Skip to main content

Two days ago I posted about my experience with my unit's annual weapon qualification.  I had not expected it to end up as one of the most recommended or even more than 30 comments.

Now I had picked a title that was a bit shocking: I shot an Assault Rifle this weekend, It was FUN!  I figured it would get people to look at some of what I wrote better than something like this "Reserve weekend review of our Qualification Range". (maybe marketing could be a fifth career path)

However while reading through the comments it was interesting to see the different paths the comments went.  Towards the end one poster presented the title of this in the comments. UntimelyRippd asked "what you were having fun doing was practicing to kill people".  It struck me as a question that should be answered in the thoughtful manor it was asked. It is one of two comments that did that to me.

I am going to expand on it after the fold.

UntimelyRippd stated the following: "

Even though the essential gist of your diary is something with which I'm quite sympathetic, I nonetheless feel a compulsion to point out to you that what you were having fun doing was practicing to kill people. It wasn't a game, and it wasn't camping with your pals -- it was preparing yourself to be the effective and unapologetic instrument of the evil designs of the next Dick Cheney.

I realize that you very likely have a different view -- perhaps that you were preparing to defend your community, your friends, your nation from some unspeakable depredation.

History, unfortunately, suggests otherwise.

Well I do have a different view. (I will expand on my reply in the original thread, I hope this is as informative as my last, I know it will be about as long)

The initial reply was from Vet24 who wrote:

we were fully aware of what we were training for.  Many Guard/Reserve are prior active duty. Even in my day many had seen combat. Todays reserve component have had tours of duty in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

Some have not come home from those 'camping' trips.

I don't believe that the Iraq war was right or even legal, but until/unless the Congress does what they are supposed to do to stop that type of stupidity instead of voting to support it the soldier has little recourse but to fight the battle as ordered.

And this is true, the military and police do not hide the fact they are training you to shoot and kill other humans.  Years ago they use to keep any human image away from you when you trained but this created problems.  Notably that Soldiers and Police officers would not shoot people, but rather if they shot at all it would be towards them.  Even when being shot at by bad people.  

When the military and police train it is on human shaped targets or human images. Not bullseye targets or or deer or funny shapes.  Human.  You are told you may have to shoot others.  You train to do that.  BUT it is not indiscriminate shooting and killing.  It is under controlled direction with strict rules that are not allowed to be bent or ignored.

A Soldier and to some extent the Police officer operates under the direction of higher command.  The Army takes its direction from Congress through the Commander in Chief.  Your Police Officer from her chain of command as directed by the Charter or Constitution establishing them. Often a City Council through the Mayor.  The Soldier/Police operate under their authority and direction.  

That direction can be direct orders or regulations on what and how activity will be preformed.

For example, right or wrong, we have soldiers in Afghanistan.  While there they have been directed to seek out and destroy Taliban and other terrorist groups.  The Congress has funded them, directed the President to send them there, they then get directions from the President through the chain of command that establishes limits on what the Soldier can do. (Rules of Engagement - ROE)

It would be easy for the US to drop 10,000 pound bombs on every building in helmand province then follow up with a mass of men who shoot everyone left.  It is not easy to say "you can only point your loaded weapon at someone who is taking actions that could lead to them shooting at you, you can't shoot unless you have been shot at, can clearly ID the shooter, can return fire with out putting other non-combatants in danger to include miss rounds and pass through." These are limits to what Soldiers are allowed to do.  Same goes for Police, you can't just shoot anyone walking down the street you think might have a knife on them.  You have "ROE", you have to stop the person, give a reason for stoping them, can't search them with out a warrant or special circumstances, can't deny them rights, etc.

Rules are what the Soldier and Police have to follow.  When they violate those rules, they should be harshly punished.  Society that does not punish the rule breakers among the military and police soon devolve into thug/gang like abuse.

This ties in with the whole training to kill people thing.  

As a Society, the people of these United States have elected Representatives to the Senate and House which granted the military limited authority to use violence against others.  We did the same at the State and local level for Police.  In all cases we allowed our Representatives to give Soldiers the permission to use more force against others than an individual would be justified in using.  Just as a Police Officer can use a higher level of force against someone than a citizen could. (If someone is throwing wiffle balls at you, you can not pull out a gun and shoot them.  You can throw them back and try to get away.  A Police officer can move in and grab the wiffle whipper and restrain him.  Something an average person could not do.)

The Soldier accepts the risk that he can become the tool of the next warmonger like Cheney or Obama. (Yes, I feel Obama has failed to end the wars like he said he would and have seen friends come back from Iraq and Afghanistan maimed because he has failed to do what I voted him in to do in '08.)  The Soldier hopes the Citizens, the people who rule the nation, will choose Representatives who will not lightly shed their lives.

But why?

Well simply because there are bad people in the world.

LTC (ret) Dave Grossman, the formost expert on violence, combat and killing (really he actually wrote the book on it here at Amazon) presents a very good description of this.

He says there are three types of people in the world: Sheep, Wolfs, and Sheepdogs.

Sheep are most people in the world, kind, loving, gentle, peaceful and can only hurt each other by accident.  They work hard and find it very hard to be violent.  They don't go out and attack others, and if they do it seldom results in death.  Keep in mind that the murder rate is around 6 out of 100,000, but the assault rate is 4 out of 1,000 a year.  This means that a vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt others except by accident or extreme provocation.  In the grand picture, out of 300 million Americans, there are less than 2 million violent crimes committed.  While that is a huge number, it is not really.  Yes, I know, if you're attacked it is a big deal, but the average person faces a 1 in 100 chance of being a victim of violence in any given year.  But you face a 1 in 23 chance of being in a car collision, and a 1 in 5 chance of having heart disease in a given year.

But this does not mean that there are 2 million violent people in the US.  Most violent crime is committed by serial criminals.  The guy who holds up a connivence store and pistol whips the teller, likely has done several other such store robberies and muggings.  These people are the next category LTC (ret) Grossman talks of, The Wolf.

Wolfs are psychopaths. Like a real wolf in a herd of sheep it will bite and try its best to kill every one of the sheep in the most painful manor it can. It has no mercy, no compassion, no restraint other than the fear of being stopped.

Sheepdogs are just like wolfs except for one difference.  They won't harm the Sheep.  In fact they will confront any wolf that shows up putting themselves between the wolf and the sheep.  They are just as capable as wolfs in conducting violence but it is controlled and directed and limited.

Now don't assume that being called a "sheep" is bad.  It is not.  LTC (ret) Grossman uses the robin's egg as an example:

"Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful! For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators."
Sheepdogs in society are your police, military, EMS, Fire Fighters.  All those people who run towards the flames, gun shots, screams, when others are running away.  They feel a calling to help others and stop the violence, with violence when needed.

If you don't have the ability to use violence, that is good, you are a healthy productive sheep.  If you have the ability to use violence but have no compassion for your fellow citizens, you are a wolf, a psychopath.  But, to quote LTC (ret) Grossman again,

"what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed"
Sheep don't like Sheepdogs.  The Sheepdog reminds them that the wolf is out there.  Sheep want to paint the sheepdog white, make it say "baaa" and muzzle it.  But when the wolf shows up, they all hide behind the lone Sheepdog and hope the wolf is stopped.

Sheep think differently, they want to pretend there is nothing wrong with the world, that crime is an intellectual event. One wrote "If someone broke into my home, I would help him load his car so he would leave, i'll get new stuff".  The idea that the person breaking into his home while he is there might hurt him is not in his mind, he tells himself that as long as he does what the robber wants, he will be fine. Reality says otherwise, he is in denial.

Sheepdogs think differently, They are on the alert, looking around for possible problems. Planning and preparing for a time they hope won't come.  She is looking for things that go bump in the night.  She wants to make a difference.

This does not mean the Sheepdog is morally superior to a Sheep.  Being a Sheepdog is a choice.  Some are "primed" to be Sheepdogs, just as some are "primed" to be wolf, but the choices made are what directs the person.  You can choose to become a Sheepdog, many do.  

Again, LTC (ret) Grossman:

"In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door."

Me and my 109 "friends" are taking the roll of Sheepdogs.  We train to be able to stand between the wolfs.  We train to be able to conduct that violence needed to protect others.  We train to control that violence. Note how we only fire when directed to, in specific areas, and under close supervision.  We train to follow rules in the use of violence and the limits for that use.

Yes, we are "practicing to kill people".  It is not a game.  But the mindset that allows us to move towards the bad guys requires us to invoke some "game" aspects to it.  Trying to get the most hits, the best accuracy, or best control helps us do the hard thing.

My "friends" are willing to die for this nation.  But first we are willing to kill for it.  I sleep better at night knowing there are hard men and women willing to inflict violence on the wolfs of the world when needed.

Sheep have only one response to the wolf, denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Yes, I would prefer to NOT be sent to violence to others.  Not here in the US or in where-ever-stan.  But I am ready to.  I could not live with my self if I avoided it and my fellow Soldiers were hurt because I was not there to help.  This is why citizens need to hold the Congress and President accountable for ordering troops to fight.

Originally posted to Drill Sgt K on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Poll

Which would you rather be?

7%4 votes
64%37 votes
5%3 votes
14%8 votes
8%5 votes

| 57 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tipped, recced, republished to RKBA. (17+ / 0-)

    I made a conscious choice to be a sheepdog. I have taken LEO firearm courses. I shoot regularly. I practice.

    Thanks for the diary.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44:29 AM PDT

    •  Aren't you a sheep that goes woof? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995, alain2112

      You want to be a cop... Be a cop.

      "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

      by TheFern on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:04:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No way man, he's an American Hero, you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheFern, alain2112

        should be thanking him for watching out for us all and keeping us safe. Why would he join any formal institution to serve the public, when he can consider himself a hero/sheepdog for doing nothing at all but shooting pumpkins and basketballs in his backyard. Fucking totally delusional

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't consider myself a hero. (3+ / 0-)

          But considering the three categories, I'm most like a sheepdog. Not a wolf. Not a sheep. That leaves....

          Thanks for the insult by the way.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:21:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm basically a porcupine. (0+ / 0-)

            Wolves don't screw with me, sheepdogs don't care where I am as long as it's not underfoot.

            Screw sheep, they steal my parking spot, crowd my way to work on the bus/train...

            Leave me be to be myself and you won't get any quills in you.  Try to remove my quills and you get them.  One. At. A. Time.

            Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
            Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
            Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

            by ErikO on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:32:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I don't want to be a cop. Thanks. nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper, Patrick Costighan

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 06:20:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sheepdogs come in lots of flavors -- (13+ / 0-)

      soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Coast Guards, EMTs, police, firefighters, nurses, dentists, doctors ... the definition is which way you run when you realize there's trouble. Do you go toward it, to help, or away to escape?

      Some of this, I think, is DNA, at least for those of us old enough to have grown up before "Dial 9-1-1" (never mind before cell phones). Growing up on a farm, doing some of the things we call 9-1-1 for today came with the territory; and it led me, at least, to think differently about needing to be able to do those things.

      In the real world, sheepdogs vary -- they're as diverse as Australian shepherds, llamas, and donkeys, not to mention Komodors. Seems logical that people would be the same.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 03:04:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Komodors - how apt! (from wiki:) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas
        Hungarian Komondor breeders used to say that an intruder may be allowed to enter the property guarded by a Komondor, but he will not be allowed to come out again.
        Sounds like the definition of police duty.

        The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

        by 43north on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:14:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  While I am quite anti-war and would *prefer* (15+ / 0-)

    non-violence, I am reality-based.
    Which leads me to my advertsing slogan for the MARINES:

    MARINES
    because sometimes peace and love just don'tcut it.
    Bad people exist and they seem to insist on doing bad things.

    Sometimes - this is shocking to many here - they won't not hurt you even if you ask politely for them not to, or even if you offer them a hug. Some people are dangerous and they have to be approached as such.

    What the Cheney Administration did was to thoroughly use up any rationale that ever existed for war. They jettisoned any legitimacy by lying us into that war, and they have competently set up the war as the best money-laundering mechanism EVER.

    A standing military is still essential at this point in our evolution and all the wars we have had since AT LEAST Viet Nam were for-profit scams.

    It is not appropriate or useful to badger and denigrate military enlistees when they do not make the policies.

    The ILLEGITIMACY of the Bush Wars has led to an epidemic of military PTSD and the military leading the US Suicide rate.

    Leave the Armed Forces alone, focus on the DOD and our dear, dear leaders.

    •  We need a standing Army, but the bad guy/good guy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug

      bullshit has got to go.

      We have to stop with this "the boogeyman is out there, and he's gonna get ya" attitude. That attitude is far more dangerous than the actual tiny portion of "bad bad people who insist on doing bad bad things" in this world. In fact, chances are that those people are acting the way they do because some jackoff convinced them the people they are victimizing deserved it.

      Far more innocent people are killed because some asshole with an agenda used the bullshit bad guy/good guy fucked up view of the world to paint someone as evil, who was just a person, than all of the Jeffrey Dahmer type victims over the last two centuries.

       

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:35:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  bad guy/good guy - (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995, 43north

        The problem I have with characterizing people like this (particularly opposing military) is that they aren't bad as such - they are out there implementing their nation's foreign policy objectives just as much as an American soldier is.  If it comes to a war, those objectives have disagreed to the point that someone's command structure has decided that it's worth killing people over, but that does not make the people implementing the opposing objectives "bad".  It makes them someone who is a legitimate target and can be killed under the appropriate conditions, but that's not a moral judgement.

      •  We don't need a standing army. (0+ / 0-)

        War of 1812 - standing army marches into Windsor, kills most favorite General causing teh Canadians to rally and kick our asses around everywhere they bother to defend.

        Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanist/Syria?/Iran? - need I say more?

        We are spending more money on our Dept of War now than we did durring WW2, adjusted for inflation.

        With the DoD spending more money on new wars than spent soldiers, we will end up with another Bonus Army problem and it won't be tanks and cav chasing poor buggers around Washington this time with Mac Arthur and Patton leading the way.

        Thomas Jefferson as right, standing armies are dumb.

        Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
        Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
        Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

        by ErikO on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:36:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bear in mind that most of the wars we've ever (0+ / 0-)

      had barely even registered in the public's awareness.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:22:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't agree with the sheepdog characterization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jarbyus, Nannyberry

    In that a sheepdog-is inherently a virtuous character. However, a perusal of human history will show that uniformed soldiers inflict just as much suffering, if not more, than the supposed wolves. Frequently this is inflicted on the very same population that they are ostensibly guarding. I prefer to think of the military as a crazed pitbull that you keep chained up in the backyard. You only unleash it when you have to- namely, to fight off other crazed pitbulls. Once unleashed it tends to do a whole lot of mayhem- some intended, some not.  In a functional country with a strong civil society, you could chain the dog back up when the job is done. In a dysfunctinal society, that dog will never get back into his doghouse once he's out, and the end result is a military dictatorship, which we have way too many examples of in this world.

  •  This happens to be laying on my desk, (6+ / 0-)

    I think it's appropriate here:

    There is a discipline, an attitude, a seriousness, an awareness, a work ethic, an understanding of the principles upon which this country was founded that the majority of those who have not served do not appreciate nor understand. It is unspoken and acknowledged by those who have it and it is incomprehensible to those who do not. Capt. Mike Davidson, USAF, 1967-72.

    Can you pass a Rorshach test? - Rodriguez

    by DaNang65 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:59:32 AM PDT

  •  history blurs line between sheepdogs and wolves (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carpunder, icemilkcoffee

    Look at the warrior caste throughout history and you'll find a bunch of men who talk a big game about honor and selfless service (to whom?), but by their actions it's clear that they were really only interested in their own glory.  Just about every war in history has been not between wolves and sheepdogs, but between different groups of sheepdogs wanting more sheep to herd because each believes that they are the best and most worthy sheepdogs.

    It doesn't help when sheepdogs start thinking that they're the most important animal around, and that it's far better for the sheep to make do with less (so the sheepdogs can be more awesome) and to follow the sheepdogs' orders without question than to get slaughtered.

    True wolves are fairly rare in history ... unless you count shepherds since they too shear, milk, and eat sheep.

  •  Several comments seem to be missing part of the (11+ / 0-)

    point to the post, in that it isn't just about military, or even just military and police.  Not all 'sheepdogs' join the military or become police, nor would all sheepdogs act to protect the entire flock.  It is that some of us recognize the dangers of the world and chose to do something about it.  We do so because it is who we are.  We also recognize that the masses will fear us because we too are capable of inflicting deadly violence.  

    •  From the diary: (0+ / 0-)
      Sheepdogs in society are your police, military, EMS, Fire Fighters.  All those people who run towards the flames, gun shots, screams, when others are running away.  They feel a calling to help others and stop the violence, with violence when needed.
      Try not inflict deadly violence, please.

      You want to be a cop, soldier, etc... You should do that and stop playing make-believe.

      "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

      by TheFern on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:25:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Au Contraire, I'm not the one playing make believe (7+ / 0-)

        Nor am I the one who needs to stop.

      •  One need not be one of those catagories... (5+ / 0-)

        to defend self or others.

        The "make-believe" is entirely your own invention.

        Your hate-mail will be graded.

        by PavePusher on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:27:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I could quote the diarist again (0+ / 0-)

          But you probably wouldn't read it or understand it.  So just have fun playing super-defender guy with your buddies, just don't expect people to buy your act.  It's as if you want the accolaides afforded the police and military without actually doing anything to earn them.  Playing heroic games with your friends at the gun range doesn't make you brave no matter how many issues of Guns and Ammo you've read.

          "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

          by TheFern on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:40:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        I think I'll stick with make believe.  It's all that sheep on mother's side.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:04:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  TheFern, here's a real situation: (3+ / 0-)

        on a Wednesday evening, just as I was about to eat, every communication devise I wore went off at the same time.

        Man stabbed.  EMS required.  Police en-route.
        I was working a paramedic gig that night.  I arrived as the EMS  ambulance pulled-up.  The police car was present, but the officer was not.  One Jamaican immigrant, a known dealer of street pharmaceuticals was stabbed in the abdomen.  His compatriots were not happy.  I locked my vehicle, took my kit and entered the ambulance, radioing the police officer who was in foot pursuit of the assailant, on the railroad tracks.  (700v third rail).

        Not having the cooperation of the locals, we left the scene, and went a block away, stopped and chose to put MAST pants on for auto-infusion, and to hold the 10x30 trauma dressings down.  I was intubating the now unconscious patient.
        The double rear doors of the ambulance were open, as the pants needed to be applied in a certain fashion.
        Two EMTs were doing so.  The driver remained seated.

        An uncommon sound was heard, and I looked-up to see a hispanic (Columbian) male lunging past the EMTs with a still bloody knife in his hand.  As my face and the Jamaicans were inches apart, a laryngoscope in one hand, the endotracheal tube in the other hand, it looked as-if one or the other of us (both?) was getting our throats cut.

        What would you do in this situation?  Sheepdog.
        What's your non-violent response to this?

        The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

        by 43north on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:32:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dear god! (0+ / 0-)

          Again I quote the freaking diary:

          Sheepdogs in society are your police, military, EMS, Fire Fighters.  All those people who run towards the flames, gun shots, screams, when others are running away.  They feel a calling to help others and stop the violence, with violence when needed.
          I rely on professionals like cops and EMTs, like you.

          I'm beginning to doubt my wisdom because you obviously don't read very well, but hey there it is.  My issue is with all the folks here that fancy themselves our heroic protectors by virtue that they play with guns and have vivid imaginations.  I think they make society less safe, and their self-adoration I find childish and dangerous.  When have I ever denigrated the service of the police or fire fighters or paramedics on this sight or any other?  Who are you people?

          "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

          by TheFern on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:41:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  PS (0+ / 0-)

            If the assailant had a gun.  You probably would have been murdered.  Good thing he didn't have a gun, eh?

            "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

            by TheFern on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:58:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The assailant was successful. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patrick Costighan

              He stabbed the Jamaican sufficiently that a surgical repair wasn't possible.  Stab, left/right motion with the knife, repeat three more times.  Massive damage to arteries and veins, liver laceration, and the usual suspects of perforated bowels.

              However... he was paid for the death of the Jamaican, and we were possibly going to prevent that from happening.

              (Police would reveal that this was part of an organized move by a Columbian faction, into an area controlled by Jamaican-nationals - all over cocaine distribution.)

              As to his having or not having a gun?
              If he shot the Jamaican in the head, I probably wouldn't have seen him for the second attempted assault.

              As it is, the assassin died in the back of the Ambulance.  
              His victim died in surgery about 2 hours later - knifed-to-death. Surgery at public expense, I might add.

              The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

              by 43north on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:20:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  PS as well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Patrick Costighan, ban nock

            There are people (perhaps you as well, perhaps not) who see a clean edge between skill sets:

            Medical Arts and those who practice them are always non-violent - or you violate the basic premise of medicine:  
            Primum non nocere.
            First do no harm.  

            Violate that in any style or fashion, and you're not fit to be a medical practitioner.
            Cops are always about violence.  It's quaint when they deliver a baby, but who's dying of violence elsewhere, while they amuse themselves and endanger a woman and child by carrying a gun to a medical event?

            Firefighters are always about heat, flames, water and destruction.  Make a mess then leave.  Finesse isn't in their lexicon.  Firehouse Chili is a great example.  
            Probably not the people you want to have using deadly power tools near your mangled body.  Nor dealing with the complexities of Hazardous Materials, often a mix of items never intended to be combined under any circumstances.

            Clean, clear, concise.  Job = defined skill set = defined task.  Finite.
            Wrong.

            The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

            by 43north on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure I agree with the sheep/sheepdog/wolf (0+ / 0-)

      split in humanity approach.

      Everyone has buttons that will turn them into the nastiest wolf you ever saw if you push them.  The only question is whether the buttons are acceptable to society or not.

      (In other words, if someone tries to hurt your child, it's OK to whack them over the head with a brick; it's frowned upon if you do that because he stole the parking spot you wanted...).

      Similarly, everyone makes choices regarding their careers - and I think that choosing one that the author cited by the diarist would feel makes you a sheepdog is much more driven by your family's attitudes while you're growing up and your economic situation than any intrinsic moral or behavioral component.

      In defense of my opinion I would point out that when populations are drafted into the armed forces, pretty much all of them are able to do pretty well at whatever tasks they're assigned, including combat.

      •  Peter, I disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wordsinthewind

        The military has long separated people into front-line units who do the ground-taking and the killing - and those who support the front-line units.

        Yes, as the Battle of the Bulge illustrated, when given no option, even cooks and orderlies can dust off those 6 weeks of Basic, and be pressed back into service as Infantrymen.

        They were at-best a mere delaying factor, not a remedy for the situation.  Of no greater significance than the weather.

        Even a chihuahua bites, I get that.  You still put a Great Pyr in the pasture.

        The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

        by 43north on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:56:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I take your point, BUT... (0+ / 0-)

          consider all parties in WWI, or the German Army at the end of WWII.  They maintained a support structure that was not directly involved in combat because that was necessary to allow the frontline soldiers to fight.  However, they certainly didn't separate people into one or the other on the basis of aptitude.  If you got picked to be at the front, that's what you did and that was the end of it...nevertheless, the system mostly worked.

          You may be right that the current approach of the US army is to be highly selective in who they use in direct combat (I'm not sure I agree with that, or at any rate that standards were hugely dropped during the first W administration), but it's clear that nearly anyone can function effectively as a soldier in combat with proper training.

          However, my point was slightly different - I'm not talking about the military experience...I'm that essentially EVERYONE is absolutely capable of incredibly violent behavior, intelligently directed, if properly motivated.

          In essence, all the sheep will bite.  They're not really sheep - they're appropriately socialized wolves, if you will.

          •  As I wrote, (0+ / 0-)

            Sheep will avoid violence except in the most provoked of situations.  And then they will not preform with any skill or control.

            Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

            by DrillSgtK on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:31:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand, but disagree - (0+ / 0-)

              IMO, almost anyone can be trained to react violently under a particular set of stimuli.  We all are socialized to do so in some situations (e.g., someone tries to hurt my child); some are socialized to do so in non-approved situations (he looked at me funny).

              Essentially all the draftees in all the armies from the Civil War on were trained to react violently when ordered to...and most of them did so quite competently.  (Actually, that would also be true of the draftees and impressed men who served in the Napoleonic Wars and in the War of 1812 as well...)

              The bottom line is, very nearly anyone can be a very good soldier, and very nearly anyonw can be really constructively violent in a personal sense if pushed to it.  

      •  S A Marshall did a study after WW II and found... (0+ / 0-)

        that a majority of Soldiers in combat, DID NOT fire their weapon AT the enemy.  Most provided suppressive fire, reloaded, ran messages, watched the back area.  He also found that the few who did shoot were very aware of the non-shooters, but felt supported as long as they stayed.

        Men Against the Fire

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:30:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I really hope this one makes the rec list (14+ / 0-)

    and I'm going to stop back and take a look at comments.

    I've certainly heard sheep explain how harmless the wolf is, delist I say.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:18:38 PM PDT

  •  A rabid sheep, I've been one for years. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freerad

    Forgive the old joke.

    I think the danger here isn't so much because of crazed killers as sheep that want to be a part time sheepdog for free. They don't want to do the training, they want their gun always to be ready, but do not want to be constantly vigilant of a nearby gun. Someone else should step in to solve their problems with gun ownership.

    1. Keep your gun.
    2. Do not shoot off your gun by accident.

    If gun owners just did these two things gun deaths would be lessened by many. See the GunFAIL diaries. Maybe we could get GunFAIL to highlight any gun death or gun wound that don't fall under failure to navigate steps 1 and 2 of gun ownership.

    Now for the crazed killer. Maybe if guns were actually kept (see 1 and 2), the crazed killer wouldn't be able to treat a gun like a video game and kill people for a high score in the newspaper.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

    •  Considering that the majority of homicides (13+ / 0-)

      are criminal on criminal, and that the typical murderer has a long history of violent offenses before graduating to homicide, your belief that the problem is "sheep that want to be a part time sheepdog for free" is entirely a figment of your imagination.

      Smug retelling of anecdotes aside, gun accidents are actually quite rare.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:31:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gun Fail (0+ / 0-)

        Gun Fail

        Diary is link rich. Your comment is link poor and I am not smug. Maybe a rabid lamb, but not smug.

        And my comment did say.

        Maybe we could get GunFAIL to highlight any gun death or gun wound that (doesn't) fall under failure to navigate steps 1 and 2 of gun ownership.
        Where did the criminal on criminal get their guns. Stolen? That would be Step 1 of gun ownership. Keep your gun.

        guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

        by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The premise behind Gunfail is to politicize (18+ / 0-)

          rare incidents in an attempt to delegitimize a Constitutional right.

          What the average person is incapable of grasping (because humans can't grasp big numbers without training) is that the sample size of these anecdotal "fails" is a population of 320 million.

          Want links? Follow the footnotes listed here. The notion that the biggest danger from guns are citizens with no prior violent criminal record is popular among prohibitionists, but is laughed at by criminologists.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:46:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  PDF file with millions of links in the footnotes (0+ / 0-)

            which the poster has no idea what is said who said it or what the point he is trying to make.

            Here's a book for you to read.

            Link

               Bat Masterson was one of the early law officers at Dodge City, Kansas and a great friend of Wyatt Earp’s. Bat was an excellent gunfighter. He was a short, stubby man with a friendly homespun appearance that made him look like anything but a gunfighter. In later years he became a New York sports writer. He was not a heavy drinker. He preferred lemon pop to alcoholic drinks and drank large quantities of it. His favorite foods were cold tongue sandwiches and wiener sandwiches. Bat created a wiener sandwich which became well known throughout the Old West and was justly thought of as a great delicacy. Everyone called it a Prairie Dog. It is one of the greatest wiener recipes ever made and will be remembered long after Bat’s gun deeds are forgotten. Here is the original recipe.

            Again, the recipe is simplicity itself: you split a wiener, rub ground sage into the sides, and broil it; then, on one side of a bun, mustard and thinly sliced dill pickle, and on the other, Worcestershire sauce.

            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:53:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've read the entire paper, thank you. (10+ / 0-)

              The middle section rather handily dissects the notion that gun homicides are principally caused by ordinary citizens without a history of prior violence, with ample citations to primary research on the subject.

              Indeed, if it weren't the case, then the Hartford experiment wouldn't have worked as well as it did.

              Gun prohibitionists want us to believe that mere possession of a firearm makes one into a dangerous beast capable of going insane and killing at a moment's twitch. The data suggests that this could not be more wrong.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:01:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  how did those 76 firearms come to be in the (0+ / 0-)

                possession of the violent people in the first place? The article doesn't seem to go there.

                Members also have seized 76 firearms.

                guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:10:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  All I am saying that there are 2 rules of gun (0+ / 0-)

                handling.

                1. Keep your gun.
                2. Do not fire your gun by accident.

                All I am saying that if gun owners followed these 2 rules, the gun problem would be rare, and the GunFAIL diary probably would not exist. I would like to see these 2 rules codified into law.

                These 2 rules seem to be a major hurdle to gun toters present in this blog. I know you are above reproach in the 2 rules, but you fight tooth and nail to keep this from being codified into law. Instead you argue that the GunFAIL diaries are just a small percentage of the population and it really doesn't interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends.

                Guns are fun, why should there be any rules.

                guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The "gun problem" (7+ / 0-)

                  is rare. Exceedingly rare.

                  The vast majority of people who own them keep them and do not fire them by accident.

                  Bad consequences of your two items are already codified into law. Stealing a gun is against the law. Any harm caused by an accidental discharge has legal ramifications - reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc, etc

                  What you are asking for already exists. There is no hurdle.

                  But, what you are asking for under cover of "being reasonable" as you couch it, and you did not explain, is criminalization of gun ownership.

                  Uncalled for, not necessary and violates the civil rights of the vast majority of the population.

                  •  Losing a gun is about as serious as losing a video (0+ / 0-)

                    game. No wonder people can't keep them straight.

                    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:36:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If the vast majority keep the guns the own and (0+ / 0-)

                    do not fire them by accident, how is it violating their civil rights to really hammer those butterfingered trigger pullers that do let their guns get in the wrong hands and misfire guns by accident.

                    You would think that the gun owners who follow steps one and two, would shout the loudest when those steps are breached. But they deny and defend.

                    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:45:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  In most municipalities, discharge of a firearm (7+ / 0-)

                      within city limits is a crime.

                      There's an affirmative defense to the charge, that you discharged it in defense of your life.

                      Anytime a weapon ends up with the police, they do trace it back to the last person a FFL sold it to.  This person, has some explaining to do, and it helps if they have a good lawyer.

                      What you ask for is already codified.

                      •  The 2nd Amendment rights to gun ownership are (0+ / 0-)

                        not forfeited by accidental or illegal discharge of a firearm. It is a video game level of crime and punishment.  Oopsie go forth and do better with you guns.

                        2 Amendment rights to gun ownership are not forfeited by letting your gun fall into the wrong hands, from a child who shoots it to a criminal who uses it, any hand not your own. You are free and welcome to go to the store to get another gun.

                        So when guns are let fly in the community there is little more attention than if a video game was the object and not a deadly weapon.

                        guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                        by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:02:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  In my town, unlawful discharge of a firearm is (5+ / 0-)

                          a felony.  AGGRAVATED discharge is a class 1 felony.

                          With a felony conviction, you can't pass a background check.  In my state, you need a foid card to buy guns or ammunition, or to go to most ranges.  Possession of a firearm in Illinois without a foid card, if you do not qualify for a foid card, is another felony.

                          The laws are already there for my state.  All we need is a national foid card (which also solves universal background checks) and law enforcement to do it's job.

                          I don't know where you live, but we have pretty good workable solutions here in my state.  If anything, we need more/better law enforcement.

                          •  Ok now we have covered the 2nd rule of gun (0+ / 0-)

                            ownership. You have not provided links that any one who has been convicted for an accidental discharge of a gun in your state ever losing their 2nd amendment rights to carry a gun.

                            On to the first.

                            Keep your gun.

                            Failure to keep your gun results in a felony in your town? Or is it oopsie, better watch out, my gun got into the wrong hands, by the way I'll be needing amnesty and I will be going to the store to get another gun. Because anything bad that would happen with my gun in the wrong hands is not my fault or responsibility.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:03:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think that anyone else would not have lost (0+ / 0-)

                            their gun, because they had to call it a crime of violence in regard to immigration laws.  So the whole crime got magnified in immigration court.

                            The Board reasonably concluded that the Illinois conviction in this case was a “crime of violence” for purposes of the immigration laws, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) and 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining “aggravated felony” to include a “crime of violence”).   We therefore Deny Quezada-Luna's petition for review.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:40:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you're arguing that Illinois has a lot of (5+ / 0-)

                            selective prosecution,  I'd agree.

                            The laws are there to be used to charge people with.  The fact that they aren't (or aren't consistently) is a LE/prosecutory problem.  Of which are legion in Illinois.

                          •  The first crime didn't seem like that big of a (0+ / 0-)

                            deal to them. They had to escalate it to deport the person. I am thinking that removing someone's 2nd Amendment rights would be much more difficult than deporting someone to Mexico.

                            So I find it difficult to fathom that anyone would even get their 2nd Amendment rightful gun confiscated and have to buy another for committing the original crime as a citizen.

                            You know like when they take your fishing pole when you fish out of season.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:57:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  this is starting to go sideways (6+ / 0-)

                            The laws are there.

                            I can't help you if you find it difficult to believe that the laws will be enforced... Thats a whole separate issue.

                            If you have a hard time believing that Chicago doesn't confiscate firearms, google is your friend.  Elsewhere in the states, the laws are there to be enforced.  Not uniformly, which is another issue altogether.

                             

                          •  So if someone steals my gun (4+ / 0-)

                            I should be convicted of a felony? What if they held me at gun point while they stole my gun? Should that put me on death row?

                            That's just sick. I mean really sick.

                            You do understand that makes no sense and will never happen, right?

                          •  No problem, just run to the store and get another (0+ / 0-)

                            I will tell everyone to watch out there is a gun on the loose. Please call me when your new gun gets loose. I'll alert everyone there is danger.

                            Don't worry, I'll take care of what you can't.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:56:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What if they shot me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            when they stole my gun? Would that be double death row?

                            Double death row with no last meal only beans and rice?

                          •  And if Lanza hadn't shot his mother's head off, (0+ / 0-)

                            you would be driving her to the store for more guns. Because she only furnished the guns, no big deal. Not her fault. They just fell into the wrong hands.

                            Her estate should be paying for all the damage her guns did.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:23:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You didn't answer the question (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi, KVoimakas

                            Not Adam Lanza. Just a bad guy. What if they shot me when they stole my gun from me? What penalty should I pay then?

                            She should pay for her son's crimes? So when your son rapes and murders, you should get the punishment? When your daughter steals a car, drives drunk and kills children, you should go to jail, right?

                            That makes perfect sense to you, doesn't it?

                          •  It's a gun not a video game. You really can't see (0+ / 0-)

                            that.

                            Every aspect of weapon access is regulated and controlled.People have lost their careers because proper process was not followed even though all weapons were accounted for.
                            This is how a diarist describes military rules for gun control.

                            Your idea of gun ownership is muddy and more like the rules for owning a video game.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:15:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your idea of justice (3+ / 0-)

                            is authoritarian.

                            How far will you take this?

                            Let's say I didn't cover my breast sufficiently and was raped. So you think I should go to jail for not covering my breasts? I mean seriously, some rapists find breasts extremely provocative. Not covering causes violent crime. My breasts are not toys.

                            A person working in a desk job will lose their career if proper process is not followed. That's because they are working with someone else's money/property.

                            You don't have to be a member of the military to own a gun, or a drone for that matter. How someone treats their personal property and how they treat the governments property are two entirely exclusive situations.

                            It's that freedom thing.

                          •  No you are getting off the subject were talking (0+ / 0-)

                            about gun ownership and responsibility. Guns aren't boobies.

                            There are many responsibilities in life. Gun ownership has it's own particulars. That could just possibly be the reason the right of gun ownership was linked to WELL ORDERED MILITIA membership.

                            Remember the old freedom isn't free.

                            There's nothing wrong with owning a gun, as long as you remember it's a gun and not a toy, or a body part, like a penis or a boobie.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:30:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It isn't actually. (3+ / 0-)

                            When your foundation is broken, building on it leads to a poor construct.

                            The individual right to own firearms wasn't contingent upon being in a militia.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:59:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I get it, the militia wording is just decorative (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan

                            It could have been anything.

                            A fine set of knockers, being necessary to the body of a woman, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Works for me.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:47:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Time to round up the posse? (0+ / 0-)

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:56:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            TGIF.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:03:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, no. It's not decorative. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan

                            But again, the individual right isn't contingent upon being in a militia.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:02:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Had to click "Parent" because for a minute there I thought you were talking about boobies.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 06:07:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi, Patrick Costighan

                            So, you are assigning particulars to gun ownership, in order to expressly penalize the gun owner, even if the gun owner has done nothing wrong? You seem to ESPECIALLY want to penalize the gun owner who has done nothing wrong. You are suggesting putting up barriers to prevent gun ownership.

                            Murderers have used a body part to very effectively strangle the life out of their victims.

                            Everyone, including my Democratic Senator, and the Supreme Court, have concluded that the right to own a gun is independent of military service.

                            This is from the email he sent me in response to my email expressing my concerns:

                            Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

                            I grew up on a ranch in the Florida countryside and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms.

                            In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

                            I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

                            Sincerely,
                            Bill Nelson

                          •  Just because you are independent of military (0+ / 0-)

                            service doesn't mean your guns are fun. Your guns are still guns, not hands or boobies.

                            Taking responsible care and following the 2 rules of gun ownership in not punishment.

                            1. Keep your gun.
                            2. Don't shoot your gun by accident.

                            I personally feel one strike your out. But I as forgiving as a gun.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:51:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, you have stated (3+ / 0-)

                            that you personally feel that gun ownership should require that an individual sacrifice their privacy and private property rights. Then you would deny 2nd ammendment rights even if the gun owner was without fault should the gun owner be robbed of his/her gun even at gun point. You would then further punish the gun owner who had been robbed of his gun at gun point by rescinded all rights for said person and even suggested incarceration and fine.

                            The statement about military service that you made:

                            That could just possibly be the reason the right of gun ownership was linked to WELL ORDERED MILITIA membership.
                            Is just wrong. You know it, smarter people than you and me put together know it. Why perpetuate a myth? Does it suit your agenda? Is that why?
                          •  You don't see that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi, Patrick Costighan

                            one violent crime is as bad as the next? Are you really arguing that it is not as bad to steal a car and kill someone as it is to steal a gun and kill someone?

                          •  A gun is not a car or a video game it is a object (0+ / 0-)

                            that has a particular set of needs.

                            1, Keep your gun
                            2. Don't shoot your gun by accident

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:22:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't say anything about a video game (3+ / 0-)

                            Do you really think a person is deader because he/she was killed by a criminal with a stolen gun rather than a criminal with a stolen car?

                            How about your identity is stolen and used to purchase a firearm? Are you willing to go to prison for that?

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            ac·ci·dent  
                            ˈaksidənt
                            Noun
                            An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 06:04:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did the people involved in this lose their (0+ / 0-)

                            2nd Amendment rights to have a gun for a period of years? (A time period that I would expect from a felony.)

                            2 injured in accidental shooting at Illinois gun show

                            February 28, 2011 11:45 am  •  Associated Press
                            (0) Comments

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:08:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In Bloomington (3+ / 0-)

                            discharge is a city offense.

                            Had the discharge been upstate, say in my town, yes I believe they would have been charged.  If they were convicted of the folony charge (i.e not allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor), yes, they'd lose their foid card and the ability to posess/handle/live in the same house as firearms would be taken from them.

                            And its not lost for 'a period of years'  its gone.  There's an appeals process in place, but to be successful you'd have to somehow prove you were wrongfully convicted.

                          •  I don't know. Thought you would as you are (0+ / 0-)

                            informed gun owner and you are particularly informed about Illinois.

                            If a bar served to a under 21 person, they could lose their license to serve. I wonder if a gun show has accidental discharge if they would be responsible.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:59:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  If you are convicted of a felony (4+ / 0-)

                          you lose your 2nd amendment rights.

                          If no harm comes from an accident, are you endorsing a felony conviction? Seriously? And everything that goes with that?

                          Felons lose a great many civil rights.

                          •  Guns are serious business. If you believe in (0+ / 0-)

                            accidents with guns, you are not up to the level of a person who should own a gun.  A gun is not a video game. You probably should stick to video games.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But what if (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            no harm is done. You want a felony conviction?

                          •  You betcha. You lost control of you gun. You are (0+ / 0-)

                            the only one who can control your gun. I can't control your gun. Aunt Sally can't control your gun. There is only one person who can control your gun, that would you.

                            So yes, No 2nd Amendment rights for you.  And many many hours of community service.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just say it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            No second amendment rights for anybody, right?

                          •  And even if no harm is done. Losing control of (0+ / 0-)

                            your gun means no guns, pilgrim.

                            See Here

                            Every aspect of weapon access is regulated and controlled.  People have lost their careers because proper process was not followed even though all weapons were accounted for.
                            That's different you say, that's military. We're civilians, we treat guns like video games. Guns are fun. Now let us play.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:20:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, you sort of comprehend the difference (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi, Patrick Costighan

                            Do you understand the difference between government property and private property?

                            You do understand that the goverment can tell you what to do with a government owned humvee, but not with your privately owned humvee, right? You can wrap yourself around that one, can't you?

          •  As for the rarity (0+ / 0-)

            It really wouldn't interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends. So why bother with gun handling 101.

            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:55:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hartford Connecticut cut their violent crime rate (9+ / 0-)

            significantly without confiscating firearms, by concentrating on violent CRIMINALS. I know there's a big faction among "progressives," "liberals," and Democrats generally who don't believe that there are people who choose what we call criminal action out of free will rather than because of circumstances beyond their control, but in the real world there are people who choose

            Grifting
            Graft
            Strongarming
            Drug dealing
            Theft
            Kidnapping
            Rape
            Murder

            deliberately, because to / for them, a profit arises out of those acts.
            There's nothing in that behavior I consider wolf-like; wolves serve a purpose in nature's balance.

            But there are people who choose to try to protect, defend, and assist instead of choosing to prey on their fellows, be those fellows human or otherwise. Being so inclined, I'll stand up for those sheepdogs too.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 03:13:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I've actually looked at the statistics (12+ / 0-)

          which gunfail never posts, because it would disrupt the story line.

          http://www.cdc.gov/...

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:54:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You looked at statistics that are not available? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Major Kong

            How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research

            Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.

            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rubbish. There's plenty of research out there (12+ / 0-)

              Comparatively little is being done by the CDC, which - since it's not a disease - shouldn't be a problem.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:02:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This would be where you would cite clearly what (0+ / 0-)

                research you meant, a link to what you found. Not some avalanche of wild goose links going no where.

                guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:12:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  here's the simplified version (6+ / 0-)

                  all done up in colored graphs for you, but based on #s from the CDC, and others. Sources in small print on charts and at bottom.

                  So, uhm, how did you answer the poll? Sheep? Petitioner?

                  http://familiesafield.org/...

                  How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                  by ban nock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 04:17:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  PDF file again. (0+ / 0-)

                    my answer is in my comments in this thread.

                    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:37:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you alergic to pdf files or the info in them? (6+ / 0-)

                      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                      by ban nock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:45:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't like pdf files. They are not navigable (0+ / 0-)

                        you cannot cite them except for the whole thing. It's just a data dump and not helpful.

                        guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                        by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:47:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Translation: (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          noway2, Wordsinthewind, Robobagpiper

                          You don't like them because you can't cherry-pick data and present it out-of-context.

                          Heh....

                          Your hate-mail will be graded.

                          by PavePusher on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:32:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  It's a very small doc, maybe 4 pages (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas, Wordsinthewind

                          big numbers, mostly colorful large graphs. Best of all it gives most of the info you would want to see how gun accidents have gone over the years.

                          It only takes one click and one second to load and you can tell if it's something easy to look at.

                          It just couldn't get much plainer. Except if you don't want to know the info contained.

                          You should also read and understand everything from the CDC and Dept of Justice. If you claim to be a gun control advocate you should be informed and fact based.

                          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                          by ban nock on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:39:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I am a YOU control YOUR gun advocate. (0+ / 0-)

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:24:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  best talk to my wife about that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan, KVoimakas

                            I do control my rifles though.

                            I don't understand why you don't want to become informed about gun accidents. Did you ever consider that you might have repeated misinformation? How is knowledge harmful if it's about an issue that you seem to concern yourself with?

                            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                            by ban nock on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 04:52:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How you can reject coming down with the ban (0+ / 0-)

                            hammer on someone who can't control their guns, I will not understand.

                               Every aspect of weapon access is regulated and controlled.  People have lost their careers because proper process was not followed even though all weapons were accounted for.
                            That's different you say, that's military. We're civilians, we treat guns like video games. Guns are fun. Now let us play.

                            Oh yeah you and your wife and your sex acts, well that is filed under TMI.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:01:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so uhm, about those accidents, numbers are (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, Wordsinthewind

                            falling pretty continuously wouldn't you say? Great that less people die due to firearm accidents every year eh?

                            Don't get me wrong, all deaths avoided due to care and safety are a good thing, and I applaud the decrease in drowning, fire, falling, and vehicular deaths, but the very low incidents of firearm accidents continues to fall faster than the rest. Must be due to the fact that people who own firearms are so safety conscious, don't ya think?

                            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                            by ban nock on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:14:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So uhm, read the quote, the outcome is not an (0+ / 0-)

                            issue. Harm is not an issue.

                            Even
                            if
                            all
                            the
                            weapons
                            were
                            accounted
                            for.

                            People
                            lost
                            their
                            careers
                            because
                            proper
                            process
                            was
                            not
                            followed

                            I am saying even if there is NO damage, NO ONE hurt. If you lose your gun or shoot your gun by accident you should lose your right to carry a gun.

                            A gun is not a video game. It's not a play toy. Rightful gunners need video games because they can't handle guns.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:22:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're a civilan you don't have to come up to (0+ / 0-)

                            military standards for your rightful toys.

                            Party on gun dude.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:24:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Firearms are never toys. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They are treated like toys by the NRA. (0+ / 0-)

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:31:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, they aren't. The NRA is one of the very few (2+ / 0-)

                            organizations that actually attempts to educate people on how to safely handle a firearm and use a firearm.

                            Why?

                            Because firearms used in an unsafe fashion can be lethal in an unwanted fashion. Firearms are never toys.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:57:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you have your man card. (0+ / 0-)

                            5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

                            What about the people who actually buy guns? Statistics tell us that fewer people are buying guns, but those people are buying more of them. To the grad students on the anti-gun side of the debate, this looks like a bunch of crazy rednecks, stocking their militia for the coming war on Obamacare. Why else would the NRA be fighting to get states to legalize silencers if they don't want to shoot people and keep it a secret?
                            But people familiar with gun culture will recognize it as something far sillier: a bunch of grown men collecting firearms like little girls collect Barbie dolls (we're not being insulting -- it's a running joke among gun enthusiasts).
                            So the rural gun owner in Wyoming buys the biggest, sexiest assault rifle he can find and tricks it out with all the accessories from the catalog, but he never actually uses it because nobody is going to break into his house because he lives in fucking Wyoming. If he wants to murder his wife, he'll get the revolver from the nightstand -- he's not going to go dig out and assemble his huge assault rifle. So why did he buy it? For the same reason his daughter will buy a dinette set for her Barbie Dream House even though she will never get to eat actual food at that table: for the fantasy.

                            Maybe this explains how hospitalization for gun injuries can be up even though the three types of gun-related crimes that cause such injuries (murder, robbery, assault) are all way down. Those ads that treat guns like toys for grown-ups worked, and people are treating guns like toys, instead of deadly weapons.

                            I know this is long quotes but I didn't send you to some 500 lb PDF file.

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:24:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fewer people buying more guns? (0+ / 0-)

                            Statistics doesn't tell us that.  Naive arithmetic does.  They took the sum of production data from 1950-1959, compiled by Kleck no less, and divided it by the estimated number of gun owning households.  Never mind that the production data includes sales to domestic public agencies and does not account for firearms exiting circulation.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:50:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What statistics tell us the contrary. (0+ / 0-)

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:03:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Not statistics.  Mere bean counting:

                            Production-based data have limitations in that they account for neither additions to the stock from illegal or other uncounted means nor losses from seized, lost, or nonworking firearms. These data also exclude firearms manufactured or exported for the military but include firearms purchased by domestic law enforcement agencies.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:06:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  google MORE guns (beans) by fewer households. (0+ / 0-)

                            you are just dividing the beans by the population. The beans are not evenly distributed.

                            here

                            here

                            and on and on

                            google more households own guns

                            We have to rely on polling data because there is no national database of who owns a gun. One poll is the the now biennial General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the University of Chicago. These surveys are conducted face-to-face. We also traditional telephone polls conducted by ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and Gallup. link

                            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

                            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:19:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Neither one of your sources has numbers, let alone methodology.  If they're referring to some other calculation, they make no mention of it.

                            GSS doesn't ask how many guns you own.  Neither does Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, or CBS/New York Times.

                            Put simply, we have no information on the distribution of firearms throughout the country.  We just happen to know the distribution of gun owners.  We also, I should add, have no idea how many guns are currently in circulation.  Again, 310 million includes all guns ever madd, regardless of whether or not they even exist anymore, and it includes sales to public agencies.

                            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                            by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:25:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't realize I needed a card to be a man. (0+ / 0-)

                            Silencer legalization? I'm all for it. In places like Finland, you buy a silencer like we would buy a hammer here. It's just hardware.

                            Interesting. Curious; how is this different than my collection of Legos or my collection of lighters OR my collection of bladed items or...?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:05:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Couple quotes you missed: (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ErikO, andalusi, Patrick Costighan
                            So the culmination of the rash of mass shootings, the relentless promotion of guns, the spike in gun sales, the proliferation of violent video games, and the creepy worship and fetishizing of firearms is ... fewer gun murders.
                            We'll probably be able to have a really good discussion about it as soon as everyone stops seeing it as a political issue, or accusing everyone who brings it up of having an agenda. So, by the year 3113 or so.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Why bother? You wouldn't read them, unless (3+ / 0-)

                  they came in the form of hyperlinks to popularized blog articles whose authors and sites are in ideological concordance with you.

                  But that's not where research is to be found. It's to be found in the footnotes of pdf files, and journals which publish in the same format.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robobagpiper

              Still pushing the lie about research bans and whatnot.  Good stuff.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:09:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Again your link went to the land of 1,000 links. (0+ / 0-)

            You use links to obfuscate your point not to clarify your point. You think if you post gobs of links that are impossible to follow, that you have made a point.

            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

            by 88kathy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:07:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheFern, Deep Texan, S F Hippie
    Obama has failed to end the wars like he said he would
    Obama set the end date and the withdrawal plan for Iraq before he was elected and then carried it out slightly ahead of schedule once he took office. The Iraqi Parliament took their end plan from a speech Obama made during the primaries and turned that proposal of his into the SoFA that they forced Bush to sign, so, basically, he ended the war BEFORE HE WAS EVEN NOMINATED!
    And he did not campaign on ending the Afghanistan conflict rather he said he'd escalate it initially, which is exactly what he did. He's now in the process of winding it down, as promised.
    If you thought you heard him say otherwise, that was wishful thinking.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:34:46 PM PDT

  •  I appreciate your diary (0+ / 0-)

    and your reasoning. I do.

    But sheepdogs don't usually kill the wolves, do they?

  •  Utter Bullshit! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheFern, S F Hippie

    Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs, what a loadof total utter bullshit.

    Dirty Harry fantasy bullshit.

    If we accept a sliver of reality to this utter bullshit, it is that the sheepdog is the most dangerous of the three. The sheepdog manipulates the sheep, usually with bullshit fear mongering shit, like do what I say or the wolf is gonna get ya.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:43:34 PM PDT

  •  I guess I may as well re-post one of my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995

    followup comments to the original comment that led to this followup diary:

    I wish you and your comrades were doing something noble. I know you sincerely believe that you are. Nonetheless, in carrying out your duty, you are many, many, many, many times more likely to kill somebody whose primary crime was to live under a government whose policies stood in the way of a profiteering "American" (really, a transnational) corporation, than you are to kill anybody who represents any meaningful threat to the health, wellbeing and security of any but the most plutocratic of your fellow citizens. If you die in combat, it is unlikely to be "for this nation", but quite likely to be "for Halliburton, its executives, and its largest shareholders".

    As you say, there are wolves and sheepdogs. You may indeed be a sheepdog, but unfortunately, you're working for the wolves.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:25:47 PM PDT

  •  I don't think your message was what they wanted (4+ / 0-)

    to hear.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 04:08:52 PM PDT

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    I think the sheep/sheepdog/wolves metaphor dragged on too long, and Grossman is more of a popular promoter of untested ideas than an expert.  Still, on balance, thoughtful.

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:29:01 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site