Aerik

People who don't want to spend a lot shouldn't buy AR's. That's like buying a Duc 1098R 'because I just wanted something to putt around town and save gas'. The whole point of buying an AR is to show off how you can afford the latest almost-military tactical niftiness and fancy black accessories.

Agreed. And if some AR snob at the range gives you shit about having a cheapass gun, toss a bit of dust on his AR (so he can't shoot you), pull his black custom tacti-cool rangebag over his head, and strangle him with his nylon tacti-cool harness. Then, take his wallet. Those guys have bank.

Yup. Akron area, I think. Ohio, at any rate.

If you just want a 9mm range toy, a Hi-Point carbine is ridiculously cheap but lots of fun. ARs are way too expensive to buy in a pistol caliber. You can find a used Beretta CX4 Storm cheaper than the AR as well, if Hi-point's reputation creeps you out. But the Hi-Point I had was reasonably reliable and accurate enough for range fun. In the years I had it, it jammed exactly twice, using the Walmart bulk winchester white-box.

Interesting. Good find. Let me know if you actually try it-- I CBA right now, but might later on.

Your conversion is not complete until you understand this: Once you truly understand the value and versatility of the above bottle of awesome-sauce, you'll be one of us.

Exactly. This is why so many people buy Jettas: They're wicked badass once they level up. /nerd

They're nice, but I still want the new cb1100f more. Old-school nastiness is win.

Beer makes any debate more entertaining.

More importantly, what're you buying next?

Correct. I've only been arguing that one way will serve us better than the other.

I'm fairly certain that if Saddam had had anything serious, he'd have tried to use it on us (or on his own people while blaming it on us) before we captured him. Who goes and hides in a hole in the floor when they've got WMD's they could use?

Meh, some will ignore us anyway, others won't. I see three main types of right-wingers on here: The more reasonable, intelligent (if still WRONG! ) righties typically enjoy the debate, so they're not going anywhere. Guys like IP, for example, who we all argue with and normally have fun and no hard feelings after. Moronic true believers may or not ignore us; it just depends on whether they feel like they're winning the current argument. And the loonies (like that guy Todd #43, who I'm pretty sure is the guy who scratches the paranoid gibberish and racial slurs into the walls in public bathrooms) won't ignore us because they need 'enemies' to get through their day.

All that means is that, when we execute them, our reasons and justifications will be plainly obvious to anyone interested in looking. Dead is still dead, it's just that one way makes us look just, the other makes us look suspicious.

The main reason there is a debate on this topic at all is that we don't really have a firm precedent for how to handle this kind of situation: this guy's not a US citizen, not a member of a foreign government or military. Technically, he's a foreign civilian, but obviously he doesn't fall into the same category as, say, a German tourist who gets into a fistfight while here. Since none of our laws/ policies have a clear, constitutionally-valid, objectively established category for 'Terrorist Dirtbag, Prosecution of', we're setting precedent as we go. What kind of category we slot this guy into will have a long-term effect on every other similar (and possibly not-so-similar) case in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to think both near-term and long-term, and to carefully weigh the implications and possible consequences of our actions. The military tribunal system has been used for different reasons in differing circumstances throughout our history, but has always been primarily a mechanism for dealing with members of opposing militaries. FDR, for example, used military tribunals to handle some Nazi prisoners. Using it in this context, to prosecute a foreign civilian (no matter how vile that person is, in this case) sets a precedent: Effectively, it's us saying, "In situations we deem to be fitting, we can take a person from some other country and subject them to an expedited, secretive (often) trial whose rules and practices are not nearly so clear-cut and transparent as those of a traditional court system." We would go (justifiably) ape-shit if another country did the same thing to one of our citizens. It shouldn't be surprising that even our staunch allies are creeped-out and generally uncomfortable with us trying to handle things that way. It'd be far too easy to stretch it and apply it to currently un-thought-of situations. The civilian court system, on the other hand, has as its primary virtues a clear set of rules, a transparency (necessary for international legitimacy) that is essentially unparalleled, and (despite all its flaws) a relatively well-acknowledged fairness. It could certainly do with plenty of improvement, but it's currently one of the better things out there. I'm well aware that this guy is not an American citizen, but the truth is that handling the case in this way makes the (probable) conviction much more legitimate to all reasonable eyes because it lacks the fuzziness or secrecy of the tribunal system. Given that, no matter what we do, we'll be adapting one of these two systems to a task for which it was not designed, I believe our long-term ends are better served by this option over the tribunal system. Neither is perfect, but sometimes policy is trying to pick the crappy option most likely to produce a good outcome.

You mean American citizens carrying out their civic duty to try and stay informed, to learn and debate the matters that effect our country, and try to work together to figure out the best way to move forward? Welcome to democracy. If you were arguing that I'm not qualified to argue the finer points of room-clearing in Fallujah, that'd be one thing. But this particular discussion is about policy, not ground-level tactics. We all have a vested interest in seeing this country succeed, and policy effects all of us; therefore, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

You know perfectly well that's not what I was saying; I don't put words in your mouth, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. The post you quoted was in response to your saying that they'd think twice about messing with us if we mutilated their corpses and dragged them through the street. I haven't heard anyone on here advocating any of the things you posted in the above quote. All I was saying is that publicly mutilating and humiliating the corpses of the people we call 'the bad guys' wouldn't really serve any of our long-term ends. Saying I want to give this asshole a job and an education is like me saying that you're advocating slaughtering every last man, woman, and child in the region. It's hyperbole and adds nothing useful to the debate. As I've said before, I simply think that having a trial which is as objectively fair and transparent as possible will portray us in the best possible light, while minimizing the propaganda value the enemy might derive from any proceedings. Part of being the good guys means holding ourselves to higher standards than the people we're trying to fight. Being more fair, more humane in our treatment of a defeated enemy, is not a sign of weakness. Knee-jerk brutality most certainly is. Even though the immediate primate reaction might make us feel better short-term, we'll be better served by living what we claim to be fighting for in the first place. Of course, I'm only speaking of matters off the battlefield, when we're dealing with unarmed prisoners. If they're shooting at you, kill 'em graveyard dead.

Oh, yes, I'm sure that would solve the problem right there. You can't combat an idea by reinforcing it in the minds of the people likely to believe it.

I think the idea is that we would rather not turn this into another recruitment poster for the other side. If they see us railroad him into a military tribunal and swift execution, it might make us feel better, but it gives our enemies someone they can point to and say, "See? Look what America did! No fair trial, they just killed him because they wanna kill all of us!" Then, they gain a useful tool for recruiting and promoting their agenda. If, on the other hand, we settle for a fair, open, legitimate trial, we remove their ability to use it in that way. Part of winning this kind of fight is going out of your way to be seen as the 'good guys', even if it means being more fair than our enemies would. If we become what we're fighting, what was the point of fighting? While we certainly can't change some people's minds, we can definitely present ourselves in such a way that they'll have a harder time convincing people that we're all evil. If one angry teenager over there sees us behaving honorably and decides he doesn't really need to attack us or our troops, it's a step in the right direction. And anyway, let's be real-- it's not like he's going to be acquitted.

And, of course, the modern follow-up version: Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water. Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour. On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets. He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best. Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does not. Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive. His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income. His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War. They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering. Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25. Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!”

So here's a left-wing chainmail post. Enjoy. Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Damn, I forgot all about Lords of Acid. Haven't heard their stuff since they closed the original Outland.

The closest I ever get to techno is with more goth/industrial-related stuff, like VNV Nation, Wumpscut, or Apoptygma Berzerk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-IPG-XnaU

If you keep your eyes open, you can normally find a Remington 700 for $800 or less. It might be worth it to get the rifle, then wait till you get a bit more money to top it off with scope and accessories.