Beto 2020

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

Michael Moore can be divisive but I see this as significant for Beto, just the recognition of leadership. 
[/url] I liked this one from the comments:
Beto may yet gain some steam. I think he'll be uniquely positioned to pick up a lot of Biden support when he collapses having progressive bonafides with a demonstrated willingness to take action but still somehow being able to preach unity. 
After his early stumbles people started writing him off, attributing his success more to: "maybe it was just standing next to Ted Cruz", which I think is wrong.
Would be great to see him pick up a significant number of delegates to help with a legit run to get on the ticket. Warren-Beto all the way.
 
 
 

Disagree. He benefited initially from standing next to Cruz, but he’s faltering in this race for the same reason he faltered here. He’s passionate without making a real attempt to be persuasive.

[horncyclist 1387]

36 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Disagree. He benefited initially from standing next to Cruz, but he’s faltering in this race for the same reason he faltered here. He’s passionate without making a real attempt to be persuasive.

He "faltered" in the Senate race because the GOP spent an unprecedented amount to defeat him and sent in the President at the last minute to turn out their base. 

He's been persuasive on the gun issue...and on immigration at times, though he had that deer in the headlights look in the first debate. Its his passion that makes him persuasive. And he's struggled in the primary because 1) crowded and impressive field, 2) bad strategy out of the gate and 3) intense scrutiny from left and right when he launched, both saw him as a threat.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

He "faltered" in the Senate race because the GOP spent an unprecedented amount to defeat him and sent in the President at the last minute to turn out their base. 

He's been persuasive on the gun issue...and on immigration at times, though he had that deer in the headlights look in the first debate. Its his passion that makes him persuasive. And he's struggled in the primary because 1) crowded and impressive field, 2) bad strategy out of the gate and 3) intense scrutiny from left and right when he launched, both saw him as a threat.

He ran a great campaign in Texas against Cruz and it consumed a lot of their resources. But his loss is on him. He’s just not very mature as a candidate and needs rounding out.

He (and we) would have benefited from another congressional term followed by another statewide race.

 

Also- comparing an AR-15 to a bazooka or tank is stupid, and so is the “by your logic” trope, which is rude on top of stupid. Is he channeling Ben Shapiro?

[zork 629]

If only Beto would have spent more time in Iowa, he's polling there at 2%.  Why didn't he get out and meet the people like he did in his losing run in Texas?  What did he do wrong?(re: unchanged 2% from earlier 2% from major polling in Iowa)

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

If only Beto would have spent more time in Iowa, he's polling there at 2%.  Why didn't he get out and meet the people like he did in his losing run in Texas?  What did he do wrong?(re: unchanged 2% from earlier 2% from major polling in Iowa)

He never found his why, and gun control won’t cut it.

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

Beto spent a ton of time in Iowa a few months ago. Good old fashioned retail politics. But wasn't getting good polling results out of it. 

 

[Celery Man 20934]

Also- comparing an AR-15 to a bazooka or tank is stupid, and so is the “by your logic” trope, which is rude on top of stupid. Is he channeling Ben Shapiro?

Show your work - why is that argument stupid.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

9 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Show your work - why is that argument stupid.

 

It's not a sliperry slope. An AR-15 or AK-47 are semi-automatic weapons with practical application for an individual civilian. A tank is an armored vehicle mounted with cannon that is used in the front lines of combined arms combat and has no individual civilian application. Likewise a bazooka, which is primarily an anti-tank weapon. Those are weapons of war exclusively. 

[Celery Man 20934]

The purpose is to illustrate that there are and should be restrictions on the 2nd amendment, which isn't stupid.  I also disagree with the rest of your argument but it's not important.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Just now, Celery Man said:

The purpose is to illustrate that there are and should be restrictions on the 2nd amendment, which isn't stupid.  I also disagree with the rest of your argument but it's not important.

This

[housious 468]

On 9/20/2019 at 1:08 PM, Hornius Emeritus said:

You don't know the meaning of fun until you go deer hunting with a glock.

Please. I hit my dove limit with a glock in 30 minutes. With one magazine. 

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

A tank is an armored vehicle mounted with cannon that is used in the front lines of combined arms combat and has no individual civilian application. Likewise a bazooka, which is primarily an anti-tank weapon. Those are weapons of war exclusively. 

Excuse me sir.  When deployed for civilian use, the term "Rescue Vehicle" is the preferred nomenclature for war fighting vehicles. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's not a sliperry slope. An AR-15 or AK-47 are semi-automatic weapons with practical application for an individual civilian. A tank is an armored vehicle mounted with cannon that is used in the front lines of combined arms combat and has no individual civilian application. Likewise a bazooka, which is primarily an anti-tank weapon. Those are weapons of war exclusively. 

What is the practical application those weapons have for an individual civilian? 

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Beto spent a ton of time in Iowa a few months ago. Good old fashioned retail politics. But wasn't getting good polling results out of it. 

 

Why do you think?  Iowans don't like Beto?  There has to be some internals from some polling somewhere that could explain it.  No middle aged women that he seemed to grab in Texas?  Not enough Hispanics in Iowa perhaps?  Seemed like he grabbed both of those populations in Texas, although not enough to overcome Cruz.

2%.

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

Just now, zork said:

Why do you think?  Iowans don't like Beto?  There has to be some internals from some polling somewhere that could explain it.  No middle aged women that he seemed to grab in Texas?  Not enough Hispanics in Iowa perhaps?  Seemed like he grabbed both of those populations in Texas, although not enough to overcome Cruz.

2%.

They like Beto. Currently they just like a few other candidates more. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

44 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is the practical application those weapons have for an individual civilian? 

An AR-15 or AK-47?  If I lived in any rural area with a pig problem or a bunch of meth heads and poachers I would absolutely want an AK-47. It's the right round and the right configuration in a super reliable package. Neither of them are any good for hunting, but they are both terrific for a panicked, outnumbered self-protection situation when law enforcement could be 30-45 mins away. 

The thing with AR-15s is that they have a bunch of aftermarket shit you can do with them, like Barbies. But they really aren't the best gun for any purpose. A Kalashnikov Rifle is better than an AR-15 at everything, but you can't make it look as cool,  so insecure men and disturbed loners don't like them as much. 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's not a sliperry slope. An AR-15 or AK-47 are semi-automatic weapons with practical application for an individual civilian. A tank is an armored vehicle mounted with cannon that is used in the front lines of combined arms combat and has no individual civilian application. Likewise a bazooka, which is primarily an anti-tank weapon. Those are weapons of war exclusively. 

It's like you have never had to clear hogs off of your land.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

A friend of mine had a sounder like this driven right into his face outside of Jourdanton a few months ago - this is why I would want an AK-47 or AR-15 if I lived there, not to mention the poachers and druggies. 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Js1 85310]

6 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

It's like you have never had to clear hogs off of your land.

I usually just throw some bibles and twinks at the Huckabees, they eventually run off. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

A Kalashnikov Rifle is better than an AR-15 at everything,

Respectfully disagree.  I find an AR-15 to be more accurate at distance with less recoil.  I can land follow up shots quicker with more precision.  Also, the AR-15 platform is more accessory friendly when it comes to mounting scopes and bipods. 

The AK-47 has more stopping power but at 100 yards, my SKS is more reliable with iron sights. However, the SKS doesn’t have the 30 round standard magazine capacity of a AK.  

Edited September 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Respectfully disagree.  I find an AR-15 to be more accurate at distance with less recoil.  I can land follow up shots quicker with more precision.  Also, the AR-15 platform is more accessory friendly when it comes to mounting scopes and bipods. 

The AK-47 has more stopping power but at 100 yards, my SKS is more reliable with iron sights. However, the SKS doesn’t have the 30 round standard magazine capacity of a AK.  

That's a totally fair point but for my own purposes I can't imagine using either of those guns for individual targets 100 yards out.  They just don't seem like a good tool for that. 

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I usually just throw some bibles and twinks at the Huckabees, they eventually run off. 

that attracts Falwells though.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That's a totally fair point but for my own purposes I can't imagine using either of those guns for individual targets 100 yards out.  They just don't seem like a good tool for that. 

Both the AR-15 and AK-47 have little practical purpose at close range too.  There are better options available. 

If I come across a water moccasin within 20 feet, give me a .22lr Ruger pistol or a shotgun because there’s little chance I’m going to hit it with my first shot coming out of an AR-15 (unless I have it perfectly sighted for short range). 

The AR/AKs can be good for taking out coyotes but so are regular hunting rifles. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

45 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

An AR-15 or AK-47?  If I lived in any rural area with a pig problem or a bunch of meth heads and poachers I would absolutely want an AK-47. It's the right round and the right configuration in a super reliable package. Neither of them are any good for hunting, but they are both terrific for a panicked, outnumbered self-protection situation when law enforcement could be 30-45 mins away. 

The thing with AR-15s is that they have a bunch of aftermarket shit you can do with them, like Barbies. But they really aren't the best gun for any purpose. A Kalashnikov Rifle is better than an AR-15 at everything, but you can't make it look as cool,  so insecure men and disturbed loners don't like them as much. 

What percentage of Americans would you say arm themselves with those weapons for those purposes?  Is it even 5%?  If the objection is that they have as much practical use as a tank for 95% of the population, that strikes me as more of a quibble.   And even tanks/armored vehicles have potential use in some police situations.  Situations like that call for limited highly regulated exceptions, but I don't see why they really detract from the notion that the default in modern society should be a ban. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

44 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What percentage of Americans would you say arm themselves with those weapons for those purposes?  Is it even 5%?  If the objection is that they have as much practical use as a tank for 95% of the population, that strikes me as more of a quibble.   And even tanks/armored vehicles have potential use in some police situations.  Situations like that call for limited highly regulated exceptions, but I don't see why they really detract from the notion that the default in modern society should be a ban. 

What percentage of people with guns use them for anything at all?  You asked what practical application they have, not whether that's the intent. Most people who own AR-15s probably bought them because they think they look cool or they are fun to shoot stuff with. Fun is a legitimate civilian purpose too, and an AR-15 used for plinking is arguably safer and less problematic than most shotguns or pistols. 

But a ban on what? I'm ok various forms of regulation: registration, licensing, training requirements, red flag laws, background checks, restrictions on third party transfers, etc. I've also got no qualms about permitting of the type used for sawed off shotguns for particularly dangerous or difficult to control personal weapons. I'm even theoretically OK with a manufacturing ban on problem products. But a mandatory civilian buy back on a very useful and practical personal defensive weapon? That's an overreach. 

Look, I'm a big liberal, but when rural people talk about how their concerns are invisible to Democrats in urban environments, this kind of thing is what they are talking about. That guy got absolutely dragged on twitter a few weeks ago when he mentioned how he would use an AR to protect his family from 30-50 feral hogs coming into his yard when his kids were playing. Have you ever seen a sounder of feral hogs? I have. They are terrifying and can kill. Democrats need to start listening to the people that share our economic concerns and understand what Bernie used to talk about: that Brooklyn and Rural Vermont (and Rural Texas)  are different kinds of places with unique circumstances.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But a mandatory civilian buy back on a very useful and practical personal defensive weapon? That's an overreach. 

Landmines are a very useful defensive weapon as well.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Landmines are a very useful defensive weapon as well.

Ridiculous. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ridiculous. 

Why?

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why?

Because, again, a rifle is in certain circumstances the best civilian option for self protection. A landmine is never, ever a useful, responsible or practical choice for that, on top of being an indiscriminate and problematic weapon of war. Again, this is why Democrats fuck up the gun debate - too many progressives just think they can deploy stupid analogies to cancel the concerns of people who have lives they don't understand. It's as bad as fundamentalist conservatives. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Biff Tannen 45673]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because, again, a rifle is in certain circumstances the best civilian option for self protection. A landmine is never, ever a useful, responsible or practical choice for that, on top of being an indiscriminate and problematic weapon of war. Again, this is why Democrats fuck up the gun debate - too many progressives just think they can deploy stupid analogies to cancel the concerns of people who have lives they don't understand. It's as bad as fundamentalist conservatives. 

Ron Swanson disagrees with you

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

Sorry your toy is fun to shoot and good only for killing hordes of pigs or hordes of meth addled trespassers - oh and school children. But as a society we have to decide that the correlation to every mass shooting is too strong and the weapon has to go. 

[Guest Lobo]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because, again, a rifle is in certain circumstances the best civilian option for self protection. A landmine is never, ever a useful, responsible or practical choice for that, on top of being an indiscriminate and problematic weapon of war. Again, this is why Democrats fuck up the gun debate - too many progressives just think they can deploy stupid analogies to cancel the concerns of people who have lives they don't understand. It's as bad as fundamentalist conservatives. 

Pipe down, Princess Diana.  Land Mines saved a lot of innocent lives in myriad African and Asian genocides.  When you can't arm a whole village of women and children, you can at least help defend their village by scattering landmines around the access points to keep would-be intruders/murderers/traffickers/rapists out, or at least scared at the shitty odds and move onto the next village.  But yeah, unfortunately during said genocides---a lot of landman surveyors died and were unable to painstakingly detail where every mine was placed so you had innocent people getting blown up for no reason after the fact.  Which is why I still fully support land mine sales so long as people demonstrate a proficiency for properly detailing where on their land they placed the mine, when it was placed there, when it was serviced, and that they have a biometric secured landmine safe in their home so that they cannot accidentally step on it after drinking or being poorly-rested.  But Land Mine tradeshows at the local and county levels have to stop.  As do private neighbor-to-neighbor transactions of landmines.  And you have to register your landmine with the federal government.  Unless of course it's already buried, in which case-we still strongly encourage you to dig AROUND the unit to verify the serial number and model.  The Bill of Rights was rather clear on Landmines.  If you believe the constitution to be a living, breathing document tacitly capable of evolving with our nation and its people (as I do, as a classic liberal)...then you must acknowledge that muskets and mines shall exist side-by-side in the Republic.  

Facetiousness aside, landmines, AR-15's, bazookas, AK-47's...all of this shit have two things in common.  Stupid people (read, most Americans) don't need them;  and holy shit---did I miss out on the door-to-door "Jane's Weapons System" book salesman?  

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

14 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Sorry your toy is fun to shoot and good only for killing hordes of pigs or hordes of meth addled trespassers - oh and school children. But as a society we have to decide that the correlation to every mass shooting is too strong and the weapon has to go. 

I don't have an AK or AR, because I don't live in a place where I could use one. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't have an AK or AR, because I don't live in a place where I could use one. 

Actually, the "tanks and RPGs" counter is NOT to the argument you are making.  It is a counter to the argument the gun nut crowd makes as to why they need ARs etc.:

"I need my AR to defend myself against a potentially totalitarian government."

If that is the reason we need the 2nd amendment and people should have a right to bear arms (note, it says "arms," not guns), then your "I got lotsa pigs and meth addicts in the country" is irrelevant.  The purpose is to be able to wage counter-warfare against a totalitarian government.  If that is what we the people must be allowed to do, then we must be allowed to arm ourselves with the weapons capable of doing so.

In 1789, parity in weaponry to the government could be accomplished with 1) rifles and 2) cannons.  That's it -- arms weren't terribly advanced.

If that same, originalist goal is still in play, then parity remains necessary.  While we can have all kinds of tactical arguments about how we could fight a successful guerilla campaign of harassment with ARs and IEDs, that's not what the 2nd amendment stood for in 1789.  It stood for the proposition of a people being able to go toe-to-toe with the gubmint (again, if that's your thesis).  So, Beto's questions are actually apropos in response to that argument.  

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What percentage of people with guns use them for anything at all?  You asked what practical application they have, not whether that's the intent. Most people who own AR-15s probably bought them because they think they look cool or they are fun to shoot stuff with. Fun is a legitimate civilian purpose too, and an AR-15 used for plinking is arguably safer and less problematic than most shotguns or pistols. 

But a ban on what? I'm ok various forms of regulation: registration, licensing, training requirements, red flag laws, background checks, restrictions on third party transfers, etc. I've also got no qualms about permitting of the type used for sawed off shotguns for particularly dangerous or difficult to control personal weapons. I'm even theoretically OK with a manufacturing ban on problem products. But a mandatory civilian buy back on a very useful and practical personal defensive weapon? That's an overreach. 

Look, I'm a big liberal, but when rural people talk about how their concerns are invisible to Democrats in urban environments, this kind of thing is what they are talking about. That guy got absolutely dragged on twitter a few weeks ago when he mentioned how he would use an AR to protect his family from 30-50 feral hogs coming into his yard when his kids were playing. Have you ever seen a sounder of feral hogs? I have. They are terrifying and can kill. Democrats need to start listening to the people that share our economic concerns and understand what Bernie used to talk about: that Brooklyn and Rural Vermont (and Rural Texas)  are different kinds of places with unique circumstances.

If fun counts as a legitimate civilian purpose, you're losing the distinction with tanks.  They would be a blast to drive around and fire on a ranch, which is why Tony Buzbee had one.  And that's pretty much Beto's point.  Fun, hobby, curiosity, whatever, isn't enough justification for certain weapons given the cost. 

The ban would be on owning AR-15s and AK-47s.  We're talking about Beto's statements, right?  That's what he proposes.   And if the practical use for those weapons is culling feral hogs and slaughtering roving bands of meth heads when you don't live within 30-45 minutes of police, as you said, they don't seem very useful to me for most Americans.   For the small number of Americans who do have those needs, there could easily be exceptions for areas without police, or for animal control if that really is the only effective strategy for hogs.  Registration, licensing, limited use allowed, etc. 

But after that tweet you mention went viral, and the "out of touch lib" backlash happened, I saw it reported that four people have been killed by feral hogs in the history of the United States.  Four.  They may well be terrifying, but I'd bet there are other ways of dealing with them that don't require our country being flooded with these weapons. 

I hear you about rural Americans.   But why are Dems the ones who always need to start listening to the concerns of rural Republicans?   They haven't given a shit about our concerns on guns for years, as people have been slaughtered in urban areas across the country.   Multiples more than deaths by feral hogs or groups of methheads too large to handle with a shotgun.    At this point, yeah, my view is, fuck 'em.  I used to care about the legitimate uses for these weapons, but now I just don't.   They have their right to vote, and so do I and the 80%+ (and growing) of Americans who live in urban areas.  My view is, we'll see who should really be listening to whom and trying to compromise. 

[Celery Man 20934]

to be fair to the 30-50 hogs guy and the idea of urban liberals being deaf to the needs of rural folk, he was responding to... a guy from northern Alabama.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

41 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't have an AK or AR, because I don't live in a place where I could use one. 

That's fair.   But I do live in a place where my kids have to practice hiding in their elementary school because of people who own an AK or AR.   And rural America hasn't given a fuck about my kids. 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because, again, a rifle is in certain circumstances the best civilian option for self protection. A landmine is never, ever a useful, responsible or practical choice for that, on top of being an indiscriminate and problematic weapon of war. Again, this is why Democrats fuck up the gun debate - too many progressives just think they can deploy stupid analogies to cancel the concerns of people who have lives they don't understand. It's as bad as fundamentalist conservatives. 

On the last page you advocate for the possession of assault rifles because it's fun to shoot them.  Are you abandoning the second amendment defense?  Because any well regulated militia is going to need more than some ar15s to "protect the security of a free State".  

Hell an ar against a whole sounder of wild hogs is inadequate. Based on the video you linked, you could get maybe 3 to 4 of those hogs with one weapon. Now some strategically placed bouncing betties and your hog problem is gone.

Also there were 4 wild pig related fatalities (3 of the 4 were hunting related) and only 412 attacks from 1825 to 2012. We've had 313 deaths and over 1200 injuries in the US since January from mass shootings alone. Fuck 20 (5x the number of all hog fatalities over a 187 year period) first graders were killed on one day in December 2012.

I know it must suck to have to keep your head on a swivel when you are at the ranch on the off chance that you startle a pig and it charges you instead of running away, but I'll take that over having to keep my head on a swivel every time I go to Walmart, a concert, or school.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

21 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's fair.   But I do live in a place where my kids have to practice hiding in their elementary school because of people who own an AK or AR.   And rural America hasn't given a fuck about my kids. 

My kid's school is on lockdown multiple times a year. But that's not because people in the country have ARs. I'll say again, I think we need sensible gun control regulation and a whole lot more. Mandatory buybacks of AR-15s doesn't seem like sensible regulation and it will do jack shit about the root causes of mass violence, murder, suicide, and other types of mayhem, or for that matter the millions of people out there suffering alone. 
George Henard used a Glock 17 and a Ruger. My point is not that people will use other guns. My point is that assault rifle buybacks would be a political substitute for healing and medical intervention, and it won't stop anything. 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[BLKNSTY 289]

Active Duty Army Arrested for targeting CNN? and Beto

(CNN)A US Army soldier discussed bomb-making techniques and bombing a major American news network's headquarters, as well as named presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke as a possible target before being arrested this weekend, according to court documents released on Monday.

Jarrett William Smith, 24, was charged with distribution of information related to weapons of mass destruction after offering to teach others bomb-making and discussing bombing the news network's headquarters, according to documents in Kansas federal court. He was stationed at Fort Riley in Kansas before his arrest on Saturday. The arrest of Smith comes amid a wave of arrests and charges the Justice Department has made disrupting possible domestic terror plots.

Smith allegedly discussed with a confidential source to the FBI that "the headquarters of a major American news network would be a suggested target, utilizing a vehicle bomb," an FBI agent wrote in court papers. The news network is not named in the court documents.

Smith made an initial appearance in Kansas federal court Monday afternoon. He is scheduled to appear again in federal court for a detention hearing on Thursday in Topeka. Smith's attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.

According to court documents, Smith also mentioned O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman, in a chat with an undercover FBI agent on September 20. The undercover agent had told Smith he was looking to target a politician, and Smith responded with instructions on making a bomb or grenade.

"You got anyone down in Texas that would be a good fit for fire, destruction and death?" the undercover agent said to him. "Outside of Beto? I don't know enough people that would be relevant enough to cause a change if they died," Smith replied. The FBI had begun tracking Smith in March, who had been stationed in Texas since 2017. He was transferred to Fort Riley in July.

O'Rourke campaign spokeswoman Aleigha Cavalier thanked the FBI for their work in the case.

"We take any threat like this very seriously, and our team is in direct contact with the FBI regarding this case," she said. "This isn't about any one person or one campaign, and we won't let this scare us or cause us to back down in fighting for what's right."

Smith had discussed as early as 2016 joining a far-right paramilitary group in Ukraine before he became a US Army soldier in 2017. He then bragged in a Facebook chat about being able to build explosives "in the style of the Afghans," the court filings said.

Then, about a month ago, Smith started speaking to the FBI's confidential source and an undercover federal agent. He discussed in an online chat group plotting an attack in the US, said he was looking for other "radicals," and suggested targeting the leftist group Antifa, cell towers and a local news station, authorities allege. Separately, Smith suggested a vehicle bomb could be used to target "the headquarters of a major American news network," and gave advice on building explosives.

Army Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, the director of public affairs for the 1st Infantry Division in Kansas, confirmed Smith is an active duty soldier. He said the Army cooperated with the FBI in its investigation.

"These allegations violate our Army Values so we take them very seriously," Kelley said in the statement. "Our law enforcement team cooperated with the FBI on his arrest over the weekend."

CNN's Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

8 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

On the last page you advocate for the possession of assault rifles because it's fun to shoot them.  Are you abandoning the second amendment defense?  Because any well regulated militia is going to need more than some ar15s to "protect the security of a free State".  

Hell an ar against a whole sounder of wild hogs is inadequate. Based on the video you linked, you could get maybe 3 to 4 of those hogs with one weapon. Now some strategically placed bouncing betties and your hog problem is gone.

Also there were 4 wild pig related fatalities (3 of the 4 were hunting related) and only 412 attacks from 1825 to 2012. We've had 313 deaths and over 1200 injuries in the US since January from mass shootings alone. Fuck 20 (5x the number of all hog fatalities over a 187 year period) first graders were killed on one day in December 2012.

I know it must suck to have to keep your head on a swivel when you are at the ranch on the off chance that you startle a pig and it charges you instead of running away, but I'll take that over having to keep my head on a swivel every time I go to Walmart, a concert, or school.

 

You're projecting. I never took up a 2nd amendment defense. Stop tilting at windmills. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

By the way - why do people act like the entire politics of gun ownership revolves around the second amendment?  There's no 2nd amendment in the EU, and yet they have semi-automatic rifles and gun ownership there. I've spent quite some time in rural France with family, in the Loire valley and in the 3 borders region on the Moselle river. Lots and lots of semi-automatic rifles in those villages. Very few mass shootings, because they have healthcare and and a mental healthcare system and people have more community support, but they do have lots of guns. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You're projecting. I never took up a 2nd amendment defense. Stop tilting at windmills. 

Cool.

So your only reason for keeping assault weapons on the streets is because they are fun to shoot and the microscopic chance you are cornered and attacked by a roaming sounder of hogs?

You realize that (poor) people still have to take off their shoes to board an aircraft, because one person tried and failed to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight? Why don't they just put all of that TSA money into mental health screening instead?

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Grade of D as in David

[SquishMitten 10403]

I made the pig argument for years. I started carrying an AR when riding around the ranch for when I encounter them. I've dropped three from a pack as they ran (likely hit more of them, but they ran off into the brush so no telling if they died). Before purchasing the AR, I'd dropped two from a running pack with my 30.06 on multiple occasions (probably didn't hit any others unless I got lucky with a shot passing through into a pig behind it).  From a distance, I've dropped 3 from pack grazing in a field with the 30.06. So much more lethal range I can get that first shot off before they start moving (which is generally not going to work with an AR without getting pretty lucky). After I realized this, I don't make the pig argument anymore. 

With a hunting party - like 4 or 5 guys with ARs - they probably get the edge. With multiple shooters firing into a heard, multiple stray shots into the same pig are far more likely to end up being lethal rather than the single stray bullet I might have landed. But how many people ever end up in that situation? I'm guessing extremely few. I can get essentially the same results with my 30.06. I'd give up my AR.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My kid's school is on lockdown multiple times a year. But that's not because people in the country have guns. I'll say again, I think we need sensible gun control regulation and a whole lot more. Mandatory buybacks of AR-15s doesn't seem like sensible regulation and it will do jack shit about the root causes of mass violence, murder, suicide, and other types of mayhem, or for that matter the millions of people out there suffering alone. 
George Henard used a Glock 17 and a Ruger. My point is not that people will use other guns. My point is that assault rifle buybacks will be a substitute for healing, and it won't stop anything. 

 

I just don't buy that.   Who says it won't stop anything?   It will stop plenty of potential killers who either won't be able to figure out how to get the weapons on the black market or who will be caught in stings while trying to find the black market.   People who could have otherwise gotten the guns from their parents, or at Walmart. 

And if you want to talk efficacy, how many lives do AKs and ARs actually save?   How many people will die from attacks of feral hogs and meth head gangs if people are deprived of those guns and have to make do with shotguns or just running from the danger?   And I'm not trying to be cute about the examples you gave — I get that your point is that these guns have a practical use when a person is under seige from a big group of people or animals.   Yet I haven't seen many "Man mows down 14 attackers with AR-15" stories in the news.   If banning these guns won't cost any lives, why isn't it worth the chance that even one school shooting will be prevented?   Let alone that many might be prevented? 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way - why do people act like the entire politics of gun ownership revolves around the second amendment?  There's no 2nd amendment in the EU, and yet they have semi-automatic rifles and gun ownership there. I've spent quite some time in rural France with family, in the Loire valley and in the 3 borders region on the Moselle river. Lots and lots of semi-automatic rifles in those villages. Very few mass shootings, because they have healthcare and and a mental healthcare system and people have more community support, but they do have lots of guns. 

I agree we should model the French and get our firearms per 100,000 citizens down from 120 to 19.6.

I don't think that's what you had in mind though.

[Js1 85310]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've spent quite some time in rural France with family, in the Loire valley and in the 3 borders region on the Moselle river. Lots and lots of semi-automatic rifles in those villages. 

You think a Frenchman is going to live near the German border without guns?  Fool me a third time....

[Mojo Hand 4580]

31 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way - why do people act like the entire politics of gun ownership revolves around the second amendment?  There's no 2nd amendment in the EU, and yet they have semi-automatic rifles and gun ownership there. I've spent quite some time in rural France with family, in the Loire valley and in the 3 borders region on the Moselle river. Lots and lots of semi-automatic rifles in those villages. Very few mass shootings, because they have healthcare and and a mental healthcare system and people have more community support, but they do have lots of guns. 

The reason is that there's a cult here built around the Second Amendment that doesn't exist anywhere else.  If American gun owners were like French gun owners, that would be great.  But they're not.  American gun owners would never accept the strict regulations they have on those weapons in France:

"Category B includes any firearm with a barrel shorter than 18.5 inches and a removable magazine with capacity larger than three rounds. For these, you need a sports shooting license, which means active membership in a shooting club, presenting yourself at a firing range at least three times a year, and visiting a physician annually for a physical and mental certification that you are capable of owning a firearm.

The procedure and all accompanying paperwork must be presented every three years. In between, this license can be revoked in an instant by the local police. When this licensing went into effect several years back, anyone who did not want to go through all the steps had simply to turn in their weapons. As many as 500,000 were relinquished."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/opinions/france-america-gun-laws-opinion-andelman/index.html

I mean, I'd accept that as a compromise, but you don't get that unless you're about to ban them altogether. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 I find an AR-15 to be more accurate at distance with less recoil.  I can land follow up shots quicker with more precision.  Also, the AR-15 platform is more accessory friendly when it comes to mounting scopes and bipods. 

We are talking standard 16” barrel right?  My impression was they can be an accurate platform once you start putting good barrels in them. I don’t own any (yet) but when I was shopping LaRues seemed pretty accurate iirc. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If you want to troll a trump supporter, ask him why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Then ask him what flag the tyrants will be flying when they need to be violently overthrown with guns.

Then ask them why they hate America and the flag. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

We are talking standard 16” barrel right?  My impression was they can be an accurate platform once you start putting good barrels in them. I don’t own any (yet) but when I was shopping LaRues seemed pretty accurate iirc. 

The AR-15s my friends own and I’ve shot have been remarkably accurate with iron sights at 100 yards. I don’t own one but I own something like it. (SCAR).