[QUOTE="XturnalS"]

What pro-lifers doing repugnant shít to get their misguided, unscientific views across? Stop the fúcking presses.

No, but seriously, fúck those guys and anyone who supports that low-level scummy protest. But in a way I'm kind of glad they keep doing it. News stories like these just galvanize the opposition.

jim_shorts

Then please show me the science. The burden of proof lies with these individuals so by all means I'm ready and eager to see some good ole scientific proof.

What pro-lifers doing repugnant shít to get their misguided, unscientific views across? Stop the fúcking presses.

No, but seriously, fúck those guys and anyone who supports that low-level scummy protest. But in a way I'm kind of glad they keep doing it. News stories like these just galvanize the opposition.

[QUOTE="XturnalS"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *graphic story about rape and blah blah blah -Sun_Tzu-

I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.

Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.

The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.

Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.

That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shít would rather have a gun than no gun.

And I don't see how current events in Syria help the point you're making - if things continue as they have been going over, there's no reason why Assad won't be able to stay in power. Yes, he's killed a bunch of people but he still has substantial support from the Syrian population despite all of that.

If there was one nuke strike on American soil there wouldn't be any need for the sub to have a second strike capability. It would spin up just about all their missles and it would be the end of the ole US as we know it. Because if a unimaginable tyranny that Jim suggests was in power and they said nukes are on the table than everything is already lost.

There wouldn't be a civil war so much as a civil apocalypse. And Syria will fall, it'd take a miracle at this point for Assad to secure any sort of victory. Everyone from Russia to Chine to NATO is preparing for a post-Assad Syria. Human rights organizations are dreading that the violence will get worse once Assad is thrown out. Despite the recent stalemate, every day that passes with rebels not being stamped out (and it appears the only way this will happen would be with chemical warfare, which would lead Assad to a pyrrhic victory due to international backlash) the rebels gain supporters, soldiers, and more advanced weaponry (they have rocket artillary now).

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.nocoolnamejim

I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.

Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.

It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.

I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.

Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.

The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.

Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undoubtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.

That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shít would rather have a gun than no gun.

Link

The only good thing I've seen about Ravaged

Only Coexist Stick I'd put on my car.

Saw this the other day and its some pretty harrowing stuff, especially when he starts yelling out he's hit and you keep hearing the crack of rounds landing next to him and see debris kick up.

Lucky dude for sure. Glad he is ok

Watched it and its pretty damn tame compared to what dark shít is out there on the internet. Better him than him running or gunning down some innocent or police officer.

I wonder what was going through his head before the bullet did. Must've not been able to do the time I guess.

Bama and Oregon in the BCS Championship

Oregon has a fairly easily route with USC being the top team it needs to beat but Stanford (despite tonight's loss) is still not to be overlooked nor the Beavers if they keep up the way they've been playing.

Bama just needs to beat LSU in Baton Rouge and Auburn in the Iron Bowl and they have it made. I don't see anyone else on their schedule givng them trouble.

LSU will not win all 3 of its big ones against Florida, SC, or Bama so that should knock them out and FSU won't leapfrog either Bama nor Oregon given the fact that they've probably already played their biggest game against Clemson. Unless Florida turns out to be really good down the stretch. And the ACC is real weak this year.

Georgia won't win the SEC crown so...nope.

Of course with so many upsets so early into the year; all of this is subject to change.

SCAR-H CQB would probably be my favorite rifle. Just so much to like about it even though I've only held one.

Favorite I own? Easily my AK-74; good weight, good accuracy, awesome terminal ballistics, unsurpassed reliability and plenty of optics and accessories for it.