Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:18:17 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders.Â* The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
Â*Â* In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.

I don't disagree. So what part of that do we have today? Are the
gun-totin'
able bodied male citizens practiced and organized? Do they elect
officers?
In an emergency - like, perhaps, a military invasion from Canada - would
they prove up to the myriad challenges? Is that _really_ what the immense
level of U.S. gun ownership is all about?

I think it's really about what Jim Jeffries said: “'**** off. I like
guns.'
It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.â€

- Frank Krygowski


Hunting and sport are irrelevant red herrings.

An odd statement. I think the hunters and sport shooters might disagree.

An armed populace is the
best prevention of both invasion and tyranny. Note the desperation in
Hong Kong:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ong-kong-raids


The Czechs stopped Soviet tanks by jamming water pipe into the treads
for a short while. Until a real tank division arrived. That didn't end
well.

Better free Swiss than enslaved Tibetans.

Are you seriously fearing the aggressive Canadians will invade
Wisconsin?? Do you think the Central American immigrants will suddenly
organize into an army? And even if those fantasies came true, would
unpracticed gun fetishers really be effective against actual soldiers? I
think not.

America has a tremendous advantage over Hong Cong, the Czech Repubic and
Tibet. We have the worlds biggest moats around our "castle" - the
Atlantic and Pacific. We have only friendly contiguous nations. And if
Canada really did invade, the National Guard - an _actual_ well
regulated militia - would be infinitely more help than the herds of
armed gang bangers. Those guys would use the opportunity to loot stores
and homes instead of to march into battle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

What I think is that it is none of your business WHY people own firearms as long as they are not a danger with them. That is why fully automatic was banned - they are damned near impossible to control even by experts. They spent the last 70 years trying to make them controllable on the battle field where you don't care if you're killing enemy soldiers you didn't aim at.

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:51:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.



This is on many ways still truly a wonderful country:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/firefigh...souri-walmart/

Joy and happiness all around. Win-win


Note:

"The armed man was pushing a cart and filming himself as he walked through the store when the manager pulled the fire alarm to notify customers to escape, according to CNN affiliate KYTV.

* * * * *

The potential charges in the case will depend on Andreychenko’s actions while he was in the store, said Dee Wampler, a longtime Springfield defense attorney and former Greene County prosecutor.

Carrying an assault rifle in public is not necessarily a crime, Wampler told The News-Leader.

'If he was looking at people in a menacing way or if he was saying something to other customers that was frightening to them — those would be factors' and could result in felony charges, Wampler said.

He also could be charged with a misdemeanor peace disturbance, or a different misdemeanor if he was told to leave the store and didn’t, Wampler said."



This is actually an unfortunate side-effect of open carry laws. You can legally walk into a Walmart carrying a "tactical rifle," handgun and 100 rounds of ammunition, cause the entire store to freak out and then go home and eat lunch. The fireman could be in trouble for pointing a loaded weapon at someone who was acting lawfully. He may get the misdemeanor charge, assuming the dope with the rifle was not threatening anyone -- while he took selfie video.

But we can throw up this story as evidence that arming everyone will lead to peace.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 8:33:04 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 6:49:38 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:41:08 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43:50 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads..

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.

There is no equivalency between mass shootings and traffic accidents.. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate consequence of an activity with high utility. Mass shootings are simply murder. You know that. Everybody knows that.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see. You are implying that if everyone actually complied with the
traffic code that "accidents" would remain the same as today?
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying that a traffic ACCIDENT is an accident and in no way equivalent to an intentional mass shooting -- or intentional killing of any sort. Why even waste the bandwidth arguing about something so obvious?

Can one intentionally kill with a car? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack That, however, is not the method of choice for the 251 mass-shooters this year. https://tinyurl.com/yxlb7j4r

-- Jay Beattie.

How many mass shootings added up to one 9/11?

That doesn't even make sense. Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths."


-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/9/2019 11:17 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2019 10:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army
reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you
consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have
been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many
times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass."Â Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of
those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus
China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with
the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100
people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry


You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare.
One drone could take out an entire block full of US
meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be
enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically
decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not
effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an
entire NRA convention. By the time it came to
building-to-building fighting, we would be in a
post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food
and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a
stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to
shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.


We are indeed a violent society, no argument there.

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/pure-hat...ured-2-police/


So here's your career criminal, long and colorful
conviction record, a mass murderer by popular definition,
out on bond for several pending charges:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/suspect-...-blasts-ab109/


But hey maybe he stole the Romanian passport so he could
buy more of those cute tattoos, just a misunderstood Jean
Valjean as it were.

Personally I would like to have seen an armed citizen put
one between his eyes, as he so richly deserved. YMMV

You mean there was no "good guy with a gun" around at the
right time? Gosh, my faith in LaPierre is shaken.

Or wait - are good guys with guns supposed to be totally
ineffective if the bad guy _doesn't_ have a gun? It's so
confusing!


I'm sorry you missed the details in the links above.
Unlike Springfield MO yesterday, the knife-wielding maniac
wreaked his mayhem in California where citizens are denied
proper self defense. Not Missouri, in a topical contrast.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/9/2019 11:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:51:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.



This is on many ways still truly a wonderful country:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/firefigh...souri-walmart/

Joy and happiness all around. Win-win


Note:

"The armed man was pushing a cart and filming himself as he walked through the store when the manager pulled the fire alarm to notify customers to escape, according to CNN affiliate KYTV.

* * * * *

The potential charges in the case will depend on Andreychenko’s actions while he was in the store, said Dee Wampler, a longtime Springfield defense attorney and former Greene County prosecutor.

Carrying an assault rifle in public is not necessarily a crime, Wampler told The News-Leader.

'If he was looking at people in a menacing way or if he was saying something to other customers that was frightening to them — those would be factors' and could result in felony charges, Wampler said.

He also could be charged with a misdemeanor peace disturbance, or a different misdemeanor if he was told to leave the store and didn’t, Wampler said."



This is actually an unfortunate side-effect of open carry laws. You can legally walk into a Walmart carrying a "tactical rifle," handgun and 100 rounds of ammunition, cause the entire store to freak out and then go home and eat lunch. The fireman could be in trouble for pointing a loaded weapon at someone who was acting lawfully. He may get the misdemeanor charge, assuming the dope with the rifle was not threatening anyone -- while he took selfie video.

But we can throw up this story as evidence that arming everyone will lead to peace.

-- Jay Beattie.


Nothing wrong with that.
However bystander armed citizen resolved the issue peacefully:
"an off-duty firefighter held the suspect, a 20-year-old
man, at gunpoint until police arrived."

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 10:05:55 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 11:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 7:51:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.



This is on many ways still truly a wonderful country:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/firefigh...souri-walmart/

Joy and happiness all around. Win-win


Note:

"The armed man was pushing a cart and filming himself as he walked through the store when the manager pulled the fire alarm to notify customers to escape, according to CNN affiliate KYTV.

* * * * *

The potential charges in the case will depend on Andreychenko’s actions while he was in the store, said Dee Wampler, a longtime Springfield defense attorney and former Greene County prosecutor.

Carrying an assault rifle in public is not necessarily a crime, Wampler told The News-Leader.

'If he was looking at people in a menacing way or if he was saying something to other customers that was frightening to them � those would be factors' and could result in felony charges, Wampler said.

He also could be charged with a misdemeanor peace disturbance, or a different misdemeanor if he was told to leave the store and didn’t, Wampler said."



This is actually an unfortunate side-effect of open carry laws. You can legally walk into a Walmart carrying a "tactical rifle," handgun and 100 rounds of ammunition, cause the entire store to freak out and then go home and eat lunch. The fireman could be in trouble for pointing a loaded weapon at someone who was acting lawfully. He may get the misdemeanor charge, assuming the dope with the rifle was not threatening anyone -- while he took selfie video.

But we can throw up this story as evidence that arming everyone will lead to peace.

-- Jay Beattie.


Nothing wrong with that.
However bystander armed citizen resolved the issue peacefully:
"an off-duty firefighter held the suspect, a 20-year-old
man, at gunpoint until police arrived."


Except that the fireman pulled a gun on a law-abiding citizen and falsely imprisoned him -- at gun point. Personally, I would not like it if someone pulled a gun on me while I was walking around with my tactical rifle, exercising my Second Amendment rights to go shopping armed to my teeth -- and take selfies.

It is the equivalent of making a citizens arrest for a non-crime. That could be a crime in itself and easily the tort of assault. And what if the guy with the rifle felt that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. He did have a gun pointed at him. He could have stood his ground and opened fire lawfully.

An off duty fireman with a gun is not a police officer, unless the jurisdiction has some unusual laws giving firemen police powers. He's just a citizen with a gun and a day job putting out fires. Would you like it if someone pulled a gun on you while you were walking around with your tactical rifle?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 9:40:46 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 8:33:04 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 6:49:38 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:41:08 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43:50 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.

There is no equivalency between mass shootings and traffic accidents. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate consequence of an activity with high utility. Mass shootings are simply murder. You know that. Everybody knows that.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see. You are implying that if everyone actually complied with the
traffic code that "accidents" would remain the same as today?
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying that a traffic ACCIDENT is an accident and in no way equivalent to an intentional mass shooting -- or intentional killing of any sort. Why even waste the bandwidth arguing about something so obvious?

Can one intentionally kill with a car? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack That, however, is not the method of choice for the 251 mass-shooters this year. https://tinyurl.com/yxlb7j4r

-- Jay Beattie.

How many mass shootings added up to one 9/11?

That doesn't even make sense. Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths.."


-- Jay Beattie.

That's a bit odd. If that guy in the Walmart with the rifle didn't want to leave it or the ammunition in the car and carried it with him and the rifle wasn't loaded I do not see that as a crime. Though I also wonder why he would be going to Walmart with a gun in his car. While that may have a perfectly sane reason (returning from target practice and the Walmart is on the way) it is still pretty silly.

9/11 on the other hand was a premeditated mass murder. While we had a couple of cases of mass murder recently that can hardly be the fault of Trump. 9/11 was DIRECTLY the fault of Bill Clinton and his mass bombings of Iraq.

I watched as one of those guys that was interviewed on Fox News went on for 5 minutes about the media members that have become part of cabinet level positions in the Democrat governments. This pretty plainly shows why there is such a stinking bias in the lame stream media. This seldom happens in GOP governments aside from media interfacing.

And the continuous hate boiling through the media is what I blame for the mass shootings. That, in my opinion, is what is triggering crazy people.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:03:10 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/9/2019 11:17 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2019 10:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army
reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you
consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have
been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many
times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass."Â Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of
those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus
China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with
the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100
people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry


You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare.
One drone could take out an entire block full of US
meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be
enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically
decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not
effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an
entire NRA convention. By the time it came to
building-to-building fighting, we would be in a
post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food
and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a
stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to
shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.


We are indeed a violent society, no argument there.

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/pure-hat...ured-2-police/


So here's your career criminal, long and colorful
conviction record, a mass murderer by popular definition,
out on bond for several pending charges:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/suspect-...-blasts-ab109/


But hey maybe he stole the Romanian passport so he could
buy more of those cute tattoos, just a misunderstood Jean
Valjean as it were.

Personally I would like to have seen an armed citizen put
one between his eyes, as he so richly deserved. YMMV

You mean there was no "good guy with a gun" around at the
right time? Gosh, my faith in LaPierre is shaken.

Or wait - are good guys with guns supposed to be totally
ineffective if the bad guy _doesn't_ have a gun? It's so
confusing!


I'm sorry you missed the details in the links above.
Unlike Springfield MO yesterday, the knife-wielding maniac
wreaked his mayhem in California where citizens are denied
proper self defense. Not Missouri, in a topical contrast.

I read that California gun con troll laws are some of the most
restrictive in the country.

And thus, it follows, residents of California must be some of the
safest in the country...
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 07:32:10 -0700, jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves.
They no longer receive any training after that. If you consider that
a "well regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been
pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times
Switzerland has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising 1944. Or
Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups
were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China?

Possibly, but my understandind is that invading tibet was a bit like
Napolean/hitler invading Moscow. At the time is was a long long way over
a narrow trail up a very high mountain.

Hmmm. I'll put my money
on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

Only if it has the transport advantage to overcome any native resistance.
US Vs Vietnam comes to mind as well as Ukraine Vs Russia.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's
attack China! They've got no guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could
take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small
arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has
basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not
effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA
convention.

Isn't that all moot with your current Nuke'em President?

By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we
would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food
and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of
guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great
regularity.

They make great hootchie poles when you run out of bullets for them.
My 2c is that should US society collapse, the population will implode
from starvation as 99% of peole willl not know how to grow food and the
rest will be struggling to grow some in time to avoid starvation.

As this is a bnicycle group, we should now discuss which is the best
bicycle you should stock op with to trade for food afdter the apocalypse.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 13:31:26 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


At nearly every Wal Mart except the El Paso location, customers can
carry with a concealed permit so that's not the issue. Open carry of a
rifle is a different matter.

If I were the fireman, I would consider that, along with the body armor,
to be probable cause of a threat to public safety. That's what I would
tell the court anyway.

We've fxed that over here. They have decreed that the general public has
no viable reason for wearing or carrying body armour, so if you have it
is you are a criminal.