Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Albuquerque Lawful Gun Owner and Hidden Criminal Finally Disarmed

Local news reports

An New Mexico Army National Guard Sargent is charged with shooting at an Albuquerque driver he says was driving recklessly and it's a charge he's all too familiar with.

Three years ago Richard Baca, 24, was charged in a similar case where someone died.

Albuquerque police say just before three o’clock Saturday morning they got a call of a man shooting at a car.

He claims the car's driver was speeding in the area, taking out a stop sign and almost crashing through a crowd of people.

That is when Baca says he drew his gun and tried to pull the car over when that did not work he says he tried to shoot out the back tires.

In November of 2009 Baca faced charges of manslaughter. He shot and killed Benito Lemos following a road rage incident. The two men were fighting in Las Vegas New Mexico. Baca was acquitted of the charge claiming it was self defense.

A background investigator revealed his record isn't exactly squeaky clean. "Three misdemeanor arrests, two known convictions, eight bench warrants and two of those are for failure to appear," the investigator said.

Albuquerque Police confiscated two handguns from Baca's car Saturday and four loaded magazines.
The gun-rights folks often pretend to not understand what we mean by "hidden criminal." It's not that difficult a concept really.  Among the huge body of people called gun owners there is a certain percentage that is unfit to own guns even though they do so legally. Some of these are actually criminals who simply have not picked up the required convictions to lose their gun rights.  These are "hidden criminals."

Mr. Baca is a good example. Proper gun control laws, which certainly don't exist in gun-friendly New Mexico, would easily have identified him as a danger and disarmed him long ago.

Wouldn't that be better for all concerned?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. In spite of laws and police agencies, criminals committed more than two million violent crimes in the U.S. last year. I don't see why "proper gun control laws" will reduce violent crime any more than the laws already in existence.

    I am even more concerned about unintended consequences of gun control laws. Criminals routinely use weapons and/or seek vulnerable people. Such vulnerable people, unarmed, stand no chance against a criminal. When vulnerable people are armed, however, they have a decent chance of defending themselves. Why on Earth would anyone want to disarm vulnerable people?

    More importantly, why does anyone think government has the authority to say which items citizens can purchase and carry around?

    1. You've got a lot of good theories, but in practice they don't work. The number of legitimate DGUs is far overshadowed by the gun misuse. Just look at the news.

    2. The news? The news as a whole tells us what's thrilling or salacious. We've shown you good studies about the number of defensive gun uses per annum, but you reject them. You're being discussed on that very point over at The Truth about Guns, in case you're interested.

  2. 1. Why should I trust a news organization with spelling that bad? The military rank in question is sergeant and shouldn't be capitalized in the first sentence. Sargent is the name of the painter whose work Dog Gone appropriates.

    2. Your "proper gun-control laws" might have caught this fellow, but they certainly would prevent a lot of good citizens from owning guns and would allow hardly anyone to carry a gun. That's using field artillery to hunt wabbits, Mikeb.

  3. Oooooh...a spelling flame! Greggy wins!

    Seriously, this is the problem: according to Greggy, Baca has a "clean record" despite having a record that would disqualify him from most jobs, including his Army reserve job.

    Anon makes the often-repeated gunloon mistake of assuming armed criminals are going to announce their intentions from several zip codes away allowing the intrepid gunloon to produce his weapon and defend hearth and home.

    I'm sure it happens in the movies and TV but in real life--never.

    1. Green Goblin, calling me Greggy only serves to show your mental intelligence. You're an infant. Grow up.

      Now, how about showing where I said that Baca has a clean record. I never made that claim. He clearly does not, and it's a problem with our criminal justice system that he was walking free.

      On the subject of whether a good citizen can use a gun in defense against a criminal, such things happen--a lot more than you are willing to acknowledge. Your view is that guns are only capable of causing evil, and that blinds you to the reality that a gun is as good as the person using it--that's good in the moral as well as the technical sense.

      What it comes down to is that you, I hope, are unarmed and we are not. That's fine with me.

    2. Greggy, it's because of folks like you that someone like Baca can obtain any firearm he chooses.

      As for gun defense--no, it doesn't happen very often. As I've sagely noted previously, the vast majority of criminals aren't seeking any interaction with their victims. It's not the movies or TV where the criminal wants to torture you and engage in a lengthy discussion as to why he's doing it.

    3. Baby Goblin, you give me a lot of credit. We're born with the right to firearms, and the Founders of this country recognized that right.

      Your pathetic view of human beings colors your every thought about what's possible, and you don't allow facts to cloud your fantasy. The good news is that you only harm yourself in this.

    4. Greggy, surely you're not that dense--or are you?

      Let's review--you claim we are "born with the right to firearms, and the Founders of this country recognized that right."

      And this 'right' we're born with comes from....where? God? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Doctor Who?

      The beautiful illogic of your argument is that one can argue whatever 'right' one wants because it presupposes a.) the existence of some unknown deity or supernatural power; and b.) a definitive knowledge of that unknown deity's or supernatural power's intent. In essence, one could claim that one is born with a 'right' to own a Maybach. Or the 'right' to be married to Mila Kunis.

      Re the Founders, you're on pretty shaky ground in this regard. After all, the Founders believed in a right to own slaves and didn't believe women had any rights.

    5. I'm guessing that from the beginning of time man/woman/child figured out that if they are attacked, whether by human or animal their natural instinct was to defend themselves either by fight or flight. That seems reasonable to most people. So, whether it is a right or a natural instinct it doesn't matter. It is at the very least, human nature.

      Regarding slavery, this too had been a staple from man's earliest existence. However, the Age of Enlightenment changed many peoples' minds on such matters and slavery was abolished in many, many countries - peacefully.

      It should be clear to everyone that giving the right to vote to every Tom, Dick and Harriet was a mistake. As Mencken noted, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
      And, as someone else said: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

      orlin sellers

    6. Baby Goblin, let's pretend for the moment that you're correct, namely that rights are granted to us by our government. Our Founders put the right to own and carry firearms into the Constitution. By your reasoning, they granted us that right. Courts and legislatures, including the Federal Congress, have expanded and solidified that right. Whether you accept natural rights as an article of faith, as I do, or you come up with some other origin for them, the right to guns is clearly ours. You're the one begging for a change.

    7. I would agree with the "Green Goblin" that the "right to keep and bear" small arms (as well as any other object proliferated manifestly for use as a weapon) does not apply to the mere subject of the state, as any claim to such a "right" would conflict with the right to civilian disarmament, which is implied in the preamble of the constitution (as well as international treaties and the U.N. charter).

      As I will explain below, it is a fundamental function of government to ensure that only persons acting on behalf of said government are endowed or are provided with the means (formally or informally) to coercive power, especially in the form of small arms and other weapons.

      The concept of establishing a civilized society dictates that the state actors charged with enforcing the legal codes and maintaining order in the society, are reasonably capable of doing so. When a group of individuals forms a civilized society, those individuals forgo individual protection of their own life, liberty, and property, in favor of collective protection which manifests itself in the form of a professional police force. For a society to function without frequent disorder (crime, riots, and civil war) the mere citizen must not be endowed with coercive power, in the form of small arms, unless said citizen is acting under a function of the state. Also the professionals who are endowed with coercive powers must be appropriately equipped (better armed than the citizen) for the purpose of maintaining public order, enforcing the legal codes and customs, ensuring the continuity of government against potential insurrection (armed or hopefully unarmed). A civilized society manifestly requires both the armament of the state as well as the (complete) disarmament of the mere citizen.

      Therefore any claim for you, Greg, who is presumably not a state actor of a U.S. jurisdiction, or acting under the express approval of such, to be endowed or to possess any valid right to "keep and bear" arms.

    8. Again I challenge you (especially the one who refers to himself as "Greg Camp") to present a valid alternative (to the fundamental right to civilian disarmament), or to obtain outside help in presenting a valid alternative.

    9. E.N., I couldn't possibly care less what's to be found in the U.N. charter. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution defines no "right to civilian disarmament" or any other such nonsense. It identifies the function of our government as creating a space in which citizens--not subjects--are free to act and to be themselves.

      The fact that you refer to me or to any other American as a mere subject or a mere citizen or a mere person tells me everything that I need to know about you. You don't believe in individual rights. You argue for tyranny. The contrast is that I say that you have a right to your beliefs. What you don't have is a right to curtail my rights.

      You want a valid alternative to your nonsense idea of a right to civilian disarmament? That would imply that you have a valid idea yourself. You don't. My argument is that individuals have the right to do and be and own whatever they want, so long as they harm no innocent person in the process. My gun ownership fits into that right. You want total control. What you either fail to recognize or secretly desire is that when a tyrant controls a population, it's not for the benefit of the people. It's for the benefit of the tyrant.

      Fortunately, tyranny like that is passing from the world. But North Korea is still available for your submissive pleasure.

    10. Greg, have you ever set foot outside U.S. soil? If so where?

    11. Not that it matters, but Mexico, Canada, (West, at the time) Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. I had friends from Canada and Ethiopia in college, and I've had students from all over the world.

      What's your point?

    12. My point is that the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, or the Peoples Republic of China, is not on that list.

      You claim that these are unpleasant places, being told so, without ever inquiring whether the sources telling you so where truthful or not.

    13. Are you seriously claiming that communist Korea or China are wonderful nations to live in? If so, why do the North Koreans need us to feed them? If so, why do the Chinese imprison people who criticize the government? Why do they refuse to tolerate religious freedom?

      With everything you say, E.N., you show that you don't believe in the rights of individuals. Keep talking. Every word from you only supports my side.

  4. Thank goodness Orlin Sellers is here to defend slavery! Of course, I suspect his impassioned views will fail miserably in the 21st century.

    He does suggest 'Natural rights' however. In a state of nature, bigger animals tend to devour the smaller and the strong rule the weak. Do we really want a society predicated on the notion that because I'm bigger, stronger, more whatever---that I'm entitled to take/kill/own what's yours?

    Greggy, as we both know, the SC placed restrictions on your Flying Spaghetti Monster-granted rights to firearms. Further, I'd suggest that since the margin of your earth-shattering win was a single SCOTUS vote--I might suggest your 'right' is not as clear or solid as you believe.

    1. Jadegold,

      You appear to denounce a society where the strong rule the weak and devour them. Well gun control is exactly that: it makes criminals strong (because of being armed or a physical advantage) who then rule and devour the weak citizens who are weak because they are elderly, small, or unarmed. Further, you want law enforcement to be stronger than the citizens since you want citizens to be unarmed. What did you say happens when someone is stronger?

      Your silly example of rights -- where someone could claim a right to marry a celebrity -- is childish and shows that you have no understanding of the concept of Natural Rights, Natural Law, and the Social Contract. I could not claim a right to marry a celebrity because that would infringe on the celebrity's liberty.

      Rights are about human dignity. Everyone is extremely valuable and no one is more valuable than another. All rights flow from that concept. Clearly you reject it. I accept it.

    2. As I have stated (above) the very concept of your "right to keep and bear" small arms applying to you, a mere person, violates everyone's right to human dignity, life, and property.

    3. E.N., how does my owning a firearm violate anyone's right to dignity, life, or property? Don't spout foolishness. Explain how my guns violate anyone's rights.

    4. In the simplest terms possible (to avoid your confusion)

      You have a weapon. (Correct me if I am wrong)

      Now, if a state actor (such as a police officer) where to order you to perform an act (or cease to perform an act) the presence of said weapon endows you (an individual) with the ability to resist the orders of the State actor.

      Therefore the State actor cannot complete it's duty, and you have violated society's right to be governed.

    5. Society's right to be governed? How about the people's right to choose their government? But let's look at real cases: I got pulled over recently for going over the speed limit. I didn't whip out a gun and shoot the officer. We talked, and he did his job. No big thing. I pay my taxes every year. When there's a gun-free zone, I either don't go in or I don't bring in my handgun.

      Do you see the point? My possession of a firearm hasn't destroyed the fabric of society.

    6. Greg Camp:

      "But let's look at real cases: I got pulled over recently for going over the speed limit. I didn't whip out a gun and shoot the officer."

      My point is not whether you (as an individual) are violent, but instead that the presence of a firearm provides you (or any other person) with the opportunity to be violent. I didn't say you where going to "whip out a gun and shoot the officer" I said that, provided a gun, you have the ability to do so.

      If you where unarmed, you would not have the option to "whip out a gun and shoot the officer".

    7. So why don't you trust me to make good choices? Do you really believe that human beings are fundamentally evil? Thomas Hobbes is your favorite Western author, I take it. There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, perhaps more. The vast majority of us--over 90%, actually over 99%--make responsible choices every day.

      You are correct on one point, though. Without a gun, my option is to roll over and submit. That's what you want.

    8. Greg, you really have got to stop claiming kinship with the 100,000,000- Most of them agree with us and think you're a fanatic.

    9. Prove it. More and more are buying guns and getting carry licenses. There is no mass demand for gun control.

      But I wasn't talking about attitudes here. I said that the vast majority of gun owners cause no harm with their guns. I'm in that category.

  5. Great point Jadegold. What better equalizer than a weapon for the weak to defend themselves against the strong.

    And when you get time please point to my statement that defends slavery.

    BTW, define slavery for me, please.
    orlin sellers

    1. I don't believe that "orlin sellers" (are you referring to your name or Orlin, the owner of Winchester Arms) was condoning slavery (The hereditary and permanent ownership and custody of a human being or human beings, who are placed into a condition of compulsory servitude by an individual entity, or a collective group, other than a legitimate State.) in any clear, deliberate or intentional way.

      I believe that he is trying to argue that the framers (genuinely perhaps?) believed that the practice of slavery would die out, and would not require an armed conflict to end.

      Some of the framers did have valid points, as if any attempt to abolish the institution of slavery (however demonstrable it may be) would cause an armed conflict (especially considering the widespread ownership of small arms by civilians) which, they (correctly) believed would cause a great deal of human suffering and would consume, decimate, or fragment the republic (indirect democracy, with a state chained to the deranged and backwards notion of individual liberty) which they had fought so bitterly to establish.

      Was it right to allow slavery? Certainly not.

      Where they right in predicting a conflict? Most definitely.

    2. EN, so you aren't opposed to slavery. That's good to know.
      Interesting, the US is the only country who fought a war to supposedly end slavery.
      orlin sellers

    3. What in my statement makes it ("orlin sellers") think that I support (or am at least not opposed) to slavery? I suppose that you can't expect much from someone who compensates for their own inadequacy by clinging desperately to "boom sticks" (small arms).

    4. E.N., are guns effective or aren't they? It's a tough argument to make that guns destroy social order, but gun owners are unable to act in any meaningful way.

    5. EN said:What in my statement makes it ("orlin sellers") think that I support (or am at least not opposed) to slavery?

      The part where you didn't include the state/government.
      That infers and implies slavery is fine if the state does it.
      orlin sellers

  6. Jadegold sucks black cock.

    1. You are saying that because you (who probably has the mental capacity of a 13 year old child, which shows in your posts) are seemingly incapable of a coherent retort to Jadegold's logical argument. Which is unsurprising considering that the anti-government, pro-armed citizenry, modern anarchist viewpoint which you subscribe to, mostly consist of persons of limited and inadequate mental capacity such as yourself.

    2. EN, care to define slavery for me?
      orlin sellers

    3. Slavery: The hereditary and permanent ownership and custody of a human being or human beings, who are placed into a condition of compulsory servitude by an individual entity, or a collective group, other than a legitimate State.

    4. E.N. - who determines if a State is legitimate or not?

    5. So, E.N., if the state imposes slavery, it's acceptable?

    6. Yes, to some extent the State does, in the form of incarcerative punishment. All persons who are incarcerated are a "slave of the state" for the duration of their effective incarcerative sentence.

    7. Under your logic, when the U.S. Constitution recognized slavery as a legitimate institution, it was acceptable too. Of course, to you, the ideal society is communist China where everyone is merely a tool of the state.

    8. E.N. - who determines if a State is legitimate or not?

    9. Who determines that the first State was legitimate in order for that State to certify that future States are legitimate?

    10. E.N., the people give legitimacy to the state. What you say is a mutual admiration society for tyrants--sounds like a certain organization based in New York City.

    11. I'm leaving that "black cock"v comment up there only because there's quite a discussion attached to it about slavery.

      But Anonymous, I've already warned you to not be an asshole or you're vile shit will be deleted.

  7. E.N.

    Let's keep it simple. You claim that State actors -- police officers -- are the only people in a country that should be armed. And you claim that those people will maintain security and order. Please explain why England's violent crime rate is the highest in Europe and about 5 times higher than the violent crime rate in the United States. Please explain the tens of millions of people that were murdered in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Darfur, Rwanda, etc.

    After that, please explain how an unarmed citizen, under attack, can pause the attack long enough to call the police and wait several minutes for police to arrive.

    1. Anon creates so many strawmen, it's difficult to respond to all of them.

      First, Anon suggests that my side believes only the military and law enforcement ought to have firearms. This, of course, is not true. What my side does advocate for is common sense gun laws that prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals, mentally infirm, etc. and regulation of weapons that have no self-defense/hunting/sport utility.

      Second--why England has Europe's highest violent crime rate. The answer is they don't. Actually, several countries in Europe have higher violent crime rates, including Switzerland. But Europe's violent crime rates are a fraction of what they are in the US.

      Additionally, Anon fails to note that violent crime in the UK is measured differently than in the US. For example, in the UK, making a verbal threat is considered a violent crime--in the US, it may not even be actionable. In the UK, robbery is almost always considered a violent crime even if the victims are not present; not the case in the US. Domestic violence is considered violent crime in the UK in all instances and accounts for about 25% of all UK violent crime. In the US, domestic violence isn't always counted as violent crime unless death or serious injury is involved.

      Bottomline--you are nearly 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.

      Even hardcore gunloons like Clayton Cramer admit gun control had nothing to do with the Holocaust or other genocides. Take a look at Iraq--Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for nearly 40 years; during which, Iraqis owned more guns than Americans. Plus Iraqi citizens could own fully automatic weapons.

      It's a pretty ludicrous argument to suggest a bunch of fat, white males can take on the armed service.

    2. JG said: "It's a pretty ludicrous argument to suggest a bunch of fat, white males can take on the armed service."

      That's what the Brits said, too. LOL!!!!
      orlin sellers

    3. Baby Goblin, what a tissue of nonsense you just offered us:

      1. Yousaid that you want regulation of guns that have no self-defense, hunting, or sporting purpose. In other words, you don't want to regulate guns?

      2. Switzerland has a higher rate of violent crime than Britain? Sources, please.

      3. The murder rate of the United States is about four times the U.K.'s, not six. That's four times one, remember, not some huge difference, especially when compared to the rate in South Africa, a nation that has the gun control that you love.

      4. E.N. does believe that no one but the police and the military should be allowed to have firearms. He tells the truth about your side.

      5. As Orlin Sellers pointed out, you should look into the history of our nation. Focus on the Revolution. Then look at how the Afghani people have defeated one empire after another. The same is true for the Vietnamese.

    4. "That's what the Brits said, too. LOL!!!!"

      Unfortunately, for your LOL argument, you ignore history. The fact is if France and its military had not intervened on our side, we'd still be a colony.

      Greggy: Your 'points' one by one:

      1.Certain firearms simply have no practical use for self-defense/hunting/sport shooting. One also has no need for 30 round magazines,

      2. Yes, they do.

      3. Actually, the gun homicide rate is 4x; the overall murder rate is 6x. Pretending that there's little difference between 1 and 6 times is really foolish.

      4. I'm not EN

      5. As I sagely pointed out, we'd still be a British colony had not France and its military intervened. WRT VN, their victories have always been political not military. Plus they has the support of the USSR and China. What major power is going to come to the aid of the fringe group of gunloons?

    5. Jadegold,

      First of all, E.N. IS ADVOCATING TOTAL CITIZEN DISARMAMENT. I oppose that. Instead I favor the right of citizens (not criminals or mentally ill) to have small arms.

      Second, E.N. claims that citizens don't need small arms anyway because police maintain security and order. I disputed E.N.'s claim that police maintain security and order. I cited the huge example of State based murder as well as criminal based violent crime. Regardless of how you want to define violent crime in England, the fact remains that there is a lot of "serious" violent crime in England. And that is not possible if E.N.'s claims that police provide security were true.

      Your opinions about gun control and genocides are a topic for a different discussion. The main point is that E.N.'s "State actors" do not make the people safe. Regardless of whether common criminals, gangs, police, or military personnel commit violent crimes, they happen -- a lot.

    6. JG said: The fact is if France and its military had not intervened on our side, we'd still be a colony.

      Right, and if we hadn't entered WWII we'd be speaking German right now. Total nonsense.
      orlin sellers

    7. 1. Who are you to decide what a "practical use" is? You don't even acknowledge that a gun has any utility in self-defense. I'll take the word of experts in the subject over you.

      2. I asked for sources, not your opinion.

      3. The intentional homicide rate of the United States is under four times that of the U.K.:


      It's a little higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. Note that those rates aren't broken down by type. It's all homicides. Death is death. America fits in well with other nations of similar population density and types, industrial development, and so forth.

      4. I didn't say that you were E.N. But E.N. is on your side, and that's his position.

      5. As I've noted before, you don't know what the word "sagely" means. I figured that you'd bring up France. The point here is that asymmetrical warfare is the norm in this century, and advanced militaries have yet to figure out how to deal with it.

    8. Jadegold said, "One also has no need for 30 round magazines."

      By what authority do you define what someone needs? And what stops you from mandating other things they do not need?

      More importantly, rights are not about needs. For example you really don't need the right to express yourself. If someone prevented you from protesting outside City Hall today, you would not keel over and die. Rather, rights are about human value, human dignity, and human spirit. If someone prevents you from protesting outside City Hall, they have attacked your human value, dignity, and spirit. And believe me, it will injure your spirit when someone prevents you from exercising your rights.

      Anyone who prevents citizens from talking, working, playing, buying objects, building objects, and carrying objects is attacking them. To say otherwise is a lie.

    9. "Right, and if we hadn't entered WWII we'd be speaking German right now. Total nonsense."


      I'm probably going to do a post on this later but the fact is the American Revolution would have failed were it not for the support of France (and Spain). Even so, we nearly lost. Many colonists deserted or refused to reenlist because of the hardships. Are you seriously suggesting a bunch of fat white guys who live on a diet of Whoppers and air-conditioning and La-Z-Boy chairs are suddenly going to endure the hardships of fighting a professional military?


      1. It's done all the time--that's why Porsche doesn't make buses. They could but it's not practical. You could use a stapler as a hammer but, again, not practical. Gunloons like to consider themselves experts in all things but these 'experts' aren't able to distinguish the right tool for the job.

      2. Not opinion.

      3. Again, you are 6 x more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.

      4. And many murderers are NRA members and you are an NRA adherent.

      5. Sagely, I use the word 'sagely.' And what countries have won a war by asymmetrical warfare? The answer: none.

    10. "5. Sagely, I use the word 'sagely.' And what countries have won a war by asymmetrical warfare? The answer: none."

      'Nam. Next question?

    11. Adverb boy:

      1. Porsche has made tanks and armored vehicles for the German military. It still makes tractors. It's also a majority stakeholder in Volkswagen, a company that does make public transportation vehicles.

      In addition, you know nothing about firearms beyond your hatred of them. You're hardly qualified to speak on what is practical with a gun or what purpose a particular gun has.

      2. Did you do the research yourself? If so, what methods did you use? What population did you study? If you're quoting someone else's work, cite your source.

      3. I just showed you data that contradicts what you said. Did you read it?

      4. Many murderers are NRA members? What's your evidence for that?

      5. Vietnam against the French and the Americans, Afghanistan against the British, Russians, and possibly the Americans, Hezbollah in 2006 against Israel, Algeria against the French, the Libyans against their dictator--yes, with some outside help, the Syrians right now against their dictator with little more than some humanitarian aid. Shall I go on?

    12. JG said: Are you seriously suggesting a bunch of fat white guys who live on a diet of Whoppers and air-conditioning and La-Z-Boy chairs are suddenly going to endure the hardships of fighting a professional military?

      Are you seriously suggesting that all gun owners are fat white men?
      But, let's see, a bunch of poppy growers and herdsmen kicked the Soviet Unions ass in Afghanistan and are now kicking US ass.
      Hell a few guys with box cutters brought the country to its knees and they now act like a bunch of little girls searching, groping and molesting anyone who goes on an airplane.
      orlin sellers

    13. "'Nam. Next question?"

      Au contraire. VietNam was not asymmetrical warfare. The North Vietnamese had a professional army that had been battle-hardened having been in a war almost continually since the onset of WWII. They also enjoyed military, logistical, financial, and intelligence support from China and the USSR.

      Pretending these were just a bunch of rice farmers who picked up guns and beat the greatest military in the world is a myth.

      NVA/VC KIAs were ~1.1M, US KIAs were about 58K.

      I mention this to point up the fact the North Vietnamese essentially mobilized an entire nation--and even so, suffered horrific casualties. Again, you seem to believe a relative few fat white gunloons, willing to go to war for the better part of a quarter of a century, are going to beat the military.

      Not going to happen.

    14. I was there watching my friends die face down in the muck, bayonetted by a bunch of gooks wearing cut up tires for sandals. Don't tell me about asymmetrical warfare, you miserable piece of shit.

    15. Wait, where have I heard that one before? Oh, yeah, The Bog Lebowski.

      That was pretty good you had be going for a minute.

    16. Mikeb, I can't speak for Anonymous, although I know for a fact that thousands of Americans experienced exactly what was described. A good friend of mine is still working through the effects of being sent to Vietnam to fight for his country. Where were you during the period? If you'd gone, you wouldn't doubt the power of asymmetrical warfare.

  8. Greggy:

    1. Porsche military vehicles were prototypes in the 1950s. They didn't go into full production because production costs made the vehicles uneconomical. As I sagely noted, Porsche could but its not practical.

    2. Yes, the research I've done is impeccable.

    3. Your data is wrong.

    4. Do you deny NRA members are murderers? Ever hear of Tim McVeigh? Richard Poplawski?

    5. Explained VN to you.

    1. Re # 3... Please provide your source of the proper data.

      All you have done is say he is wrong but never produced any evidence of such.

      Geez...I suspect even Dog Gone would call you on that. Lord knows I don't agree with her, but she will provided sources for her arguments.

    2. Baby Goblin, why do you fail to address the main points that I make?

      1. But what exactly are you trying to say about Porsche? What does that have to do with guns or gun control? Besides, as I told you, Porsche is a majority stakeholder in Volkswagen. In addition, you name one specialty automobile maker. So?

      2. Where was your "research" published? Cite your sources, or cite your own work so we can review it.

      3. They aren't my data. I cited the Guardian newspaper, and there are many other sources for the same information. I give you my sources. Where are yours?

      4. You said that many NRA members are murderers. Many does not mean one or two, even if you can prove that McVeigh and that other fellow were members. As always, you make wild claims, but offer no evidence.

      5. You keep yammering about how all of us are fat white guys, but typically, you have no evidence for that, either. You didn't explain Vietnam (try not to use so many abbreviations, would you?); you added a little to the total story--all of which we already knew. You also left out all of the other examples that I gave you.

  9. The question is: What major superpower will come to the aid of a few fat, white gunloons who decide to unass the La-Z-Boy chair and try to overthrow the US?

    Other questions: will there be donuts? Will the rebellion be over in time for said fat, white gunloons to reass the La-Z-Boy in order to watch NFL games on Sunday?

    1. You have a hatred of fat white men, I see, Baby Goblin. How about posting a picture of yourself--an official document, preferably, since I'm unlikely to take your word on this. We need to see if you're exactly the kind of person that you despise.

  10. Hello to every body, it�s my first pay a quick visit of this web site; this weblog carries awesome and actually excellent information for visitors. how to lose weight fast and not safe http://howtoloseweightfastf.com/