User talk:QueenofBattle/Archive 1/28/09

My political compass

Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From The Political Compass, I am Economic Left/Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideologiocal company I keep, I guess...

Election day 2008

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for Barack Obama for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guns

Please comment on the article, not the editor. I consider this edit to be a personal attack, but I'll happily take the bait on your talk page. There is no reasonable justification for regular citizens owning assault weapons. None whatsoever. Obama has repeatedly stated that he has no problem with the Second Amendment provide it does not put weapons in the hands of children and criminals. He has also (quite reasonably and sensibly) stated he would like to see the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You mistake my sarcasm for a personal attack, which it clearly is not. Simmer down with, now, the second "quit picking on me" attempt at portraying my comments as a personal attack. That one does not agree with another does not a personal attack make. Now, to your opinion, it is just that, your opinion. I believe there are many justifications for law-abiding "regular" (as opposed to irregular?) citizens owning assault rifles: a) it is the exercise of a right granted to all citizens under the US Constitution, b) the lawful use of assault weapons protects life and personal property, and c) lawfully shooting assault weapons is fun, and therefore is also an exercise of my rights to "...the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the US Constitution. Class over. Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that shooting guns is fun; however, "the pursuit of happiness" is not guaranteed by the Constitution. It is part of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing in the Second Amendment about "assault rifles", and if you are suggesting that the existing wording is sufficient to cover them then we can also add tanks, intercontinental ballistic missiles and orbiting laser platforms. As to (b), there is nothing specific in the Second Amendment about defending life or property. The wording vaguely refers to ensuring "the security of a free State", which is more about protecting the nation (either from aggressors, or from itself). You are correct in stating that "class is over", insofar in that I cannot learn anything useful from you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Que?! I never wrote that the second amendment has anything to do with assualt weapons, only that the lawful use of assualt weapons protects life and personal property. Mixty-twisty, professor of constitutional law. You are correct, in that it is the Declaration of Independence (rather than the Constitution) that speaks to my pursuit of happiness. I choose to agree with Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the Constitution should be interpreted. See? Keep you eyes open, and you might learn a thing or two. Newguy34 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How else would you expect me to interpret the following:

"[T]here are many justifications for law-abiding [] citizens owning assault rifles: [] a) it is the exercise of a right granted to all citizens under the US Constitution."

Your words indicated you thought ownership of assault weapons was a Constitutional right, so you can see why I responded the way I did. I disagree with your assessment that they are necessary to protect life and property - this would have to assume that your life and/or property would be threatened by someone similarly armed - an extremely rare occurrence in all but a few unpleasant parts of the nation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly understand how and why you think the way you do. Therefore, I am incapable of anticipating how you might interpret the written word. What I do know is that any sensible reading of my writing recognizes that my statement had three, independent clauses to it, which supporting my assertion that assault rifles are reasonably justified. Clause a) was re: constitutional rights (and only constitutional rights), clause b) was re: the effectiveness of assault rifles in protecting life and property, and clause c) was re: fun-ness. I expected that you would not combine all three where the author (me) didn't intend them to be combined, but rather to compliment each other. Each, standing on its own, is sufficient justification for the possession and lawful use of assault weapons.

And, assault rifles are necessary to protect my life, that of my family, and my property. I, and I, alone get to make that determination. If a bad guy has a knife, I want a gun. If a bad guy has a revolver, I want a semi-auto gun. If a bad guy has a semi-auto gun, I want an assault rifle. Having a "proportional" response in firepower is, tactically, a dumb thing to attempt to achieve. Should I poll all the bad guys and ask them who plans to break into my house to kill me by use of a) rubber bands, b) sticks, c) knifes, d) revolvers, e) semi's, and f) assault rifles? This way, can I assure myself that I will have the "right" defensive weapon? Newguy34 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How likely is it that someone is going to break into your home and threaten you (or your property) with semi-automatic weapons? Unless you live in what we English folk like to call a "shit hole", pretty unlikely I'd imagine. Personally, I would seek to live in a part of the world where I would not feel the need to have a weapon (of any kind) to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't know. It's more likely that they would break in with a semi-automatic firearm (e.g., the thug favorite Glock) than that they would with no firearm. I would think that whether one lives in a shit hole or in a palacial estate, both are at similar risk (why would bad guys attempt to rob someone with no money and no stuff?!). I thought I lived in a pretty nice, safe part of town, but was proven wrong when someone(s) broke into my house and stole a bunch of my stuff. And, I had an alarm system. If I or my family had been there, I don't think I'd have been in the mood to hope they didn't have a semi-automatic handgun. Captain of the Obvious says, "Of course, we all want to live in a world free of violence, but we are left to deal with the world as it is, rather than how we wish it were." It only takes one time... Newguy34 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against gun ownership, although I believe the Second Amendment has been used to create a "gun culture" that was never intended. I think assault weapons are totally over the top and unnecessary, and should be universally illegal. A properly-aimed pistol will be just as effective against a perp with a fully-automatic machine gun, who probably has little experience and will just spray bullets around willy nilly. Someone with experience and training will kill you before you get the chance to defend yourself, so it won't matter what kind of weapon you have in that situation. Gun ownership (and permits for guns) should be tied to proper training, and denied to individuals who fail that training. Guns should be stored properly, where it is impossible for children to access them. High caliber and automatic weapons should not be owned by private individuals. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I largely disagree, for the reasons discussed above, with your assertions, with the exception of those related to safe use and storage of guns. So, we will end on a note of agreement. Newguy34 (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I have enjoyed this healthy debate. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you, as well. I'm confident we will find agreement on something again in the future. Newguy34 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

State Defense Forces

The 2005 DoD report list that there are 23 legal SDF's. This would make 22 in the states and 1 in Puerto Rico (since it specifically does list Puerto Rico). NGR 10-4, which has a link on the site, states that all SDF's will be operated by the state TAG and regulated by the National Guard Bureau. All the SDF's that are listed are the legally established SDF's. You can click on them to see they are operated by their state, not by a redneck "militia" under the command of some Hillbilly Bob. Washington, D.C., North Carolina, and Colorado do not have legally established SDF's. They have associations that desire to be SDF's. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to form paramilitary units and give them military rank, they would not be any part of the Armed Forces or of any legally established Naval Militia (Title 10) or SDF (Title 32). These groups are no different than the KKK.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's take it to the article's talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A A

All instances of "African American" should be written without the hyphen, as in the main article on the subject. If the Obama articles have it written any other way, it should be changed accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done so with the one instance I found. Given the exceptional, and unnecessary, length of the talk page archives, I couldn't easily find a consensus one way or the other so I guessed. Wrong, as it turns out, but I had the proverbial 50-50 chance. Newguy34 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

74.72.196.226‎

74.72.196.226‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We get a 3-hour break from that bozo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"A dream, to some... A NIGHTMARE TO OTHERS!" >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Militia

Obviously you are affiliated with this illegal Colorado militia that violates federal law by wearing the military uniform without authorization. Colorado disbanded its SDF. I have shown you that. Since CO has no SDF, you cannot include it. Billy Bob's Militia is not an SDF. SDF's are state regulated, not redneck-regulated. Todd Gallagher (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not, and I have never met anyone that is. I am not a cop to decide whether they are legal or illegal; are legally wearing military uniforms or not. You have to play by Wiki's rules or don't contribute. The rule is that we go with what the reliable sources say, not our personal opinions or synthesis (please familiarize yourself by reading here). We have been through this about eleventy-billion times now. Also, please mind your civility. Newguy34 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NGR 10-4 reads: "An SDF is a component of the executive department of each State, and is under the exclusive control of the governor or his/her authorized representative." Therefore, all SDF's are state agencies. Billy Bob's militia in CO is not a state agency. If it is, show me. Otherwise stop listing it.Todd Gallagher (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems difficult for you to comprehend, but I have a military ID. So does every other member of the legal SDF's. Does Billy Bob in the CO SDF (Provisional)? I do not think so.Todd Gallagher (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, slick, I have a military ID too (and mine's issued by the US government). Now, we may finally be getting somewhere with you. I am going to edit the article slightly to remove "Therefore, all SDF's are state agencies." That's forming a conclusion and that's not allowed. See, GSDF that wasn't hard, was it? No need to revert to using ANON IPs and accusing me of belonging to an illegal organization. I'll accept your apology for acting like an ass at any time. Newguy34 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Einstein. I have not done any anonymous edits. Of course, if you knew how to read IP addresses, you would know that. Take some CS 1101 and catch up with the era. As for the quote, that is literally from an Army regulation and is sourced, so don't touch it. Since you have AKO access, go read a reg called NGR 10-4.Todd Gallagher (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the ref, removed the conclusion, and tightened up the language to help advance your position, and you still revert the edits?! Some people just can't be saved from themselves, I guess. Newguy34 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)