Lord Ratner
-
Posts
1,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
113
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Lord Ratner
-
-
1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:
I am guessing you've never been in a gunfight or you are a world class combat tested shooter. It is one thing to drive nails at the range, quite another once the adrenaline starts to flow...trust me.
Countless studies have proven the impact of stress on accuracy in real gunfights. The data on police shootings is very consistent, annual hit-rate averages in large departments such as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Las Vegas, for example, have typically ranged from 22% to 52% over the decades.
A more recent study in Dallas examined 149 real-life OISs recorded over a 15-year period by Dallas (TX) PD. In nearly half of these encounters, officers firing at a single suspect delivered “complete inaccuracy.” That is, they missed the target entirely.
At 120 BPM – You begin lose fine motor skills. You are unable to dial a phone or aim a weapon. At this level, gross motor skills are generally unaffected.
At 150 BPM – You begin to lose your complex motor skills. Hand-eye coordination and timing
deteriorate. Practiced techniques that do not require fine motor skills are still generally available.
A 180 BPM and above – At this level you begin to lose rational thought processes. Though
trained gross motor skills are not drastically affected.In the 134 cases where researchers were able to calculate the hit rate, “incredibly” it was merely 35%. Another study examined fire rate, as stress increased so did the first rate, by a factor of two. Combining these too factors together, it is usually better to have more rounds. We can also discuss actual stopping power of the .45 versus the 9MM. While the .45 is a larger projectile it is moving at a slower velocity and has less penetration than the 9MM. Hollow-point 9MM rounds typically penetrate deeper and interestingly expand to almost the same size as the .45. I am not hating on the .45, I own several but from personal experience I would rather have more rounds.
It really is. The size, portability and maneuverability beat anything else I've tried when using as a vehicle weapon. I was lucky to do a lot of training with the "lads" and did the driving and shooting course...I felt like a complete stooge the first couple runs. The charger allows me to easily control the weapon pulling it from behind the drivers seat, across the front of my body without the muzzle banging into the steering wheel or getting hung up int he headliner. A few of my collection (anyone want a Glock 30, WAY to small for my hand), for size comparison, as you can see folded up it is very small and the stock folds out in one fluid motion, making transition very easy.
That's tight. It blows my mind that the Rattler LT is the same length as the Charger *after* they added 1.25” to the barrel. I've never paid much attention to the "braced pistol" world until now. The Rattler is crazy $$$, but .300BLK is a pretty neat round. I just gotta wait for my ATF approval for the silencer and I'll be ready to find somewhere for a little training. I'm sure they're plenty of options on Texas🤣😂
Might have to at the Charger to the wishlist... I decided I'm going to try and minimize the number of calibers I own, and 9 mm ain't going anywhere anytime soon.
-
2 hours ago, gearhog said:
You're presenting this analogy like you're smarter than everybody else because you've figured out something everyone has known since 1980. Are you going to argue Star Wars is fake? No one is pretending that it isn't. Pro-wrestling isn't presenting itself as a fair play competition regulated by a code of rules and ethics. It's entertainment. WWE.
Dumb analogy, but congrats, at least it doesn't involve consuming human waste. More progress. It's like raising a child, getting one to make good choices doesn't happen overnight, but if your patient and persistent, you can change their behavior, and it's very rewarding.
The second paragraph is almost unintelligible. What specific "on the ground" claim was bogus? You're dancing around the issue again but not articulating it. And who is this "we" that provided "what" examples?
You're like the dog that yips and yaps at everyone on the other side of the fence, but is afraid to go through an open gate.
Here's a fun one for you. I often watch/read UNSC testimonies just to see what's happening up there. Found this one from yesterday. It's a former State Department and CIA official who also worked counter-terrorism until about 2016. Before you overload your Google search bar in a frantic search for an ad-hominem attack, try to read it and look for signs of factual information and signs of bias yourself. There are both. This guy clearly has a bone to pick, but is he a Russian agent? Is it a complete fabrication produced by a Russian Psyop? I don't know. Let's read it and see. Use your critical thinking skills.
Sounds like the dude is trying to get a juicy contract for an investigation no one wants.
The investigations have been done. Everyone who has a stake in knowing the answer already does. And all interested parties have decided to move on without public commentary.
Besides, his defense of the UN is a bit too rosy to take seriously. I get it, he's trying to get them to find him, but come on.
-
3 hours ago, Negatory said:
Double edged sword here (regressive policy) that hurts the working class more. Billionaires need low interest loans to keep wealth they don't need. Workers need it to purchase essentials like housing, transportation, and food. Raise the interest rates and the only people that actually may starve are poor people.
You're thinking short term. In the long term suppressed interest rates have inflated the assets that are usually financed, such as houses and cars. And now the workers can't afford those things. Inflation affects everyone, but when the wealth y have quadrupled their wealth, even a 50% haircut due to inflation means they're twice as well off. The rest of us however have not experienced a similar increase in wealth, and are there for much more affected by inflation. Fuck with the economy at your (our) peril.
Food is not financed, so that's not a factor. And for those who are financing food, they are way past the interest rate mattering.
3 hours ago, Negatory said:From a utilitarian approach, it is beneficial to the group (society) and only marginally affects people who are entirely way too well-off, therefore it is most likely in the best interest for the largest number of people.
You are delusional if you think property tax primarily affects people who are "entirely way too well off."
Honestly it's kind of hard to conceptualize anything after that statement. It indicates that you live in an alternate universe.
Also, ethical arguments don't have to take into account second and third order effects? What? So ethics only matter on the date of legislation? Honestly if this is how you think about anything it starts to make a little bit more sense that you support these emotional "fairness" policies.
3 hours ago, Negatory said:If you are saying the US government, as in the federal government that has existed since the 1930s, is ineffective, then I agree and disagree. If you are saying that this is a Biden problem, I'll disagree.
Sure, this is a Biden problem. It was a trump problem. It was also an Obama problem. And it was definitely a bush problem since QE was invented under his watch. But really this was a Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush H.W. problem too since we unpegged from gold in 71.
3 hours ago, Negatory said:If you lock the currency now, you are effectively stating that you will significantly curtail spending in every single government expenditure for the next 50+ years. Which, sure, might be necessary, but not if you want to maintain the quality of life you have or the benefits of the American empire.
Yeah dude, once again, second and third order effects. I care more about my children and grandchildren having a brighter future than I do the continuance of cheap TVs and meme stocks. The sooner we jam a stick in the spokes of modern monetary theory, fiat currency, and Keynesian economics, the better. We are now in a economic cancer situation. Taking the chemo now is going to suck, but it's going to suck a whole lot more if you wait till stage 4.
3 hours ago, Negatory said:Biden is actually tightening, which is a laudable act, but there's still $7T on the balance sheet.
Biden is not tightening. Powell is tightening. To the great consternation of many Democrats. And don't worry, when Trump wins the election it will be the Republicans spending trillions that we don't have. There are no responsible parties anymore. However the real problem is that we aren't actually tightening yet. The drawdown of fed assets has been exceeded by the drawdown in the reverse repo facility, which is why liquidity has increased rather than decreased. Once the RRP runs dry, if, and it's a huge if, the Fed continues to tighten, only then will we see the effects.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I need some song suggestions for a morning alarm clock. I have an unnecessarily complicated morning automation to wake up our 14 month old, and it ends by playing a song randomly selected from a list. But I need more songs to add to the list.
And ideally something a little less... assertive than this, which is the alarm I use on my phone:
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
I have been carrying the Hellcat for years, bought the P365X and put a Holosun on it. I typically grab the Hellcat, feels more natural and easier to conceal than the 365. I probably need a new holster for the 365. Both are great, I have very large hands and both have slightly larger grips so I feel like I have better hand position.
Anyone carry a bigger weapons in their vehicle? I have a bag on the back of the passenger seat with a Ruger PC Charger...love the gun. Folding stock keeps it very small and maneuverable. Accepts the Glock 30 round Mags, keep three in the bag which is a lot of firepower to beat down the zombies and get back to my bunker.
I just got a Sig Rattler LT with the 6.75" barrel. Haven't got it dressed up yet, and I'm still on the fence between keeping it a pistol or getting an NFA stamp for better stock options. Hopefully the court cases work out to beat back the SBR rules a bit.
That Ruger looks sick.
-
5 hours ago, raimius said:
External safety is a training issue, but sure, personal preference...
Why does an external hammer matter to you?
4.5lbs (avg factory setting) is hardly a hair trigger.
Agreed 100% on capacity issue. I'd want more rounds, if I wound up in a fight.
I like a carry gun to be as sleek as possible, minimize the things that can catch on clothing. I don't like single/double actions either. I used to think it was great when I primarily shot a SIG P229, but since moving to striker-fired (always single action) I've been converted. That's something I do like about a 1911, every trigger pull is the same force.
External safeties are (in my opinion) for guns I don't want to unload/unchamber between uses. Trap shooting, hunting, etc. For a carry gun it's just something that can be in the wrong position and hinder a stressful and time sensitive use. If the gun is out of the holster that means it's time to shoot. Same theory behind carrying one in the chamber. Of course that means any holster must have complete trigger coverage, but that's pretty normal.
Hair trigger: You're right, what I really was meaning to say is that the pull distance is so short. I like there to be some movement in the trigger since with a carry gun there are many scenarios where your finger is on the trigger but not firing.
Obviously that's my preference, I don't think it's unsafe for a trained and competent shooter to carry a 1911, I just think most people carry them because they are cool (they are) or it's what they are used to, when there are much better options. Again, 1911 use in Mil/LEO is practically zero for a reason.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, HossHarris said:
3” stainless 1911.
if you need more than 8, you’ve got bigger problems
I absolutely hate 1911s for carry weapons. External safety, external hammer, hair trigger pull, low ammo for the footprint.
I do like that the single stack magazine makes it thin, but there's a reason you don't see many Mil/Leo professionals using a 1911 on duty. Or 45ACP for that matter.
And if you need more than 8 you're probably trying to take down a shooter at longer range. Like this dude. Amazing shot, he didn't need the extra rounds at 40 yards, but I probably would 🤣: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/
Damn beautiful guns though.
-
8 hours ago, Negatory said:
Is that unconstitutional or unethical?
Unethical? You bet your ass. Doubly so in the states where your property tax can go up through no action of your own. I believe it is objectively immoral to change what someone owes on something they purchased responsibly and within their budget simply because a bunch of other people around them have different budgets or spend irresponsibly. Of all the plethora of things California gets wrong, prop 13 should be the law of the land.
8 hours ago, Negatory said:What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth? It is clearly tax evasion that is harmful to the US gov and not in line with the intent of the tax system.
I would address that problem specifically, and make it illegal. However the better answer is to simply stop suppressing interest rates artificially. These billionaires are only to play this stupid game because banks are willing to give out near zero interest loans. No billionaire is going to do that if they have to pay 9% on it.
8 hours ago, Negatory said:Also, I hope you are being honest brokers in this debate and are aware that the changes only apply to net worths >$100M. It is likely literally never going to directly impact any of you, the middle class, the upper professional class, or anyone in your family. It is aimed at only the ultra wealthy.
That doesn't make it ethical. And more importantly that doesn't change the fact that the unintended second and third order consequences of this change can be very messy. However, unforeseen second and third order consequences are a Hallmark of almost all Democratic legislation, so par for the course.
8 hours ago, Negatory said:How is this bad for the working class (my definition includes everyone from McDonalds to Anesthesiologists making $1M a year). People that have to work to live.
- What are the negatives to the economy? You won’t get trickled down on?
- What is your solution? If you don’t have a solution, why is the current state better morally or ethically?
The problem is that this is the government trying to blame others for what it created. You want to know why the ultra wealthy in this country have reached escape velocity compared to the rest of us? It's because we have a government that believes fiat currency allows them to print as much money as they want for whatever they want. But they are so fantastically unimaginative with this power that they simply feed it directly into the banking system. Gee, small wonder that the biggest beneficiaries of this mechanic have been real estate, equities, and financial assets. Overwhelmingly things that the rich and ultra-rich own disproportionately.
So if you want to fix it, let's lock our currency to something that doesn't allow the government to devalue it massively in a manner that flows almost directly to the richest people in the country. Let's stop artificially suppressing interest rates so that the wealthiest in this country can get nearly unlimited free money to spend in whatever way they see fit. Let's stop protecting gigantic corporations and Banks from the financial Doom of their poor decision making every time it comes home to roost. Too big to fail should be considered hate speech. Anything short of that it's just another trick fuck bit of legislation that will end up having second third order effects worse than the problem it was trying to solve, without addressing the root issue.
-
2
-
-
I carry the P365X. Phenomenal gun. I recommend going to a range and trying the 365, 365x, and 365x-macro. If they have one with a red or Green Dot sight on it, give it a try. I was very skeptical of pistol mounted optics, doubly so for concealed carry, but it took all of one day to make me a convert. The technology is great.
There's a reason it's the most popular gun in America right now.
-
1 hour ago, Smokin said:
Here's to hoping that Moore v US properly rules taxing unrealized gains as unconstitutional. If this door gets opened, Pandora's box would be almost unlimited. Your house value rose 5% last year? That's gains, so you now owe income tax on it on top of the property taxes you already pay. Not entirely unreasonable that the IRS could require declarations of any personal property of value (except classic Corvettes that double as classified storage) so they can assess if it has appreciated, even if that appreciation is just due to government caused inflation.
Right, and we would add yet another incentive to have every asset overvalued by the government, while creating a new industry around undervaluing assets.
-
14 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:
Easy. You're going to get him all Torqued up...
Oh yeah, what ever happened to that guy?
-
16 hours ago, nsplayr said:
My man, I say this with more experience than 69% of the people here...you abso-fucking-lutely are wasting your time here. I would know!
I think that just says more about you and how you approach the conversation. That's not to say that you don't get some fairly absurdist abuse thrown your way, but if you haven't been able to hone and adapt your positions based on the information and data on this forum, then you're on a team.
I'll be honest, I respect that you continue to engage, and about 75% of the time you do it in a respectful manner (I consider that a very high percentage for internet conversation. I don't think I meet that standard). But I have found your arguments to be fairly cookie cutter, cheerleader type DNC stuff. Rarely compelling, and I am not even remotely a die-hard conservative. I think a part of that might be that since you are a political minority here, you are usually on the defensive and that makes it very hard to concede any ground to the other side. It's not a unique phenomenon.
And yes, I absolutely believe there are people here who fit that description but from the conservative side. Pretty much anyone who defends Donald Trump's character probably falls into that category.
You could just be a true believer, but it is rare to find someone on either side who so neatly fits into the political party positions.
I only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, gearhog said:
What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed.
Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard.
As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information.
As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, nunya said:
I first saw it in the official Fidelity reddit from their customer service people. It's also on your March CMA statement in the Additional Information and Endnotes:
Awesome, thanks. This will simplify my life
It's a shame USAA is "just another back" now.
-
On 4/15/2024 at 2:41 AM, nunya said:
Back on the personal finance front... Fidelity will allow SPAXX as your sweep account in Cash Management Accounts (CMA) starting around June 15. IMO this makes CMAs a no brainer. No need to mess with separate online savings accounts to get higher rates on your cash.
I know this took me a while to wrap my head around and I wish somebody had broken it down for me earlier, so for those that don't habla CMA, here's the skinny...
- CMAs are brokerage accounts that operate "like" checking accounts. Debit cards, ATMs, fee reimbursement, checks, online bill pay, direct deposit, etc.
- Your cash balances by default are kept at various banks around the country. You can see which banks, but there's no reason to care. You get FDIC protection, ~2.7%* interest, and manage your cash centrally via Fidelity.
- If you elect to keep your cash in SPAXX, you give up FDIC coverage, but you can get ~5%* on your cash balances.
- Vanguard just started "Cash Plus" accounts to compete. I'm sure they'll be great accounts, but I moved from Vanguard because (IMO) their service starting slipping around 2020 and became untenable.
- Bottom line, especially for the young dudes: Look beyond USAA for your banking needs. With some work, you'll be very wealthy one day - learn to manage it well now.
*all rates are as of 4/15/24
Got a link to the jun 15 change on the sweep? Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to get this set up
-
Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing.
I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.
-
1
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Blue said:
I'm gonna withhold judgement on this one. For now, at least, until more info comes out.
It sounds like this is a case of family members battling after a death. If you've ever witnessed it, you know. Reasonable people do unreasonable things when a death happens in the family. Even more so if a step parent is involved.
That was my thought too. 3 1/2 hours is a long way to go to randomly break into a house.
-
15 hours ago, HeloDude said:
I don’t…if someone is so dangerous that we can risk them illegally obtaining a firearm then they should remain in prison (ie fufill their sentence). Once they do the time and are deemed able to rejoin society, they’re free, and should have the their rights restored. If not, we run the risk of a tyrannical government (even worse than we currently have at the federal and state levels) charging people for BS crimes, and giving them a “plea deal” to avoid prison (or a very light sentence), and there goes your gun rights. If you’re a free person, you’re free.
As for background checks, same type of thing above…it is essentially asking for permission to exercise freedom. I think it’s hilarious that people still trust the feds after what we’ve been seeing that last several decades.
While I agree in principal, recidivism is a real problem with crime and we simply don't have the resources (or will power) to keep that many people locked up forever.
I don't have a great answer, obviously, but a background check is relatively painless and there are definitely people you don't want having guns. For example, a murderer/rapist/gang banger awaiting trial out on bail. Abolishing the entire bail system isn't realistic.
More controversially, I am open to limited waiting periods. Far more than background checks. No more than 7 days, but maybe an even lower limit. Crimes of passion are real and demonstrated, and cooler heads often prevail with time. I can think of no constitutional scenario where a gun needs to be purchased *now* as opposed to next week. You aren't forming a functional anti-tyrannical-governmental force in 24 hours. Concerns about self-defense (which are arguably not what 2A addresses) might require a gun sooner, but I think you can allow police the option to waive a waiting period and you wouldn't have a worse outcome than we have now.
I think state-funded gun safety courses would be a brilliant move for the cause. Conservatives are so against spending money, but if you really wanted to change the narrative and get more people comfortable with the 2A, this would be a low cost way to make gun owners safer, make more people gun-friendly, and take away many liberal arguments against gun ownership.
-
21 hours ago, FourFans said:
Beyond that, the Amendments were never meant to stand individually. The biggest thing we as US citizens have forgotten is that citizenship is a responsibility, not a privilege.
This is a concept that was recently brought up in court regarding an illegal immigrant having a gun. The judge ruled in his favor. Do the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to all people, as they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or is the Declaration referring to other rights?
Saying that the Amendments don't stand individually poses the same problem as many of the proposed gun laws... where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide how much "responsibility" one must display to be worthy of the Rights? Obviously there is a limit somewhere, as we restrict the ability of felons to vote and own weapons, but even that is a contested idea, one I struggle with.
As to the serial numbers, first you have to demonstrate that serial numbers are reducing gun crime. Not just helping track the gun to wherever it came from. Are criminals avoiding serialized guns? Are they getting caught because of the serial number? So many laws are some nerd's idea that might do this or might do that, without any evidence before or after that it actually does anything at all. Yet the law rarely has a sunset clause like the assault weapons ban of 1993 had.
Serial numbers do absolutely help the government track guns. That's bad. So the associated good needs to be clear and supported. I don't see evidence of that right now.
With "ghost guns" the problem would be if someone starts making a bunch of guns and funneling them to gangs/cartels. Is this already illegal? If so, do we need another law making it illegal? Is this (meaningfully) increasing the number of guns in criminals' hands?
I think the argument for banning ghost guns is that the serial number allows the maker to be tracked down easily. Obviously someone making guns for the cartel isn't going to follow that law anyways, so instead this becomes a law that you can use to theoretically "get" the cartel suppliers for making unserialized guns without actually proving they were selling guns to bad guys. Like how Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion instead of all the actual murdering and booze-running. But that was a bullshit tactic in the first place, not a victory of law-enforcement. Forensics have advanced to the point we don't need to play games like that anymore to catch crooks.
But this is also so niche I just don't care much. I would much rather have the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrels addressed.
-
2 minutes ago, gearhog said:
Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.
Bashi is getting a bit close. Continuously proclaiming the inevitability of Russian victory and arguing that Ukrainian corruption sets them up as an unworthy ally. Especially when there are plenty of examples of much bigger countries being defeated/repelled by well-funded underdogs. But he's also just a troll
But yeah, the character attacks as Russian shills is getting old.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lawman said:
If you actually start looking at original founding members of things like the Sierra club, there is a deeply inhuman meritocracy of human survival they are advocating for silently. John Muir was an advocate for white ascendency and soft extermination of lesser peoples. People that read things like Population bomb and think it is a sound science from a place of money and power don’t want there to be 8 billion people on the Planet. These were champions of Eugenics, which at its time was a widely regarded pseudo scientific thought and now through revision its something we normally just associate with the Nazis.
That doesn’t make that the sole platform of the eco movement. There are utopian-futurists in that movement who want to see us ascend technologically (people that think of things like mass scale tidal power generation), there are opportunistic parasites (people funneling trillions of future investments to the cause so they can be a ground floor owner in that investment). There are the dogmatic zealots (think green-peace/morons like Greta) who see this like an extreme religious crusade.
There isn’t just 1 monolithic ecological identify. But what I’ve found is most of them want no discussion of the trade off to anything they are presenting as the sole and only problem. They want to just do arithmetic in a game that is regulated by calculus/physics.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAnd I think people don't realize how natural the anti-human instinct is. You ever met someone who boils issues down to "humans just suck" or "humans are a cancer on the Earth?" My wife was like that way back. Never actually acted in a way that indicated she believed it, deeply compassionate and attached to her friends and family, but if you mentioned the environment, boom, humans are the worst and we probably need fewer of them.
That impulse, I think, is just part of being a species with a hyper-advanced intellect and self-consciousness/awareness as a primary characteristic. Similar to how racism is a natural but "toxic" manifestation of tribalism. Keeps you alive in the jungle, but less compatible with advanced society. These impulses must be overcome with reason and wisdom. Instead the environmental movement has given in to them absolutely.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
Oddly, they didn't win despite a huge ramp to their industrial base and the employment of millions of rounds of artillery, airstrike and even chemical weapons. It's almost like an adversary employing asymmetric tactics (Stinger), blunted their advantage, bled them until they packed up and went home. Who would have thought...
Are you sure the Afghans didn't just have superior firepower, superior numbers, a deeply secure anti-corruption apparatus, and direct support from US military units?
Because I've been told that's the only way Ukraine has a chance here...
-
2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:
Good reply, thank you for writing it out. I'll reply in kind when able if you're still interested, but it won't be for a bit. More than once here I've gotten a thoughtful reply, but lamentably have been too busy to respond in a worthy fashion. 🥃
No rush. I've done the same. Perils of the Internet🤷🏻♂️
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:
im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons.
putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.
Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe...
Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."
-
2
-
CCW Choice
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Do you mean 1,000 round packs, or do you mean true "bulk?" I haven't researched it there are even better deals in 5k and up range. Might be interesting to see if there's any opportunities is doing a group purchase of 100k+ rounds one day.
Part of me is resisting the urge to stock up too much right now because I think all of these toys are going to get cheaper as consumer spending slows. Of course that will be turned on its head if we get another military conflict somewhere that sucks up all the supply.
But I've noticed the sales are getting better and better on a range of products. Might be an early warning sign.