Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

But is it true that if you don't Mirandize a suspect you can't use anything he says in court against anyone? The Constitution doesn't include a right to not incriminate someone else.

It would be hearsay and a violation of the confrontation clause if the out-of-court statement were used in a trial against somebody else, but the person who made the statement can be subpoenaed to testify directly against a defendant; however, the person who made the statement may invoke the Fifth Amendment at that trial if the testimony would incriminate himself.

Common sense. This picture lacks it. How people accepted this is is mind boggling, but at the same time we had a fireworks factory explode here in the Netherlands which was located in the middle of a residential area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/in-the-texas-plant-explosion-history-repeats-itself.html

 

[TacticalFox88]

I have no words

 

[RustyNails]

I have no words

I blame Flintstones for setting back human progress by 100 years.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I have no words

That image is not loading on my phone. What is it?

 

[Piecake]

I have no words

is that from an actual school or just some sunday school thing?

 

[B-Dubs]

That image is not loading on my phone. What is it?

You don't want to know...

 

[TacticalFox88]

is that from an actual school or just some sunday school thing?

Actual school.

 

[The Librarian]

PD is forbidden from posting in my PoliGAF thread until he changes that godawful avatar of his.

 

[Particle Physicist]

You don't want to know...

Logged into my computer to see it... you were right.

Science Quiz!

Unbelievable. Where is this school?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/in-the-texas-plant-explosion-history-repeats-itself.html

Indeed. We learn absolutely nothing from history.

I have no words

Nah come on, has to be a joke.

PD is forbidden from posting in my PoliGAF thread until he changes that godawful avatar of his.

Are you hating on Pac?

 

[The Librarian]

Indubitably.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Indubitably.

 

[Oblivion]

I like this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced

 

[PhoenixDark]

PD is forbidden from posting in my PoliGAF thread until he changes that godawful avatar of his.

I ain't mad at ya

 

[B-Dubs]

I like this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced

That's a good ad.

 

[Link]

I like this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced

Ha, that was great.

 

[Mike M]

Ehhh... I'm far from a gun nut, but I don't think that's a particularly effective add. Our gun laws have changed since muskets were the most advanced firearm. Have there really been any fundamental advances in gun technology since the most recent statutes on the books?

 

[Gotchaye]

Ehhh... I'm far from a gun nut, but I don't think that's a particularly effective add. Our gun laws have changed since muskets were the most advanced firearm. Have there really been any fundamental advances in gun technology since the most recent statutes on the books?

That's beside the point. A major argument on the anti-control side of all gun legislation passed in (at least) living memory has been "But the Founders..." The gun laws that we have are infected with the thinking the ad is criticizing. The implicit claim is that the laws we have are more appropriate for muskets than for modern guns. The gun in the ad would have been out of date from before "gun control" was even on the radar.

Supposing that we actually hadn't passed any new gun control legislation for 200 years until tomorrow when Congress passes a law requiring gun buyers to promise sellers that they're not up to no good, would the ad then become ineffective?

 

[speculawyer]

Ehhh... I'm far from a gun nut, but I don't think that's a particularly effective add. Our gun laws have changed since muskets were the most advanced firearm. Have there really been any fundamental advances in gun technology since the most recent statutes on the books?

Of course they have changed. But not as much as guns have changed.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Ehhh... I'm far from a gun nut, but I don't think that's a particularly effective add. Our gun laws have changed since muskets were the most advanced firearm. Have there really been any fundamental advances in gun technology since the most recent statutes on the books?

I'm starting to not give a fuck about the right's feelings on guns, because they obviously don't even want to have a remote discussion that even somewhat forces them to come to the table and have a reasonable discussion.

Fuck the Second Amendment, honestly. It's original purpose has been served several times over with the National Guard and even if it wasn't, any so called rebellion would last no longer than a week.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm starting to not give a fuck about the right's feelings on guns, because they obviously don't even want to have a remote discussion that even somewhat forces them to come to the table and have a reasonable discussion.

Fuck the Second Amendment, honestly. It's original purpose has been served several times over with the National Guard and even if it wasn't, any so called rebellion would last no longer than a week.

A week? You're being a little generous there aren't you?

 

[TacticalFox88]

A week? You're being a little generous there aren't you?

A week gives them a chance to realize how completely fucked they are.

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

How'd that work out for them? And this was when the playing field was *almost* even.

Fucking LOL.

 

[B-Dubs]

A week gives them a chance to realize how completely fucked they are.

:lol I sort of just imagine an F-15 flying over with a missile and the whole thing would be done.

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

How'd that work out for them? And this was when the playing field was *almost* even.

Fucking LOL.

Yea, it's like people never bothered to learn history. A bunch of guys with guns stands no chance against a standing army without outside help.

 

[TacticalFox88]

:lol I sort of just imagine an F-15 flying over with a missile and the whole thing would be done.



Yea, it's like people never bothered to learn history. A bunch of guys with guns stands no chance against a standing army without outside help.

Ironically, this very statement is LITERALLY the sole reason we are even a country.

What foreign nation in their right fucking mind would aid any rebels in modern 2013 America, in which their political beliefs are the antithesis to practically every single nation that COULD help them, let alone if they wanted to?

 

[B-Dubs]

Ironically, this very statement is LITERALLY the sole reason we are even a country.

What foreign nation in their right fucking mind would aid any rebels in modern 2013 America, in which their political beliefs are the antithesis to practically every single nation that COULD help them, let alone if they wanted to?

I know, that's why I added it in. You would not believe how many people don't know about all the help we got during the revolution. They just think Washington won the war by pulling up his bootstraps and the power of god or whatever.

 

[Link]

What I find more ironic is that all these people that insist on their right to bare arms to protect themselves against tyranny from the government are the very same people that want us to pump as much money into the military as possible.

 

[jamesinclair]

A week? You're being a little generous there aren't you?

Nah I watch Revolution on NBC and the patriots are able to fight off the Monroe dictatorships because they have some guns.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I know, that's why I added it in. You would not believe how many people don't know about all the help we got during the revolution. They just think Washington won the war by pulling up his bootstraps and the power of god or whatever.

Please tell me you're joking.

I know I've been out of school for so awhile, but even THEY taught us about the French secretly aiding us.

Oh dear Jesus.

 

[B-Dubs]

Please tell me you're joking.

I know I've been out of school for so awhile, but even THEY taught us about the French secretly aiding us.

Oh dear Jesus.

No they do teach that the French helped us in school (it's been a while for me though) but I have met people that will literally gloss over it and insist we did it all ourselves with no real help from anyone.

 

[Chichikov]

:lol I sort of just imagine an F-15 flying over with a missile and the whole thing would be done.

It doesn't even have to involve that, a platoon of marines will fucking decimate the entire Montana militia in a weekend - training, cohesion, chain of command, intelligence, you name it, a professional fighting force just outmatch and outclass untrained civilians, even those that really really love their guns.
The only way civilians can fight a modern army is through an asymmetrical guerilla warfare (read: terrorist attacks), and there you mostly want to try to avoid getting into any sort of firefight.
Guns are mostly used as a way to assert authority over the local population (though obviously it's not always needed).

 

[zargle]

Nah I watch Revolution on NBC and the patriots are able to fight off the Monroe dictatorships because they have some guns.

Also because everyone dies with one cut from a sword.

 

[Link]

It is kinda cute that people who go to the range once a month and shoot at stationary targets think they're some kind of elite experts. A true professional will put a bullet through your heart before you even know what's happening.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Anyone still keeping up with Obama's approval rating? 53% on Gallup, 52% on Rasmussen today.

Wonder if it's a rally effect for Boston.

 

[TacticalFox88]

It is kinda cute that people who go to the range once a month and shoot at stationary targets think they're some kind of elite experts. A true professional will put a bullet through your heart before you even know what's happening.

Exactly. What do you these morons think soldiers, ESPECIALLY special forces do when they're not on missions?

Train.

Train.

Train.

These people are LITERALLY at the absolute peak of human athleticism, marksmanship, training and ways to kill you. Seal Team Six alone would probably solo any militia group, not counting Delta Team, Marine Recon, PJs, Combat Controllers, Army Rangers, Green Berets.

It's so lopsided in the government's favor it's ridiculous.

 

[Chichikov]

It is kinda cute that people who go to the range once a month and shoot at stationary targets think they're some kind of elite experts. A true professional will put a bullet through your heart before you even know what's happening.

Actually, individual marksmanship is not as important as you might think (at least not for most soldiers/situations).
It wouldn't surprise me if some hobbyists out there are as good with their aim as your trained infantry soldier - but they'll still going to get decimated by a cohesive well trained unit.

It's about tactics, following orders and working as a unit more than individual weapons skills - and it's reflected in the way the army train its soldiers, you spend significantly more time training as a unit than working on your gun skills alone.

These people are LITERALLY at the absolute peak of human athleticism, marksmanship, training and ways to kill you. Seal Team Six alone would probably solo any militia group, not counting Delta Team, Marine Recon, PJs, Combat Controllers, Army Rangers, Green Berets.

No need for special forces, the soldiers in Restrepo (WATCH THAT FILM NOW) which from my understanding are as regular as regular soldiers get in the US army, would destroy them, probably without casualties if they do it at night.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Militia dipshits would have trouble taking on a city's SWAT team. Don't even need to bring the military into it.

 

[Oblivion]

Anyone still keeping up with Obama's approval rating? 53% on Gallup, 52% on Rasmussen today.

Wonder if it's a rally effect for Boston.

Bush's approval ratings soared to 90% after 9/11.

Hmm...

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I like this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced

Unbelievable! Perfection!

 

[Chichikov]

Militia dipshits would have trouble taking on a city's SWAT team. Don't even need to bring the military into it.

Indeed.
And again, I want to remind people that what they effectively saying is that one day they might want to kill police officers or soldiers (I'm sure they'll have great reasons though), so they want good guns.
I am as anti-authoritarian as they come, and even I find hard to have any sympathy for that sentiment.

Bush's approval ratings soared to 90% after 9/11.

Hmm...

Democrats always showed a little too much support for "a president in a time of war" (see Tip O'Neill, Invasion of Grenada).
I don't think it served the country well.
Even the GOP's "hate and criticize everything the president do" is more healthy (by a tiny tiny bit though, both sucks).

 

[TacticalFox88]

I am as anti-authoritarian as they come, and even I find hard to have any sympathy for that sentiment.

I feel like I have to challenge you on that. I know you might view it as a slippery slope and I'd agree with you, but sometimes you need that authority to suppress, control, and contain ridiculous amounts of stupidity and just take action.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What I find more ironic is that all these people that insist on their right to bare arms to protect themselves against tyranny from the government are the very same people that want us to pump as much money into the military as possible.

USA USA USA

 

[789shadow]

Ehhh... I'm far from a gun nut, but I don't think that's a particularly effective add. Our gun laws have changed since muskets were the most advanced firearm. Have there really been any fundamental advances in gun technology since the most recent statutes on the books?

They may have changed, but they are not effective because guns are so dangerous now that only making them incredibly difficult to legally obtain and keep, while preventing certain people from ever getting them, is the only really effective legislation we can have.

 

[Chichikov]

I feel like I have to challenge you on that. I know you might view it as a slippery slope and I'd agree with you, but sometimes you need that authority to suppress, control, and contain ridiculous amounts of stupidity and just take action.

I would gladly pick a philosophical fight with you, but I'm not sure what specific point you're making here.

If you took from my post that I reject any sort of central authority then no, you're reading it wrong, I just meant to say "I'm really really not an authoritarian individual", it's just like a figure of speech, you know?
Like, when I say - I'm as liberal as the next person, I'm not actually talking about the person literally next to me, who as luck would have it, is a vanguard party Marxist (and a MASSIVE San Antonio Spurs fan), so I'm not even sure where to place us on the liberal spectrum.

 

[TacticalFox88]

They may have changed, but they are not effective because guns are so dangerous now that only making them incredibly difficult to legally obtain and keep, while preventing certain people from ever getting them, is the only really effective legislation we can have.

BU-BUT the CRIMINALS, man! They won't follow the law!!!

 

[The Librarian]

If y'all want I can put the new thread up tomorrow morning.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Bush's approval ratings soared to 90% after 9/11.

Hmm...

It's neat how Bush got a 90% approval rating for being president during the worst attack on US soil in history. Obama actually catches the guy and his rating tops out at 53% at best.

 

[Oblivion]

What I find more ironic is that all these people that insist on their right to bare arms to protect themselves against tyranny from the government are the very same people that want us to pump as much money into the military as possible.

I mentioned this the other day, but these tards say they're not worried about the military since they're no doubt wonderful, god-fearin' patriots. The real danger are agencies like the EPA, IRS and HHS becoming Obama's personal peace enforcers (I forget what the actual term they used was).

 

[B-Dubs]

If y'all want I can put the new thread up tomorrow morning.

Odds are it should go up later today, just judging by the post count.

It's neat how Bush got a 90% approval rating for being president during the worst attack on US soil in history. Obama actually catches the guy and his rating tops out at 53% at best.

Bu--but BENGHAZI

 

[TacticalFox88]

It's neat how Bush got a 90% approval rating for being president during the worst attack on US soil in history. Obama actually catches the guy and his rating tops out at 53% at best.

The price Obama pays for being black.

 

[The Librarian]

It's neat how Bush got a 90% approval rating for being president during the worst attack on US soil in history. Obama actually catches the guy and his rating tops out at 53% at best.

Hmmm, I don't think they're entirely comparable.