HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Massad Ayoob discusses SY...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:28 PM

 

Massad Ayoob discusses SYG and Castle Doctrine.

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Massad Ayoob discusses SYG and Castle Doctrine.

http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/video-massad-ayoob-on-stand-your-ground-laws

134 replies, 15104 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 134 replies Author Time Post
Reply Massad Ayoob discusses SYG and Castle Doctrine. (Original post)
PavePusher Apr 2012 OP
Taitertots Apr 2012 #1
GreenStormCloud May 2012 #6
PavePusher May 2012 #11
Hoyt Apr 2012 #2
gejohnston May 2012 #3
oneshooter May 2012 #20
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #23
PavePusher May 2012 #13
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #4
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #16
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #17
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #93
spin May 2012 #5
ileus May 2012 #7
Xela May 2012 #8
PavePusher May 2012 #12
ManiacJoe May 2012 #9
Atypical Liberal May 2012 #10
Callisto32 May 2012 #14
PavePusher May 2012 #15
ileus May 2012 #18
Logical May 2012 #19
apocalypsehow May 2012 #21
gejohnston May 2012 #22
apocalypsehow May 2012 #25
Callisto32 May 2012 #29
gejohnston May 2012 #30
apocalypsehow May 2012 #36
gejohnston May 2012 #43
apocalypsehow May 2012 #44
PavePusher May 2012 #46
apocalypsehow May 2012 #49
PavePusher May 2012 #61
apocalypsehow May 2012 #65
PavePusher May 2012 #70
apocalypsehow May 2012 #74
PavePusher May 2012 #79
apocalypsehow May 2012 #81
gejohnston May 2012 #83
apocalypsehow May 2012 #85
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #100
apocalypsehow May 2012 #102
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #104
apocalypsehow May 2012 #105
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #106
apocalypsehow May 2012 #107
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #108
apocalypsehow May 2012 #110
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #111
apocalypsehow May 2012 #112
gejohnston May 2012 #113
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #124
Tuesday Afternoon May 2012 #117
apocalypsehow May 2012 #127
Hoyt May 2012 #88
gejohnston May 2012 #89
sarisataka May 2012 #90
Clames May 2012 #94
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #114
Hoyt May 2012 #115
gejohnston May 2012 #116
Hoyt May 2012 #118
gejohnston May 2012 #119
Hoyt May 2012 #120
gejohnston May 2012 #122
Hoyt May 2012 #123
gejohnston May 2012 #125
PavePusher May 2012 #129
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #121
Hoyt May 2012 #126
PavePusher May 2012 #130
Hoyt May 2012 #131
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #132
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #24
apocalypsehow May 2012 #26
ManiacJoe May 2012 #27
apocalypsehow May 2012 #37
gejohnston May 2012 #45
apocalypsehow May 2012 #47
gejohnston May 2012 #53
apocalypsehow May 2012 #55
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #56
apocalypsehow May 2012 #58
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #60
sarisataka May 2012 #62
gejohnston May 2012 #57
apocalypsehow May 2012 #59
gejohnston May 2012 #64
apocalypsehow May 2012 #67
gejohnston May 2012 #77
Glaug-Eldare May 2012 #87
PavePusher May 2012 #66
apocalypsehow May 2012 #69
PavePusher May 2012 #71
apocalypsehow May 2012 #76
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #92
apocalypsehow May 2012 #63
PavePusher May 2012 #68
apocalypsehow May 2012 #72
apocalypsehow May 2012 #78
apocalypsehow May 2012 #103
gejohnston May 2012 #73
apocalypsehow May 2012 #75
gejohnston May 2012 #80
apocalypsehow May 2012 #82
gejohnston May 2012 #84
apocalypsehow May 2012 #86
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #31
oneshooter May 2012 #32
apocalypsehow May 2012 #34
gejohnston May 2012 #35
apocalypsehow May 2012 #38
gejohnston May 2012 #40
apocalypsehow May 2012 #42
gejohnston May 2012 #50
apocalypsehow May 2012 #52
sarisataka May 2012 #39
apocalypsehow May 2012 #41
sarisataka May 2012 #48
apocalypsehow May 2012 #51
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #91
apocalypsehow May 2012 #96
PavePusher May 2012 #97
apocalypsehow May 2012 #98
PavePusher May 2012 #99
apocalypsehow May 2012 #101
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #109
apocalypsehow May 2012 #128
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #134
PavePusher May 2012 #28
Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #133
PavePusher May 2012 #33
apocalypsehow May 2012 #54
Union Scribe May 2012 #95


Response to Taitertots (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 03:48 AM

6. Excellent speech. very informative. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:26 PM

11. Fixed it, Thanks!! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:54 PM

2. Links suxs. So does site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:24 AM

3. I'm guessing

you had a chance to click on the correct link, do you have something constructive to say about what he said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Sat May 5, 2012, 11:09 AM

20. I'm pretty sure that he never opened the link. Just the name on it

is enough for him to dislike it. His bias is showing.

Oneshooter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #20)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:52 PM

23. Exactly correct.


A poised, restrained and eloquent spokesperson would upset his twisted stereotype of the average gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:28 PM

13. Link fixed.

 

Do you have comment on the actual content? Something better than Third-grade level of rebuttal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:07 AM

4. Massad's definitely among the most level-headed authors

in the whole 2A arena. I just picked up "In the Gravest Extreme," and I feel a lot more prudent just having skimmed through it. Hopefully it'll be more relevant next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #4)

Fri May 4, 2012, 08:05 PM

16. I gave a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme" to a friend who doesn't care for guns.


My desire was that he get an opportunity to observe the actual mentality of gun owners, as opposed to the nasty stereotypes that he (likely) has been exposed to.

I was really gratified when he said that he found the book so interesting he read it in one sitting.....and reported surprisingly positive sentiments about both the content and the author.

Massad is a big problem for many pro-restrictionists, as he (generally) reflects the true disposition of gun owners and defies the Neanderthal stereotype that they like to present. I have four of his books, including the Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry. Ayoob is a great spokesperson for the cause, as he is the model of calm and restrained vigilance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #16)

Fri May 4, 2012, 11:48 PM

17. As much as I distrust those who want to mandate training requirements here,

I would have no problem whatsoever with requiring prospective permit holders to watch an Ayoob-style video or take a short test about when force is legal/illegal, when force is prudent/imprudent, what the legal consequences are, etc. I always cringe when I talk to blowhards who boast to me that "Yeah, we got that Stand Your Ground law. I can shoot anybody who looks at me funny." or "If some fucking burglar tries to get away, I'll just shoot him and drag him back in the house. Castle Doctrine, they can't touch me." Those morons need to wise up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #17)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:15 PM

93. "Those morons need to wise up."


Agreed -- and Massad is widely respected because he does as well.

The fact that Mr. Ayoob has been such a consistent advocate of a restraint-based mindset should raise the interest of those who favor restriction. The fact that it doesn't is very telling - proving once again that for many pro-restrictionists it's not about protecting the public, but rather getting rid of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:52 AM

5. Excellent discussion of self defense and stand your ground law ...

Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 07:06 AM

7. Great find, excellent speech. Thanks for sharing.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Xela (Reply #8)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:27 PM

12. Link fixed, Thanks! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:35 AM

9. Great video! k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:23 PM

10. An excellent 16 minutes that addresses many points that have been brought up here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Callisto32 (Reply #14)

Tue May 1, 2012, 08:32 PM

15. Thanks, I hadn't had time to backtrack to that.

 

Hopefully I can watch most of it tonight. Should be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Sat May 5, 2012, 06:56 AM

18. You win Best Thread of the Week. Congratulations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Sat May 5, 2012, 09:50 AM

19. He is a very intelligent man! I love his attitude. I real all his stuff. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Sat May 5, 2012, 01:38 PM

21. What a lovely little website you've chosen to link to on Democratic Underground!

Here's some choice passages from one of the lead editorials on the front page of the "Editor's Shot":

"A recent story posted on the notoriously liberal MSN website...Oh, the liberals will tell you that Americanís demand for drugs is insatiable, so it is partly our problem. Well, closing the border stops that problem...I can hear the liberals now: ďArmed citizens in Mexico would be blood flowing in the streets!Ē

Oh wait. Thatís whatís happening now. Close the border. Politics be damned."*



http://www.gundigest.com/gun-digest-magazine-kevin-michalowski-editors-shot/it%e2%80%99s-been-said-before

Nice.

I haven't even included the racially-motivated animus against Hispanics that oozes out of that article, just the attacks on liberals on the editorial page of a website that is apparently allowed to be linked here. What's next on the allowable list down here? Stormfront articles? Links to David Duke's greatest hits? Just curious.

*All emphases added.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #21)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:19 PM

22. Do you agree with everything in any progressive media?

How about Lawrence O'Donnell's religious bigotry?
How is O'Donnell's anti-Mormon bigotry any different than the right's anti-Muslim bigotry?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865553514/Anti-Mormon-bigotry-repeated-by-MSNBC-host-Lawrence-ODonnell-watchdogs-say.html
In this screed, is he implying that all Mormons, including Harry Reid (D-NV) and my father, of being racist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Political_views

To the drug issue, when are the bong owners going to step up? They are contributing more to the problem than we are? Why should I step up for a problem I do not contribute to, while the coke and pot heads do nothing but fuel the violence with their money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Sat May 5, 2012, 03:01 PM

25. Go play logical fallacies (in this instance, *tu quoque*) with someone who's interested - I'm not.

As that's about the only game that get's played down here, I expect nothing better from Round #2.

Let's take this slow: address the content of my post, not what you think someone else somewhere else in another context has done that makes linking to this POS website by the OP A-Okay.

Capice? Or do I need to type slower and use less big words?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #25)

Sat May 5, 2012, 04:35 PM

29. Fewer.

Fewer big words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #25)

Sat May 5, 2012, 04:50 PM

30. you played the first round

How do I address the content of a post that is void of all content? You did not even get the writer's point.
and all the oped said was:
better border security. It was not racist, anti immigrant or anything else. It was a"get better control of smuggling" diatribe. Hiring undocumented people as "scabs" is a union busting technique and to deflate wages. That is why unions have historically opposed liberal immigration policies.
Oh yeah, it is fewer big words. If you are going to play the faux intellectual, at least do a better job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:28 AM

36. Once again, since you don't seem to grasp what you have read: address the content of my post,

not what you think someone else somewhere else in another context has done that makes linking to this POS website by the OP A-Okay.


Those words are really not hard to decipher, if you read slow, and well. Give it second tries, even.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #36)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:33 AM

43. I did

your post lacked content because alleged racism was not there. Gun Digest is a website about guns. There were no racist rants in the site, only in your imagination. Let me repeat it to you one more time
I read the oped a couple of times. I saw no evidence of racism. It was about human and drug smuggling via the southern border.
Your post lacked content. Instead of whining that "I am too blind or stupid to see" perhaps you should read it closer and actually think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:35 AM

44. There were multiple racist rants on that site, notably in the editorial section. As you well know,

being such a fan of that racist site as you obviously are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #44)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:40 AM

46. Please cite this racism you are seeing.

 

Maybe I haven't read the same articles you have. In the one you linked to below, I don't seem to be seeing what you saw. Please explain what it is that I'm not getting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #46)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:43 AM

49. Please hie thee over to the website in question and look around. If you can't "see it," then we're

done here. And the MIRT team should be taking a look at a poster who doesn't see what is plain as day. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #49)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:01 AM

61. Your claim. Your responsibility to support your claim.

 

Believe whatever you want, but if you want to accuse me of racism (and that is exactly what you are doing), better have all your facts in order.

I've lived in three countries outside the U.S., on three other continents, and I am the most anti-racist person you will ever meet, IRL or virtual. I've been the target of racism, and defended victims of it. On several occasions, I've nearly given my life in the cause of fighting it.

So show your cards or go fuck yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #61)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:05 AM

65. No, not my claim; not my "responsibility" to do anything. The website was linked in the OP, and the

material available there is open to anyone with a working browser. I suggest you use yours to confirm what is a solid fact.

"So show your cards or go fuck yourself." - LOL. Laughable, childish stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #65)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:08 AM

70. Show the evidence of your claim or leave my thread. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #70)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:11 AM

74. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #74)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:20 AM

79. And we are done.

 

I will leave you with this final thought to ponder, as you seem to know not what you claim to see. Get out of your farsical fantasy and learn.



I give you an invitation to the world. May wisdom come to you before fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #79)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:24 AM

81. "And we are done" - LOL! Good stuff - your concession is duly noted. As I had the facts on my side,

it was always going to be a hard row to hoe in any event. As is the entire NRA/GOP talking points case on Democratic Underground, when the former bullshit is called out and those of us with the facts keep posting those facts.

But nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #81)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:26 AM

83. enjoy your delusion

if it comforts you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #83)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:28 AM

85. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #70)

Sun May 13, 2012, 09:55 AM

100. unfortunately, on DU3 bad manners are not an enforceable offense.

no cusswords and a jury will allow the most heinous of absurd, irrational, ridiculous and foolish remarks to remain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #100)

Sun May 13, 2012, 02:52 PM

102. Ahhhh. Don't well up and cry on us. That jury made the unaminous right call, and you well know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #102)

Sun May 13, 2012, 04:54 PM

104. I do not alert. and looks like you are the one shedding tears

I see no smilies on my post but, looks like you are crying a river.

I do not alert on DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #104)

Sun May 13, 2012, 05:07 PM

105. Somebody did - as to "shedding tears," you're the one whining about how unfair it all is that a post

you don't like didn't get hidden. Boo-hoo some more for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #105)

Sun May 13, 2012, 06:58 PM

106. merely pointing out the hyprocrsiy in this group is all

you are the whiny one in this thread. you just cried a river.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #106)

Sun May 13, 2012, 08:53 PM

107. No, you were not: you were moaning about a jury decision that didn't go your way. Here's what YOU

typed:

"unfortunately, on DU3 bad manners are not an enforceable offense.


no cusswords and a jury will allow the most heinous of absurd, irrational, ridiculous and foolish remarks to remain."


That's about the only whine in sight on this thread, and it belongs to you. Own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #107)

Sun May 13, 2012, 09:28 PM

108. a statement of fact. the truth.

the whine is all yours. have some cheese to go with it. you did not cuss but, you made a silly remark and someone alerted on it and it was allowed to stand. oh well. happens with amazing regularity on DU3. BFD. Just calling it the way I see it, is all.

you cried the river and I am now sailing away on your river of tears.

done with you.

Good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #108)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:29 PM

110. LOL - and now you are caught in a bare-faced contradiction: "I do not alert on DU3" (above)

vs. "someone alerted on it and it was allowed to stand". How would you know someone had alerted on it unless you were the alerter yourself? We know you couldn't have been one of the jurors because you did not dispute my assertion of jury unanimity above, and the report is not posted in Help & Meta.



Here's a pro-tip for you, Tuesday: it really helps if you can remember and keep straight what you posted previously before you contradict yourself in a subsequent post. Really.

"done with you." LOL - I would be "done with" me, too, if I'd just suffered a credibility boo-boo like you just did. Your, errrr, concession is duly noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #110)

Mon May 14, 2012, 06:21 PM

111. you said it was alerted. I DO NOT ALERT. I DO NOT PLAY THESE STUPID REINDEER GAMES

KEEP UP WITH YOUR OWN WHINING.

TAKE YOUR PRO TIP AND PLACE IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE.

YOUR CREDIBILITY AND READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS ARE SUSPECT.

DULY NOTED.

REALLY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #111)

Mon May 14, 2012, 06:46 PM

112. Uh-huh. Riiiiiiggghhhttt.....




"done with you" - Guess not, hey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #112)

Mon May 14, 2012, 07:00 PM

113. did someone alert on a post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #113)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:08 PM

124. unless I misunderstand -- yes. the way I read post #102 by apocalypsehow it would seem that

his post #65 was alerted. He accused me of alerting, I do not alert. I do jury duty when asked which is not very often. I think alerting and the jury system is stupid and have stated this very early on...by January I was burned out on it and it a huge reason why I am here less and less. I fight my own battles and take my hidden posts to My Journal.

Not ashamed of anything that I have said on this place. I have apologized when I have had sincere regrets about an exchange that I have had with some DUers.

I don't know why I feel it necessary to explaing myself - just trying to enlighten you as to what possibly happened in this thread.

I had nothing to do with it and for full disclosure we would need apocalypsehow to share the jury results and the alerter's comments.

I am not sure that is allowed in this group although I don't see why not. I would rather discuss stuff here than in H&M but, I don't make the rules, I just play the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #112)

Mon May 14, 2012, 08:49 PM

117. I will rebut any stupid accusations made and dude you made one

roll your eyes. sweetiepie. you think I give a shit? I see that arrowhead is aimed straight at your little ole brain. now that is rofl funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #117)

Wed May 16, 2012, 12:41 AM

127. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:26 AM

88. I'll bet gun sales would decline 50% or more if bigots quit buying them for "self-defense."

Sadly, guns and racism/bigotry are almost synonymous in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #88)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:30 AM

89. without bigots

the gun control movement would not exist.
I grew up in one of the least racist places in the US, and everyone had guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #88)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:19 PM

90. You are correct

guns and racism/bigotry are almost synonymous in this country

Just in the opposite from what you meant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #88)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:25 PM

94. And yet you still own guns yourself...

 

...so I guess that puts you in the same group...along with a few others...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #88)

Mon May 14, 2012, 08:21 PM

114. Who do you think that liberal criminologist James Wright was referring to


in my sig line?

Could it possibly be self-sabotaging gun-hostile bigots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #114)

Mon May 14, 2012, 08:35 PM

115. I agree with Wright's use of the term "derviant cultures" in referring to those obsessed with guns.

Other than you, can you find anyone creditable who calls him "liberal?" Or is that what the say on the NRA and other right wing gun sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #115)

Mon May 14, 2012, 08:48 PM

116. ever meet a conservative sociologist?

Neither have I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #116)

Mon May 14, 2012, 09:16 PM

118. We had more than a few outright racist sociologists where I grew up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #118)

Mon May 14, 2012, 09:36 PM

119. they way you described your part of Georgia

most of the folks sounded more like the teen aged grade school students from a Thomas Wolfe novel (can't remember which one, some 30 years ago. IIRC, it was The Web and the Rock)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #119)

Mon May 14, 2012, 09:43 PM

120. Some are probably followers of NRA and "The Turner Diaries."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #120)

Mon May 14, 2012, 09:50 PM

122. When you were a kid, the NRA was nothing like the NRA of today

can they read the The Turner Diaries? Or does it have pictures?
Books are underlined or in italics. Magazine articles are in quotations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #122)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:02 PM

123. Yeah, it's a pain to do on a cell phone.

True, back then the "American Rifleman" was a good mag. Nowadays many NRA members prefer to have leather bound editions of The Turner Diaries, so "AR" has become more right wing to keep those fuckers happy.

Took me several minutes to type this with your preferred grammar, so you'll just have to get used to "*".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #123)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:57 PM

125. smart phones are over rated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #125)

Wed May 16, 2012, 11:32 AM

129. So are hoyts. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #115)

Mon May 14, 2012, 09:47 PM

121. Point #1 - Wright put quotes around the words "deviant cultures" for a reason.

Couldn't put the reason together, Hoyt? Seriously?

Secondly - Wright SELF IDENTIFIES as a liberal, as did (RIP) Peter Rossi. (One of his co-authors of "Under the Gun") In your usual foul manner you assume that the descriptor of "liberal" must come from the NRA or other right wing source. Jimmy Carter sent Wright, Rossi, and Kathleen Daly out to conduct a survey to bring him back news he wanted to hear vis-a-vis the gun restriction issue. Sadly for Carter, the criminologists switched sides once their research disclosed that there was no empirical evidence that gun "control" accomplished anything.

Intellectually honest readers of this exchange can purchase the book "Under the Gun" and determine for themselves what the political leanings of Wright, Rossi and Daly are. They are made evident in the final chapter - "Policy Implications" - the only chapter wherein the authors give themselves license to express personal sentiment.

Per the usual, you wildly miss the target while tossing out a cheap slur.

Edited to add:

Do you seriously think that Jimmy Carter would have sent out three pro-gun criminologists (if any exist!) to research gun restriction?! Recall that Gary Kleck originally supported gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #121)

Mon May 14, 2012, 11:05 PM

126. "Wright self identifies" as liberal. I saw member of KKK say he was a "civil rights activist" too.

He lies, or he's making money off his "born again" experience. Or, maybe, he's protecting his access to guns because he can't venture out without a gun to comfort him.

Who the heck knows what possesses someone to think more guns in public is a good thing, particularly long-term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #126)

Wed May 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

130. What?! You've claimed to "know", repeatedly.

 

Are you now admitting you are full of shit and hot gas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #130)

Wed May 16, 2012, 05:21 PM

131. I think you have described gun culture's rationalization for more guns in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #126)

Sat May 19, 2012, 02:42 AM

132. So you really think Jimmy Carter would have appointed a group of pro-gun


activists to conduct a study on the effectiveness of gun control legislation? It seems you get more pathetic by the day, Hoyt.

Accusing everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with your uninformed opinions to be liars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #21)

Sat May 5, 2012, 02:59 PM

24. What a lovely little genetic fallacy you've employed!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Yours is the argument of the desperate. Can't deal with the actual content - go after the source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #24)

Sat May 5, 2012, 03:05 PM

26. You need to read your own link, because it's obvious you don't grasp in what context a genetic

fallacy applies (it doesn't here for reasons that are obvious), but let's put that aside: do you think linking to Stormfront or other racist websites is okay on DU as long you feel the content at any given link is worthwhile or useful?

Answer yes or no, not with riddles and long-winded non-responsiveness. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #26)

Sat May 5, 2012, 04:29 PM

27. If it helps you, just ignore the web host. Either way, watch the video.

Heaven forbid you actually educate yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #27)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:29 AM

37. Not interested in watching videos from racists peddling bigotry, though I well understand how such

things play well among our "pro gun liberals" down here in the Gungeon. You go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #37)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:38 AM

45. name one racist

what evidence do you have Ayoob is a racist? Is it because he is a cop? Firearms instructor? Arab American? You keep whining about commenting about the "substance of your content" but I can't comment on something that does not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:42 AM

47. Now you're changing the subject, because you don't want to be seen as defending the numerous racist

rants on that website.

No one said this "Ayoob" idiot is a racist: what was stated, accurately, is that the website to which he gave an interview has numerous racist rants on it regarding other matters, issues, and articles - which it does.

But nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #47)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:46 AM

53. actually you did

what racist rants? You did not show them.
Oh yeah, neither article has any comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #53)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:48 AM

55. Actually, I didn't, as any literate observer reading this subthread will see upon perusal. And the

racist rants are all over that website, as you well know if you're a fan. Which I'm assuming you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #55)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:52 AM

56. The video isn't from gundigest.com

Criticize Massad Ayoob on the content of his speech or the Cato Institute on their conduct, but all gundigest.com did was repost an excerpt. Is there anything in the content of the speech with which you specifically disagree? o.O

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #56)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:53 AM

58. I don't care where the "video" was from, or what it's content was or is. You really do need to keep

up with the conversation, hard as that may be for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #58)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:58 AM

60. "Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #60)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:03 AM

62. Live long and prosper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #55)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:52 AM

57. actually I don't read it

but I have yet to find any racist rants. Some guy saying "the Mexican government/oligarchs needs to get its head out of its ass and deal with its problems instead of blaming us" is not racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:56 AM

59. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me, your inability to see racism where it obviously is. But what I

really find interesting is that when your "pro gun liberal" friend was asked "do you think linking to Stormfront or other racist websites is okay on DU as long you feel the content at any given link is worthwhile or useful?" his straightforward answer was "Yes".

That's very telling, and, for once, honest from a "pro gun liberal" posting at DU.


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #59)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:04 AM

64. you have to understand the context

"A recent story posted on the notoriously liberal MSN website...Oh, the liberals will tell you that Americanís demand for drugs is insatiable, so it is partly our problem. Well, closing the border stops that problem...
That is no different than Larry O'Donnell's anti-Mormon bigotry or Bill Mahar's misogyny or anti-Islamic bigotry.

I can hear the liberals now: ďArmed citizens in Mexico would be blood flowing in the streets!Ē
refers to "Brady Bunch" whining if Mexico loosened its gun laws so law abiding Mexicans can defend themselves from the gangsters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #64)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:06 AM

67. No, that's not how it works in the adult world: logical fallacies are for the playground, not grown

up interactions. We're right back where we started, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #67)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:20 AM

77. really?

so adults just make shit up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #77)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:31 AM

87. Least entertaining argument ever

No back and forth, no changing the subject, just stagnation. "Yuh huh" "Nuh uhn" "Yuh huh" "Nuh uhn"

Go back to your homes and families

There's no victory to be won here, only sorrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #59)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:05 AM

66. Link, please. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #66)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:08 AM

69. The link has been provided in the OP - or did you miss perusing the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #69)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:09 AM

71. I wrote the O.P. Show your evidence. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #71)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:14 AM

76. "I wrote the O.P." - I know you did. Re-read my reply. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #59)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:57 AM

92. See the clarification to my post.


You are distorting my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:03 AM

63. Isn't this just good stuff? Asked if racist websites should be linked here, and the content of their

articles perused, one of our "pro gun liberals" stated:

"Yes. As should anyone who's primary interest is pursuit of the truth. Any Democrat who finds the source distasteful can simply read the part that's relevant to this forum and leave the rest."

Do you agree? Please answer YES or NO, not with a bunch of wordy, justifying jazz. Thanks.


P.S. YES or NO. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #63)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:07 AM

68. You have not given evidence of racism.

 

Put up or shut up.

And stop making accusations without evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #68)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:09 AM

72. Oh yes I have - the link is available. My "accusations" have been sustained with solid evidence.

Period.

I can't help the fact that you don't want to see what's obvious to anyone literate, and with an working browser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #68)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:20 AM

78. Still waiting on that YES or NO, O.P. As the old song goes, "any day now..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #68)

Sun May 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

103. Still waiting on that YES or NO, BTW. Do you need me to repeat the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #63)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:10 AM

73. all simple answers are wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #73)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:12 AM

75. Now you're down to tautology. Somehow pitiful and laughable all at once. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #75)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:20 AM

80. you still showed no

evidence of racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:26 AM

82. Oh yes I did. Repeatedly, for anyone who has access to those links. And can read. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #82)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:28 AM

84. if you say so

we understand, the rest of the world don't see the same words you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #84)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:29 AM

86. Yeah, I've proved so. So does the "rest of the world" - that can read. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #26)

Sat May 5, 2012, 09:13 PM

31. Yes.

As should anyone who's primary interest is pursuit of the truth. Any Democrat who finds the source distasteful can simply read the part that's relevant to this forum and leave the rest.

Now I wonder if you can tell me if you feel that the bigoted statements about gun owners that are every bit as heinous as those that appear on the websites you detest bother you in the slightest? And why should they be allowed to stand on DU?

(changed mind re. edit)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #31)

Sat May 5, 2012, 09:47 PM

32. Or you can be like Hoyt and just ignore it all, then make snide remarks about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #31)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:23 AM

34. So, you think linking to websites like Stormfront and other racist outlets is A-Okay on DU. Thanks

for the open, honest answer. The next question is to the powers that be on this site: why is this poster still here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #34)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:27 AM

35. Show one example of someone linking to Stromfront

or similar sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #35)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:30 AM

38. I just have. You really need to keep up. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #38)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:32 AM

40. actually,

you have not. You saw something that did not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:33 AM

42. Actually, I have. Your willful refusal to read the plain text on the screen in front of you is an

problem uniquely yours, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #42)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:44 AM

50. no you have not

it is your willful or inability to tell the difference between smuggling and racism. It seems that I am not the only one having this "problem."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:45 AM

52. Yes, I have. And you well know it. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #34)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:30 AM

39. May I point out

You neglected to answer the question in the post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #39)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:32 AM

41. May I point out, I'm not interested in answering that "question," or any other rhetorical nonsense

from either that poster, or any other "pro gun liberal." It's diversionary nonsense, and will not be given the dignity of a reply in any way, shape, or form.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #41)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:43 AM

48. Yup

One way street got it. "You're with me or your wrong and should not be allowed to speak."

How open minded and progressive.

It clears up a lot, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #48)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:44 AM

51. Yup - you got it. And it clears up plenty you already know, for the obvious reasons. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #31)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:50 AM

91. Clarification of this post


I responded to your question in the manner that I did because there was no racism in Ayoob's presentation, or evident on the Gun Digest page that contained the video.

Obviously I would object to a link to racist material - or to a site with a history of racist rantings - but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Gun Digest to know if it fits this second criteria.

Hope that clears things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #91)

Fri May 11, 2012, 10:54 PM

96. Nice back-pedal. "I responded to your question in the manner that I did..." - LOL.

Uh-huh.



Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #96)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:37 PM

97. And yet you still have not specified this "racism" you claimed.

 

Carry on....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #97)

Sun May 13, 2012, 02:30 AM

98. Oh yes I have - and with your help. You are, after all, the one who proudly posted an OP that links

to a racist website.

More interested in what happened here:

"And we are done.


I will leave you with this final thought to ponder,


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=37806

Guess not, hey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #98)

Sun May 13, 2012, 02:48 AM

99. I thought we had moved on a bit.

 

Looks like I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #99)

Sun May 13, 2012, 02:49 PM

101. Hey, you're the one that said you were "done" replying to me, and then went right ahead and did so

anyway. Now you're back to posting youtube silliness, as if that constitutes some kind of argument or species of discussion.

It's really not necessary as (a) it's pointless nonsense meaning nothing and (b) it simply cannot but increase the amount of bemused contempt any honest observer watching this back n' forth has for the intellectual impotence on display. In that sense, it's self-defeating to at least one of us. But you go right ahead with it, if it makes you happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #96)

Sun May 13, 2012, 09:51 PM

109. No back-pedal involved.


There are times when everyone articulates their thoughts poorly. I'll concede that I don't give appropriate thought to what I post more regularly than other members, and this is especially true lately with the restraints on my time. (Mothers Day is a drag when Mom is starting to forget who her kids are.)

Laugh all you want. Your constant use of the LOL icon is childish as all get-out......and tells lurkers all they need to know about you and your "positions".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #109)

Wed May 16, 2012, 12:42 AM

128. Yes, a complete and total back-pedal, fully involved. You're pitiful attempts to deny it only serve

to confirm it beyond doubt.

But nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #128)

Sat May 19, 2012, 03:38 AM

134. Pitiful? That would be your lazy duo-syllabic response (#54)


to PP's lengthy thoughtful post #33.

Sure -- let's talk about "pitiful", shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #21)

Sat May 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

28. I'll check that later, have to go to an appointment right now.

 

In the meantime, do you have any discussion on the actual original topic?

Per your own post: "...address the content of my post...". O.K.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #28)


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #21)

Sun May 6, 2012, 12:53 AM

33. Well, I didn't see this racism you seem to think is there...

 

but I generally don't see stuff that isn't there. Silly me.

As for your other complaint... Yeah, the author used hyperbole. Just like our side uses all too often. It's an old trick and frankly, I'm getting tired of it no matter who's using it. But it is based on a nugget of truth, in that the people who'd scream first and loudest would likely be classified as political "liberals". Make of that what you will.


Now, let's discuss the actual merits of the authors' proposal. I agree that "Close the border" is probably the only way to stop all smuggling of both goods and people. No doubt about it. But is it practical, or even achievable?

The proposed method: "A border fence from Brownsville, Texas, to just south of San Diego, California, should be patrolled by U.S. soldiers at observation posts spaced every 400 yards."

Issue 1: Manning. The border is 3169 km/1969 mi long. I'll work in metric here, it's easier. For our purposes of estimation, we'll equate 400 yards to 400 m, and I'll be rounding halfs upwards. (I'm a born pessimist.) 2.5 observation posts per km, so 7,923 such. Assuming 2 people per post, 12 hour shifts, plus a spare for the inevitable injury/illness or personal business requirements, 5 people per post, so 39,615 people. Add 50% for days off, shift rotations and emergencies, 59,423. (Note that this is only for junior enlisted folks sitting in holes dug in the ground.) Now you need their command structure. Add 15% for NCO's and officers (it'll probably be higher {, but I'm really trying to go bare-bones here), 68,336. So far, not too bad, assuming you can work even military people like beaten mules and not risk mutinies. Good luck with that.

What about supporting elements? Logistics, intel, transportation, air support, communications, engineering/construction, medical, personnel specialists, etc? The required ratio of support troop-to-combat troop (What?! Combat?! On the border?! -Yeah, that's what we're talking about here, or did you think they were going to have nothing but visa stamps in those holes?) varies from about 2-to-1 (Bwwaaaaaahahahahaha....!) to 10-to-1.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-Policy-Weapons-346/2009/9/Support-Troop-Combat-Troop.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/combat-ratio.htm
I lean towards the upper end based on my 21+ years in the USAF, frequently working with Army, Navy and Marines, and lots or reading on the subject. That's right, 10 support personnel to every person with a rifle on the line. Now, seeing as this deployment will actually be on US soil, with all our infrastructure generally within arms reach, we can probably cut that ratio in half, down to 5-to-1. That gives us 341,680.

Yep, a 1.5 Marine Corps-sized force just for the southern border. And that's the bare minimum just to post people in holes in the ground every 400 meters, and directly support them. We haven't even started to provide a rapid-reaction force, roving patrols, detention personnel, or what we'll need to do when the Mexican smuggling industry starts investing heavily in... boats. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001801.html


Issue 2: Infrastructure. 7,923 observation points. At minimum, a concrete block structure, with enough concrete and dirt built up to stop heavy rifle/machine gun fire and grenades. Big enough for two people. Overhead cover. Latrine pit out back. 360 deg. field of view overlapping the two adjacent posts.

Now make every tenth one big enough to also hold a squad-sized reaction force. With parking for at least two vehicles capable of carrying them (think duece-and-halfs, possibly Bradleys or Strykers). Every thirtieth or fourtieth one needs to be a local command post, possibly company-sized. Oops, gonna need a very good dirt road along the length of the border (partially in place already, but will need upgrade everywhere). Land-line communication connections. Power. Water, at least in the large command posts, along with sewage. Heat.


Issue 3: Loggy support. Vehicles. Barracks. Supply facilities. C3I facs. You'll need a major support base every few hundred miles. Aircraft. Airfields.

Cost-wise, it'll make Afghanistan and Iraq, combined, look like a Sunday picnic.

Or we could legalize, regulate and tax the drugs, actually make a profit, gainfully employ lots of Americas and Mexicans and citizens of nations further south, cut the violence by 90+%, cut our legal and prison system costs and fallout, etc., etc. This economic boost would have an add-on effect of reducing the illegal border-crossings. Work up some immigration reform making it easier to come in legally and reduce the risk/reward ratio for coming in illegally and watch the results get even better.


See, reason and logic and evidence, instead of mere political-purity-emotion knee-jerk dismisal. Perhaps you could apply the same technique to my O.P. (Yes, your dodge was noted.) I'll look forward to it.

For everyone else, my apology for taking you so far off-topic in my demonstration. Please feel free to return to the original subject.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #33)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:47 AM

54. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Original post)

Thu May 10, 2012, 12:33 AM

95. Love that guy.

He gives great advice, and every time I hear his voice I wonder how many balls you need to have to sound like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread