighbor may actually be in my long term interest. I didn't get paid for the time I spent with Evan today, nor for the hour I spent helping a stone cold rookie through his first load, nor for the 30 minutes I spent with out new yard jockey showing him how to deal with tandems that won't slide on air ride equipment. Had I just kept running my loads I could have made a few extra bucks or been done a little earlier. Investing some of my time in them will pay off for me in the future as I will, hopefully, not have to deal with their screwups.

 

The first sentence says that a well regulated militia is necesary for the security of the free state. Why is that there?

To the kid - kid gets out of his harness, mom knows dad's going to be a while yet and lets Jr roam free and play. Kid is on the floor of the back seat, reaches under the front seat and finds a new toy. My friend Angie has had to baby proof her upper cabinets because her 4 year old figured out how to climb and use basic tools. Every couple of months there is a story in the same vein- kid is in the shopping cart next to moms purse, reaches in and somehow discharges the weapon. Dad is holding kid on his hip, kid reaches and pulls the trigger on the gun in his holster. They're all avoidable tragedies.

Now say the bullet hit a random person walking thru the parking lot? Who gets charged with what?