Which is exactly why nutjobs like that (and countries that sympathize with or support them) need to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, by force if necessary.
I personally would have moderated it as offtopic, but I agree with flamebait.
Whether or not we should have gone over there has *nothing* to do with how or why technology failed. The original poster, in the subject and first sentence blatantly tossed away the topic and started into a tirade about how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
For that matter, none of your post has anything to do with the topic either.
This is exactly why technology and strategy/tactics in warfare is a very good thing and saves lives.
Without air power, armor superiority, superior technology, etc, it would have probably been a long, drawn out infantry war that would have claimed many more lives on both sides.
Only on Leftie Slashdot would this not be moderated dominately offtopic. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But no, you people can't seem to pass up any opportunity to pimp your agenda.
Re:When are you going to do a sequel to NEUROMANCE
on
Ask Neal Stephenson
·
· Score: 1
I hope this is a joke (even though I don't see how it would be funny). He didn't write Neuromancer; William Gibson did. Also, there is a sequel, and a sequel to that sequel.
There's Glitch Music and now there's Glitch Art
on
Glitch Art
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I find stuff like this very cool. There's been a genre of music called "glitch" for well over a decade now that's made with the sounds of failing electronics and other things. It's more listenable than some of you may think. Most is arranged into interesting patterns, although some is very abstract. If you like IDM or similar stuff (Aphex Twin, Autechre, etc), you just might like it.
Here is a link. It includes some bands and a description.
Now it makes sense that there's glitch art. Cool stuff. I find stuff like this very interesting, as I find electronics and their output very interesting from an aesthetic perspective. I'm surprised more geeks don't like this sort of thing.
Re:I did the same with sound
on
Glitch Art
·
· Score: 1
There's a whole genre of music called "glitch" that's made out of sounds like that. If you like IDM and the like, you might like it.
I was a Logic fan before they abandoned PC users and VST. Now I'm very happy with Cubase SL 2.X. I in fact like the way Cubase works better than I ever liked Logic. For instance, it has such amazingly fancy things as *gasp* right click context menus.
It's actually considered a full-fledged martial art in some Asian countries, from what I've read.
And I'm sure there are older games than Ur, but they haven't been played continuously since their invention, like Go. There are tons of old games that are no longer played (as far as I know).
Yes, but was there any indication that the government had anything to do with the evil plot? Or was it just Totenkopf? Why would the German government, pre or post WWI fund a plot to blow up the world saving only two of each animal and special human specimens?
I realize he was German, but I didn't see a clear indication that the German government had anything to do with what Totenkopf was doing. The machines all had his personal seal (the death's head), not a swastika or German Cross or anything. In other films set in the 30s with similar roots (pulp comics, for instance), such as Indiana Jones and the Rocketeer, the villains were Nazis, but I didn't notice any indication of that in Sky Captain.
Of course, I think we're seriously overanalyzing the film in the first place.
Exactly right. I actually pity the people who are so critical and are expecting something that this isn't that they can't enjoy this film. Statements like "The CG wasn't realistic" are absurd, since they're not supposed to be. They did, IMO, achieve what they were supposed to do very well, however.
I wasn't around back then, but from what I've seen, I love the 30s style. The big robots were very cool. Yes, it's unbelievable. Yes it's cheesy. That's the frigging point. It's not a modern style film with a slight 30s influence, it's a full-blown tribute to the style. It's very--I repeat *very*--stylized, from the lighting, to the colors, to the plot. If you think everything to do with the 30s is best left forgotten, then you will most likely not like this film, so if you see it, don't say I didn't warn you.
I agree about the "World War One" point, as I (a military historian) noticed it and it bugged me. I started wondering when it was actually set. Do you know for a fact it was in 1939? Maybe it was set in the late 40s? I was also wondering if it was actually just set in an alternate modern day, where the 30s/40s style never went away. But then, I don't remember hearing or seeing any definate dates, although it *looked* like the 30s.
In the 30s, they would have called it "The Great War" (as WWI is still sometimes called) or just "The War".
I missed where they treated pre-WWI Germany as Nazi Germany. There were no Nazi references that I noticed, but if there were, and it was set in the 30s, that would not be inaccurate. WWI Germany was still seen as villainous by the Allied countries, though not as Nazis, which might explain any subtle allusions.
Yes, the last two words definately made me laugh. That and her expression right at the end.
They're both inspired by the same thing: 30s and 40s pulp comics, serials and the like. So no, it's not based on a video game, they just both are based on and inspired by the same style.
This is similar to how people think that the pen-and-paper RPG Cyberpunk 2020 is a rip-off of the RPG Shadowrun, when they're both based on the Cyberpunk literary genre (that and the fact that Cyberpunk the RPG came first).
Exactly right. It thought it achieved its goal very well. It's definately a genre tribute, not an all-things-to-all-people film. I found that the CG fit so well with everything, that I didn't think about it. Yes, it's blurry and dark and monochromatic, along with the characters. But it makes it look very Noir-ish, and that's the point. It accomplished the feel that its creators were going for *very* well, IMHO. If you don't like that style--and it's *very* stylized--then you probably won't like the movie, so if you see it, don't complain when it's not The Matrix or Star Wars or whatever. If you really like the 30s and 40s style of comics and movies (like me), then by all mean, go see it. I don't watch teen comedies or romance movies for this very reason--I don't like that sort of movie, and even if it was a good example of its genre, I still wouldn't appreciate it.
Indiana Jones is another example of movies with the same 30s pulp inspiration, although it's not nearly as stylized as Sky Captain, and is more accessible to more people. It still has the somewhat cheesy unbelievable parts, though.
No offense, but I hate it when people who obviously don't "get" or like what is the creators of something are trying to do complain when it's not like every other movie/game/etc out there. Example: complaining that Doom3 is too dark and that you can't use a flashlight and a weapon. Or someone who hates classical music reviewing a classical record and saying it sucks.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything, but in order to express a "useful" opinion, such as a review, one needs to adopt, at least temporarily, the expectations of a fan of the genre. I don't go to a Schwarzenegger film expecting Oscar-worthy plot or acting, but an hour or two of mindless entertainment. I went to see Sky Captain expecting a tribute to the 30s/40s film and comic style, with its pros and cons, and that's exactly what I saw. I give it four out of five stars.
Yes, that's true, but I didn't want to get into all that with someone who didn't seem to know much about firearms. The.223 (5.56mm) has a lot more powder than a.22LR and shoots a lot faster. You're right that the caliber was reduced to increase carrying capacity, along with other reasons. After WWII, the military determined that the previous doctrine of long range and large caliber was wasted, since most engagements took place only within only about 300 meters. Smaller calibers also help significantly with recoil when firing in automatic mode. I've heard that the aim is to wound rather than kill, and smaller rounds help with that, but I'm not sure about the validity of that.
Semiautos have a higher rate of fire compared to bolt/lever/pump action, yes, but I was comparing semiauto to full auto, as many people seem to confuse the two. I was just pointing out that all pistols, most revolvers, and many shotguns and hunting rifles are all semiauto, so it's nothing unique to "assault weapons".
I'm glad that you seem to know your stuff and agree that it was silly. Like I said, the vast majority of people against the ban don't understand it beyond what the media and hollywood pumps into their brains. I agree that the magazine capacity is the only thing that really makes a functional difference, but I still don't support a magazine capacity limitation.
I never said it can't, but it's less likely than getting killed by a.30-06, which is used to kill 500 pound animals with one shot. A 9mm (jacketed hollow point, if possible) is generally considered the smallest reliable self-defense caliber, and many would argue that it's even too small. A pencil can kill a person and so can a.22, but I'd rather have something that can stop someone *right now* before they attack me.
.22s are usually used for target practice and shooting vermin. It's not very effective for self-defense or hunting large game..223s have a lot more powder behind them, but they still make a pretty small hole compared to larger calibers common to hunting rifles and the like.
I never said everyone would agree with us if we chose to intervene. They obviously don't. However, we're not trying to conquer Iraq. Iraq was trying to conquer Kuwait.
Most of the world didn't like Iraq invading Kuwait and drove them out.
Sovereign nations can do whatever they like; if other countries don't like it, they (being sovereign nation) can attampt to stop the first nation.
I simply meant that the US is not the slave of the UN and can act on its own (as can other nations).
If I was going to kill 1000 kids in a school, I would think a submachine gun would be ideal. Or I'd use bombs, which is what those terrorists did. And no, I'd never do such a thing, but I'm answering your question objectively. The question is meaningless, however, since the terrorists had access to *fully automatic* assault rifles, which have nothing to do with "assault weapons". You still don't seem to understand the former ban. You might as well say that the "assault weapon" ban expiring will lead to more terrorists having nukes. They're not the same thing.
"Assault weapons", as defined in the ban, are *NOT* machine guns, assault rifles, submachine guns, etc. Those things have been very heavily restricted since 1934. If you don't believe me, and you have some semblance of interest in the truth, look it up yourself. In fact, screw that. In an effort to smite ignorance of this issue once and for all, I'll post links:
Now, if you still support the ban, then that's fine, but I at least want you and anyone else who reads this to understand it, and not fall for the anti-gun media spin. And I'm not being a paranoid nut by saying that. The media *reguarly* implies that the ban is a ban on automatic weapons (machine guns), but it's simply not true. TV news programs have even shown fully-auto weapons firing while talking about the ban, which IMO is really dishonest. That would be similar to showing a violent angry mob attacking people and vandalizing property while talking about anti-Bush/war/America/whatever protestors that happen to be peaceful and orderly.
You see, terrorists don't, by nature, obey laws and they get automatic illegal weapons on the black market or some such place. Same with criminals. Do you really think a criminal is going to buy a weapon (whether legal or not) through proper channels where they can be traced to the weapon? And if they wanted automatic weapons (machine guns), they still would be out of luck, as they're still restricted and it's highly unlikely that a criminal or terrorist would be able to get through the huge amount of red-tape (including a comprehensive FBI background check) to get a license. You see, the media is deceiving you; AK-47s are *still illegal*.
There are very few instances of terrorists using AK-47s or any other assault rifle in the US that I know of, mainly because they're hard to aquire and are very indiscreet as well. They generally use bombs, boxcutters, planes, etc. The terrorists that I see with AK-47s are in other countries where they have easy access to them.
You've obviously bought into the media spin if you think it makes it easier to "mow down" people.
If I had to be shot at with either an M16 or a typical hunting rifle, I'd pick an M16. They shoot a.223, which is barely bigger than a.22, if you know what that is (hint: they're mainly used for target practice and shooting small rodents). Deer hunters typically use.30 or larger caliber.
See, I think you think that an "assault weapon" (I use quotes because that's not even a real type of weapon--it's made up to sound like assault rifle and thus, to confuse the two) is fully automatic. It's not. It's semiautomatic. That means you pull the trigger and *bang*. You pull the trigger again and *bang*. Contrast this with automatic, which means that as long as you hold the trigger down, it rapidly fires. Many rifles and all pistols are semiautomatic. The weapons banned are not machine guns. They don't shoot any faster and they don't use any more powerful ammunition. If you look into the (now expired) ban, the criteria include things like: flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. These things are all cosmetic or at most ergonomic and have no effect on lethality. This is why all manufacturers had to do to make their rifles legal was to change minor cosmetic things. Of course, the media calls this a "loophole", but it's not, that's just the arbitrary criteria that is in the ban.
I'm not exaggerating at all when I say this: the ban only affects civilian guns that *look like* military guns. The civilian versions are semiautomatic and are made to be next to impossible to convert to automatic. It's a ban on "scary looking" guns, nothing more, nothing less.
As I've said, I have not heard *one* argument for the ban coming from someone who actually understood weapons and the ban. The media knows that most people will just accept what they say and sure enough, most people think that the ban is of fully-automatic weapons like the AK-47. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. Before that, anyone could buy a Thompson Submachine gun (a tommy gun--what gangsters use in movies) for about $200. Now you have to have a special license that is quite hard to get to own an automatic weapon.
As for purposes for owning one: many people collect them (since they *look like* military rifles), they're accurate, they're reliable, they're durable, and the main thing is that there is no logical reason to *not* let someone have one.
WTF is wrong with leaving the details to generals? That is the smart thing to do. Presidents should determine broad policies and high-level strategic elements, but leave the details to generals. It's called delegation. And it's a wise thing to do.
That was one of Hitler's main blunders--micromanaging everything instead of letting the generals run the war. Of course it's good for the world that he wasn't much of a military strategist, but it was a blunder in an objective sense.
The only exception is the head of state who has a lot of experience as a military leader, but even then, it's usually best to leave military matters to military commanders. Generals make strategic decisions as a job--they're probably better at it than the president.
I don't think we do. The UN is a corrupt organization that can't even agree that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide and agree to do something about it. The leader of that country's government, which has killed millions based on race, is on the UN "human rights commission", which to me means that the UN is a joke.
I think the US should pull out of the UN, personally. We are a sovereign nation, and if we see fit to intervene, we can. Let me state, however, that I am against intervention in general, but if we do intervene, I don't think we need the UN.
He is for the assault weapons ban. That doesn't mean he is anti-gun. He still supports the right to bear arms, but there are limits on what arms we should be able to bear, don't you agree?
No. This means he is anti-gun. The AWB was either a step toward cumulatively banning all guns, or a feel-good piece of legislation that takes away our rights for no good reason, depending on how you look at it. The fact is that "assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than hunting rifles or any other semi-automatic firearms. In fact they're *less* powerful than many hunting rifles. If you believe otherwise, you've obviously been duped by the outright deceitful (at least about this issue) media and anti-gun politicians.
Well, I don't know if it's specifically spelled out there or if it's just an accepted tradition, but it apparently is the official method of execution of the religion, according to quotes from Mohammedans. It is practiced in several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, as the method of execution, but it seems that even there they strive for a single stroke decapitation (as was generall done in medieval Europe), whereas these terrorists take about 30 seconds to cut off their prisoners' heads with knives. This would probably have been considered barbaric in even early medieval Europe.
That said, I did find this quote (I don't have a hardcopy to verify it--these are from online, so believe as you will):
"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:4)
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly why nutjobs like that (and countries that sympathize with or support them) need to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, by force if necessary.
I personally would have moderated it as offtopic, but I agree with flamebait.
Whether or not we should have gone over there has *nothing* to do with how or why technology failed. The original poster, in the subject and first sentence blatantly tossed away the topic and started into a tirade about how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
For that matter, none of your post has anything to do with the topic either.
This is exactly why technology and strategy/tactics in warfare is a very good thing and saves lives.
Without air power, armor superiority, superior technology, etc, it would have probably been a long, drawn out infantry war that would have claimed many more lives on both sides.
Yeah, ok, let's go back to a bunch of savages clubbing people to death.
Efficiency in fact saves lives. Would you prefer long, drawn out battles?
That people really think like this amazes me.
Only on Leftie Slashdot would this not be moderated dominately offtopic. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But no, you people can't seem to pass up any opportunity to pimp your agenda.
I hope this is a joke (even though I don't see how it would be funny). He didn't write Neuromancer; William Gibson did. Also, there is a sequel, and a sequel to that sequel.
Here is a link. It includes some bands and a description.
Now it makes sense that there's glitch art. Cool stuff. I find stuff like this very interesting, as I find electronics and their output very interesting from an aesthetic perspective. I'm surprised more geeks don't like this sort of thing.
There's a whole genre of music called "glitch" that's made out of sounds like that. If you like IDM and the like, you might like it.
I was a Logic fan before they abandoned PC users and VST. Now I'm very happy with Cubase SL 2.X. I in fact like the way Cubase works better than I ever liked Logic. For instance, it has such amazingly fancy things as *gasp* right click context menus.
Uh, it's called "tag".
It's actually considered a full-fledged martial art in some Asian countries, from what I've read.
And I'm sure there are older games than Ur, but they haven't been played continuously since their invention, like Go. There are tons of old games that are no longer played (as far as I know).
Yes, but was there any indication that the government had anything to do with the evil plot? Or was it just Totenkopf? Why would the German government, pre or post WWI fund a plot to blow up the world saving only two of each animal and special human specimens?
I realize he was German, but I didn't see a clear indication that the German government had anything to do with what Totenkopf was doing. The machines all had his personal seal (the death's head), not a swastika or German Cross or anything. In other films set in the 30s with similar roots (pulp comics, for instance), such as Indiana Jones and the Rocketeer, the villains were Nazis, but I didn't notice any indication of that in Sky Captain.
Of course, I think we're seriously overanalyzing the film in the first place.
Exactly right. I actually pity the people who are so critical and are expecting something that this isn't that they can't enjoy this film. Statements like "The CG wasn't realistic" are absurd, since they're not supposed to be. They did, IMO, achieve what they were supposed to do very well, however.
I wasn't around back then, but from what I've seen, I love the 30s style. The big robots were very cool. Yes, it's unbelievable. Yes it's cheesy. That's the frigging point. It's not a modern style film with a slight 30s influence, it's a full-blown tribute to the style. It's very--I repeat *very*--stylized, from the lighting, to the colors, to the plot. If you think everything to do with the 30s is best left forgotten, then you will most likely not like this film, so if you see it, don't say I didn't warn you.
I agree about the "World War One" point, as I (a military historian) noticed it and it bugged me. I started wondering when it was actually set. Do you know for a fact it was in 1939? Maybe it was set in the late 40s? I was also wondering if it was actually just set in an alternate modern day, where the 30s/40s style never went away. But then, I don't remember hearing or seeing any definate dates, although it *looked* like the 30s.
In the 30s, they would have called it "The Great War" (as WWI is still sometimes called) or just "The War".
I missed where they treated pre-WWI Germany as Nazi Germany. There were no Nazi references that I noticed, but if there were, and it was set in the 30s, that would not be inaccurate. WWI Germany was still seen as villainous by the Allied countries, though not as Nazis, which might explain any subtle allusions.
Yes, the last two words definately made me laugh. That and her expression right at the end.
They're both inspired by the same thing: 30s and 40s pulp comics, serials and the like. So no, it's not based on a video game, they just both are based on and inspired by the same style.
This is similar to how people think that the pen-and-paper RPG Cyberpunk 2020 is a rip-off of the RPG Shadowrun, when they're both based on the Cyberpunk literary genre (that and the fact that Cyberpunk the RPG came first).
Exactly right. It thought it achieved its goal very well. It's definately a genre tribute, not an all-things-to-all-people film. I found that the CG fit so well with everything, that I didn't think about it. Yes, it's blurry and dark and monochromatic, along with the characters. But it makes it look very Noir-ish, and that's the point. It accomplished the feel that its creators were going for *very* well, IMHO. If you don't like that style--and it's *very* stylized--then you probably won't like the movie, so if you see it, don't complain when it's not The Matrix or Star Wars or whatever. If you really like the 30s and 40s style of comics and movies (like me), then by all mean, go see it. I don't watch teen comedies or romance movies for this very reason--I don't like that sort of movie, and even if it was a good example of its genre, I still wouldn't appreciate it.
Indiana Jones is another example of movies with the same 30s pulp inspiration, although it's not nearly as stylized as Sky Captain, and is more accessible to more people. It still has the somewhat cheesy unbelievable parts, though.
No offense, but I hate it when people who obviously don't "get" or like what is the creators of something are trying to do complain when it's not like every other movie/game/etc out there. Example: complaining that Doom3 is too dark and that you can't use a flashlight and a weapon. Or someone who hates classical music reviewing a classical record and saying it sucks.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything, but in order to express a "useful" opinion, such as a review, one needs to adopt, at least temporarily, the expectations of a fan of the genre. I don't go to a Schwarzenegger film expecting Oscar-worthy plot or acting, but an hour or two of mindless entertainment. I went to see Sky Captain expecting a tribute to the 30s/40s film and comic style, with its pros and cons, and that's exactly what I saw. I give it four out of five stars.
Yes, that's true, but I didn't want to get into all that with someone who didn't seem to know much about firearms. The .223 (5.56mm) has a lot more powder than a .22LR and shoots a lot faster. You're right that the caliber was reduced to increase carrying capacity, along with other reasons. After WWII, the military determined that the previous doctrine of long range and large caliber was wasted, since most engagements took place only within only about 300 meters. Smaller calibers also help significantly with recoil when firing in automatic mode. I've heard that the aim is to wound rather than kill, and smaller rounds help with that, but I'm not sure about the validity of that.
Semiautos have a higher rate of fire compared to bolt/lever/pump action, yes, but I was comparing semiauto to full auto, as many people seem to confuse the two. I was just pointing out that all pistols, most revolvers, and many shotguns and hunting rifles are all semiauto, so it's nothing unique to "assault weapons".
I'm glad that you seem to know your stuff and agree that it was silly. Like I said, the vast majority of people against the ban don't understand it beyond what the media and hollywood pumps into their brains. I agree that the magazine capacity is the only thing that really makes a functional difference, but I still don't support a magazine capacity limitation.
Nope.
I never said everyone would agree with us if we chose to intervene. They obviously don't. However, we're not trying to conquer Iraq. Iraq was trying to conquer Kuwait.
Most of the world didn't like Iraq invading Kuwait and drove them out.
Sovereign nations can do whatever they like; if other countries don't like it, they (being sovereign nation) can attampt to stop the first nation.
I simply meant that the US is not the slave of the UN and can act on its own (as can other nations).
"Assault weapons", as defined in the ban, are *NOT* machine guns, assault rifles, submachine guns, etc. Those things have been very heavily restricted since 1934. If you don't believe me, and you have some semblance of interest in the truth, look it up yourself. In fact, screw that. In an effort to smite ignorance of this issue once and for all, I'll post links:
Now, if you still support the ban, then that's fine, but I at least want you and anyone else who reads this to understand it, and not fall for the anti-gun media spin. And I'm not being a paranoid nut by saying that. The media *reguarly* implies that the ban is a ban on automatic weapons (machine guns), but it's simply not true. TV news programs have even shown fully-auto weapons firing while talking about the ban, which IMO is really dishonest. That would be similar to showing a violent angry mob attacking people and vandalizing property while talking about anti-Bush/war/America/whatever protestors that happen to be peaceful and orderly.
You see, terrorists don't, by nature, obey laws and they get automatic illegal weapons on the black market or some such place. Same with criminals. Do you really think a criminal is going to buy a weapon (whether legal or not) through proper channels where they can be traced to the weapon? And if they wanted automatic weapons (machine guns), they still would be out of luck, as they're still restricted and it's highly unlikely that a criminal or terrorist would be able to get through the huge amount of red-tape (including a comprehensive FBI background check) to get a license. You see, the media is deceiving you; AK-47s are *still illegal*.
There are very few instances of terrorists using AK-47s or any other assault rifle in the US that I know of, mainly because they're hard to aquire and are very indiscreet as well. They generally use bombs, boxcutters, planes, etc. The terrorists that I see with AK-47s are in other countries where they have easy access to them.
You've obviously bought into the media spin if you think it makes it easier to "mow down" people.
.223, which is barely bigger than a .22, if you know what that is (hint: they're mainly used for target practice and shooting small rodents). Deer hunters typically use .30 or larger caliber.
If I had to be shot at with either an M16 or a typical hunting rifle, I'd pick an M16. They shoot a
See, I think you think that an "assault weapon" (I use quotes because that's not even a real type of weapon--it's made up to sound like assault rifle and thus, to confuse the two) is fully automatic. It's not. It's semiautomatic. That means you pull the trigger and *bang*. You pull the trigger again and *bang*. Contrast this with automatic, which means that as long as you hold the trigger down, it rapidly fires. Many rifles and all pistols are semiautomatic. The weapons banned are not machine guns. They don't shoot any faster and they don't use any more powerful ammunition. If you look into the (now expired) ban, the criteria include things like: flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. These things are all cosmetic or at most ergonomic and have no effect on lethality. This is why all manufacturers had to do to make their rifles legal was to change minor cosmetic things. Of course, the media calls this a "loophole", but it's not, that's just the arbitrary criteria that is in the ban.
I'm not exaggerating at all when I say this: the ban only affects civilian guns that *look like* military guns. The civilian versions are semiautomatic and are made to be next to impossible to convert to automatic. It's a ban on "scary looking" guns, nothing more, nothing less.
As I've said, I have not heard *one* argument for the ban coming from someone who actually understood weapons and the ban. The media knows that most people will just accept what they say and sure enough, most people think that the ban is of fully-automatic weapons like the AK-47. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. Before that, anyone could buy a Thompson Submachine gun (a tommy gun--what gangsters use in movies) for about $200. Now you have to have a special license that is quite hard to get to own an automatic weapon.
As for purposes for owning one: many people collect them (since they *look like* military rifles), they're accurate, they're reliable, they're durable, and the main thing is that there is no logical reason to *not* let someone have one.
WTF is wrong with leaving the details to generals? That is the smart thing to do. Presidents should determine broad policies and high-level strategic elements, but leave the details to generals. It's called delegation. And it's a wise thing to do.
That was one of Hitler's main blunders--micromanaging everything instead of letting the generals run the war. Of course it's good for the world that he wasn't much of a military strategist, but it was a blunder in an objective sense.
The only exception is the head of state who has a lot of experience as a military leader, but even then, it's usually best to leave military matters to military commanders. Generals make strategic decisions as a job--they're probably better at it than the president.
I don't think we do. The UN is a corrupt organization that can't even agree that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide and agree to do something about it. The leader of that country's government, which has killed millions based on race, is on the UN "human rights commission", which to me means that the UN is a joke.
I think the US should pull out of the UN, personally. We are a sovereign nation, and if we see fit to intervene, we can. Let me state, however, that I am against intervention in general, but if we do intervene, I don't think we need the UN.
No. This means he is anti-gun. The AWB was either a step toward cumulatively banning all guns, or a feel-good piece of legislation that takes away our rights for no good reason, depending on how you look at it. The fact is that "assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than hunting rifles or any other semi-automatic firearms. In fact they're *less* powerful than many hunting rifles. If you believe otherwise, you've obviously been duped by the outright deceitful (at least about this issue) media and anti-gun politicians.
Well, I don't know if it's specifically spelled out there or if it's just an accepted tradition, but it apparently is the official method of execution of the religion, according to quotes from Mohammedans. It is practiced in several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, as the method of execution, but it seems that even there they strive for a single stroke decapitation (as was generall done in medieval Europe), whereas these terrorists take about 30 seconds to cut off their prisoners' heads with knives. This would probably have been considered barbaric in even early medieval Europe.
That said, I did find this quote (I don't have a hardcopy to verify it--these are from online, so believe as you will):
"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:4)