NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

[CrazyPaul]

so many things have changed since 9/11.

1. China is now the 3rd country in the world to have a capability to put men in space

2. China is currently building an aircraft carrier and has a working prototype of stealth fighter jet

3. North Korea now have an ICBM capability that can reach USA as well as putting satellite in space

4. Iran now have an UAV capability

5. All it took were 19 terrorists and 4 hijacked planes to cripple America - economically to the point where our government has to make a deep cut in our defense. Because of this, we lost many outstanding soldiers especially Special Forces. A squad of Special Forces (typically 8-20) is irreplaceable and a loss of squad has a devastating impact in our ability to response to any crisis in the world. It cannot be quickly replaced as it takes several years to recruit and train them. This is a very very expensive lengthy process.

6. The status of South Korean military is comical... in fact - pathetic. Even together with American troops at DMZ, they do not stand a single chance against North Koreans if they ever invade Seoul.

7. The reason why these rogue nations have a sudden improvement in their military technology is because our cyber capability is comical. It's so porous that any low-ranking spy can easily steal a secret document and sell it to them. A group of hackers in China (obviously sanctioned by Chinese government) hacked into vital areas and stole dozens of classified information.

8. We need to stop suckling on Chinese teats and filling our shelves with "Made in China" products.

Really? Then why don't they invade it already? Fucking no, they are scared of us.

 

[Grummer]

it makes nuking china to be an extreme hesitiant idea, even stupid...but something got to be done...and come think of it as for NK...id doub the army there is going to be fully loyal to the Jong wankers...I cant see how the whole nation would...its like they cried in fake fears during Kim Jongs funderal...

i just cant see it...they must be soo fucking sick of tyranny and id really be surprised if they didnt know what that was...nor of their own...

 

[Jiro]

Really? Then why don't they invade it already? Fucking no, they are scared of us.

uh.... no......

nobody wants a war. don't forget that you are speaking to a Korean who knows the real state of military situation there that you don't read about in American newspapers. don't forget that you are speaking to a Korean whose cousins and friends are in military. my friend is a Military Intelligence with Special Force training and he said it's a joke. a complete joke.

don't be full of yourself with "USA #1 USA #1 USA #1" or the reality will just be too painful for you to see. it does NOT matter who wins the War. NOBODY wins. EVERYBODY dies. The casualty rate is expected to be over 5 millions on all sides combined together including from American soil since North Korea has ICBM capability. The most likely target on American soil is either California or Washington State. The impact will be devastating enough to put us back perhaps 10+ years.

 

[Jiro]

Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover - CNN.com

Editor's note: John MacIntosh was a partner at Warburg Pincus, a leading global private equity firm, where he worked from 1994 to 2006 in New York, Tokyo and London. He now runs a nonprofit in New York.

(CNN) -- In the 1970s and '80s, when corporate America was plagued with inefficiency, a new class of financially motivated takeover investor emerged to prey on the fattest in the corporate herd and scare the rest into line.

Today, as pockets of corporate America are plagued with immorality, we need a new class of socially motivated takeover investor to prey on the sociopaths in the corporate herd, turn them around and perhaps scare (or shame) others into line.

The upcoming sale by Cerberus Capital of the Freedom Group, the largest gun manufacturer in the United States, is a perfect opportunity to usher in this new era of muscular, socially responsible capitalism:

First, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, David Geffen and the like should establish a nonprofit SPAC (Special-Purpose-Acquisition-Company) called BidForFreedom.org (BFF) with a mission to reduce needless deaths through gun violence in the United States and encourage the passage of sensible gun control regulations.

They should appoint George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon to the fundraising committee and recruit a loud-mouthed, poison-penned, but good-hearted activist hedge fund titan as chief investment officer (Bill Ackman? Dan Loeb?).

Opinion: Forgotten victims of gun violence

To be credible, BFF will probably need to start with at least $250 million in cash and commitments (no problem given the billionaire status of the sponsors) with additional firepower raised as needed from well-heeled individuals, foundations and through a broad-based Internet solicitation to an outraged-by-Newtown public.

Second, BFF should lobby all public pension funds that are part owners of the Freedom Group (by virtue of their investment in Cerberus) to roll their investment into BFF to reduce the need for outside funding, naming and shaming any unwilling public investors.

Newtown shooter's guns

Third, BFF should pay "whatever it takes" to acquire control of the Freedom Group in the upcoming auction by Cerberus (which has a fiduciary obligation to sell to the highest bidder) and then immediately implement a "moral turnaround" plan under which the Freedom Group:

(i) Appoints a high-profile CEO with impeccable credentials as a hunter and/or marksman who is nevertheless in favor of gun-control.

Opinion: Guns endanger more than they protect

(ii) Elects a new board of directors including representatives from the families of victims killed in Newtown (and/or other massacres perpetrated with Freedom Group weapons), military veterans and trauma surgeons with real experience of human-on-human gunfire, and law enforcement and mental health professionals.

(iii) Operates the business as if sensible gun laws were in place (this may turn out to be a wise investment in future-proofing the company): discontinuing sales of the most egregious assault weapons and modifying others as necessary so they cannot take huge-volume clips; offering to buy back all Freedom Group assault weapons in circulation; micro-stamping weapons for easy tracking; and providing price discounts for buyers willing to go through a background check and register in a database available to law enforcement.

(iv) Voluntarily waives its rights to support the NRA and other lobbying groups.

(v) Creates a fund to compensate those who, despite its best efforts, are killed or wounded by its weapons.

(vi) Agrees that if the effort to provide moral leadership in the weapons industry doesn't succeed within a year, BFF should consider corporate euthanasia, even though it entails a risk of allowing more retrograde manufacturers to fill the void in the market left by the then-deceased company.

Opinion: The case for gun rights is stronger than you think

In the face of horrors like Newtown, BFF would recognize that it's time to take a stand by acknowledging the impossibility of reaching closure after such a monstrous act while an unreconstructed Freedom Group continues to sell a huge volume of guns and ammunition rounds each year even if it is operating under new owners.

Like any Trojan Horse strategy, this is a long shot, but it must be tried. History suggests that only after the first company "turns" will an industry gradually return to the realm of the human (think of big tobacco). And without the tacit agreement, if not the outright support, of at least one important insider, policymakers seem utterly unable to pass tough regulations in the face of the predictable, but withering, assault by industry lackeys shrieking that any such regulation would be "impossible, impractical or too expensive."

In the face of a recalcitrant industry, we have to acknowledge that it is only the market for corporate control -- the real possibility that an outsider will take over one of the companies -- that puts limits on the behavior of board members and executives who, while perhaps decent enough in their family lives, display a limitless tolerance for the "banality of evil" at the office.

Opinion: Not man enough? Buy a gun

We must accept that the conventional, kid-gloves approach to socially responsible investing -- divesting shares in "bad" companies that nevertheless continue to exist -- is too weak an instrument to force change and its well-meaning practitioners too soft to enter the fray when emotionally and politically charged battles need to be fought.

And regardless of the viability of socially motivated takeovers in general, the Freedom Group looks like a great target. Cerberus is a motivated seller, the political macros look favorable, and it's a bite-sized company compared with many of the larger sociopaths in the corporate herd.

I'm even cautiously optimistic that the current impasse over gun regulation is a bad-equilibrium that few consumers actually want, and that a reconstructed Freedom Group, fighting for sensible change as a fifth column from within the industry, might well find that many people -- even a significant portion of the NRA's members -- would buy from a truly responsible (and high quality) gun maker if given the chance.

All in all, it's a pretty exciting deal, so if Mike and George are up for it, count me in.

 

[Reba]

Nor can a convicted felon legally live with someone even a family member that owns a gun.

Are you sure that's the case in every state? As I recall, G. Gordon Liddy, on his radio program, used to always refer to the guns that were owned by Mrs. Liddy, even though it was obvious she was the owner in name only. (Liddy was a convicted Watergate felon.)

 

[Reba]

Really? Then why don't they invade it already? Fucking no, they are scared of us.

The sanctions, border maintenance, etc., are under the UN, so any invasion by the North into the South would bring in the UN and its forces. It's not simply a North vs. South Korea situation but a North (plus allies) vs. South (plus UN) situation.

 

[AdamFencepost]

The author didn't take up the argument that the US may be invaded from Canada nor that US citizens may need to pile in our bass boats and head off across the Pacific towards the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

The American Conservative: How apocalyptic gun-rights ideology wrecks democracy (link)

". . . the specter of tyranny, a fantastical conversation-ender rather than a point of view worth taking seriously."

 

[Jiro]

The author didn't take up the argument that the US may be invaded from Canada nor that US citizens may need to pile in our bass boats and head off across the Pacific towards the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

The American Conservative: How apocalyptic gun-rights ideology wrecks democracy (link)

". . . the specter of tyranny, a fantastical conversation-ender rather than a point of view worth taking seriously."

why would anybody even entertain the thought of Canada invading America??? I've never heard of such thing. ridiculous.

Canada, America, and even Mexico uniting together as North America is much more believable and feasible than Canada invading America.

 

[CrazyPaul]

The sanctions, border maintenance, etc., are under the UN, so any invasion by the North into the South would bring in the UN and its forces. It's not simply a North vs. South Korea situation but a North (plus allies) vs. South (plus UN) situation.

Yeah, North has only one ally, China while South has many allies, USA, Canada, Australia, French, British, Japan and then some.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, North has only one ally, China while South has many allies, USA, Canada, Australia, French, British, Japan and then some.

you're forgetting something - a geographic disadvantage. and you are incorrect on everything. First of all, it would take several months for them to fly troops and heavy equipments to there. (Did you forget that it took over 6 months to mobilize thousands of American troops, tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, etc. to Iraq?)

1. China is actually a friend of both North Korea and South Korea.
2. South Korea has only 1 ally - America but its peripheral allies are Taiwan and Japan.
3. Japan does not have a military per se because of its new Constitution after WW2.
4. None of these countries you listed above have an official military treaty like NATO with South Korea. They're not going to help out except to provide humanitarian and medical relief.
5. China will continue to exerts its power to defuse Korean War as what they've been doing for decades.
6. Did you forget that China rebukes North Korea for firing a test missile? Wikileak revealed that China has grown frustrated with North Korea and it's straining their relationship.

WikiLeaks: China weary of North Korea behaving like 'spoiled child' - CNN
WikiLeaks: China 'would back one Korea run by South' - Telegraph
Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea' | World news | The Guardian

like I said - this is not about winning the war. EVERYONE loses. NONE of them want a war. do you understand that once a war ignites again... both capitols will be obliterated? do you understand what kind of impact this will have on international market?

North Korea and South Korea are not like America with wide open space where we can live wherever we like. There are very very very limited livable areas in Korean peninsula that can support a certain number of people. Both Seoul (and Pusan) and Pyongyang are pretty much the only areas big enough to support millions of Koreans. Rest of Koreas are not suitable enough to support a mega city as the majority of terrains is mountainous.

That's why Americans had hard time winning Korean War. It's like Afghanistan x 100. It's just mountains after mountains after mountains. Nearly impossible to move tanks and artilleries around. The only way to mobilize American tanks from one city to another city is to transport them by plane because North Korea will most likely destroy several vital bridges. Our largest military transport plane (C-5 Galaxy) can transport only two Abram tanks at a time.

Do you realize that most of South Korean population resides in Seoul? Dozens if not hundreds or thousands of North Korean missiles are pointed at Seoul as part of NK's trump card. This would make Hamas' rockets looks like a cute firework.

The amount of your ignorance is outstanding. So outstanding that it's embarrassing me as an American citizen that you don't even know this country's federal laws and the international affairs. *smh*

 

[Jiro]

one more thing - the comparison between American soldiers and South Korean soldiers is incomparable.

in America - it's 100% voluntary. in South Korea - it's mandatory. who would you entrust your life on? a person who signed up for it voluntarily? or those who were forced into armed force? that's why I'm proud of being an American citizen and our fine soldiers have my utmost respect.

Conscription in South Korea is extremely unpopular. Many people especially upper class and celebrities have tried to get away from it including Psy (Gangnam Style guy) - either by bribery or leaving to another country. Because of this, the government lowered the standard to make life easier.

 

[VacationGuy234]

in America - it's 100% voluntary. in South Korea - it's mandatory. who would you entrust your life on? a person who signed up for it voluntarily?

I understand the logic, but I disagree. That's like saying an American who was conscripted wouldn't fight so hard and that is just not true. In fact, during WWI, WWII, The Civil War and the revolution, it was the common man who won the war.

South Korea is in a different position, the war in Korea never really ended. I'd say that fighting under unpopular conditions is a testament of the bravery those men produced everyday.

As for the Korean war itself, it is not a question of military so much a politics. War is not about military alone, as General McArther and countless other leaders(from England as well) have discovered. Nor, will it ever be...

 

[JMH]

3. Japan does not have a military per se because of its new Constitution after WW2.

Well, officially, they do not have military - however, they do have sort-of military called "Self-Defense" forces which they are designed to protect their country and their structure are much like military. What's more - recently, they have been involved with UN peacekeeping missions.

Japan Self-Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jiro]

I understand the logic, but I disagree. That's like saying an American who was conscripted wouldn't fight so hard and that is just not true. In fact, during WWI, WWII, The Civil War and the revolution, it was the common man who won the war.

You might want to compare the difference in casualty rate between conscription and voluntary. and let's try to use a little more modern argument in here like... Vietnam War.

I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that volunteer military fights stronger and better than conscription. What do you think why Americans didn't do too well in Vietnam War and Korean War? As I've stated before - I'm a war history buff and based on all wars (past to present)... all evidences have proved my statement correct - substantially.

The Volunteer Military: Better than a Draft

Conclusion

It has been 18 years since the Pentagon issued its last draft call, and for 18 years some people have been pushing for a return to conscription. The possibility of a Persian Gulf war is merely their latest excuse. But volunteerism has worked, and worked well. The AVF has delivered soldiers who are not only of above average intelligence but willing war- riors, patriots ready to fight for their country. Our prob- lem today is not a military filled with those who want to be there but a political leadership willing to risk war for peripheral interests. A draft cannot change that. If it could, we would not have had to construct a memorial to 58,000 people who died in a purposeless war two decades ago.

The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force | RAND

Today, with nearly 160,000 troops engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the AVF is being tested again. Military commanders continually point to the outstanding job the force is doing in this nontraditional military conflict. Remarkably, while enlistments have fallen off, retention remains at historically high levels. There were initial fears that soldiers would not reenlist if they had to redeploy even once into combat zones. However, the Army reports that some soldiers are now completing their third and fourth tours. Through improved pay and benefits for the military, America has demonstrated that it values an AVF. Our troops have likewise demonstrated their commitment through their willingness to serve.

A final judgment on the AVF has not yet been made. Indeed, it will always be a work in progress. However, the past 30 years — and particularly the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan — demonstrate that an AVF can be sustained during both peace and war. The dual challenges of longer periods of conflict and recurring deployments are formidable. There are no guarantees of permanent success. But, so far, the AVF has proven to be a resilient institution.

A New Military Draft Would Revive A Very Bad Old Idea - Forbes

Despite a rough start, the AVF has been a brilliant success. Quality is far better than under a draft. A volunteer military can be choosy and set higher standards.

...

The end of the draft also has dramatically improved commitment and morale in the armed forces. The difference is simple: recruits who want to serve and succeed are likely to perform better than draftees who want out, the sooner the better. The AVF also enjoys higher reenlistment rates, which reduce turnover and enhance experience.

Returning to conscription would generate a force that looked a lot more like the force during the Vietnam War than World War II. Even reluctant draftees in the latter identified with the campaign against Nazi Germany. Vietnam War conscripts shared no similar commitment to defending Saigon. Personnel drafted to patrol Afghan valleys on behalf of a corrupt government in Kabul or stop ethnic slaughter in a post-civil war Syria likely would be no more enthused with their respective task.

All told, shifting to conscription would significantly weaken the military. New “accessions,” as the military calls them, would be less bright, less well educated, and less positively motivated. They would be less likely to stay in uniform, resulting in a less experienced force. The armed forces would be less effective in combat, thereby costing America more lives while achieving fewer foreign policy objectives.

Why take such a step?

South Korea is in a different position, the war in Korea never really ended. I'd say that fighting under unpopular conditions is a testament of the bravery those men produced everyday.

As for the Korean war itself, it is not a question of military so much a politics. War is not about military alone, as General McArther and countless other leaders(from England as well) have discovered. Nor, will it ever be...

Let's stick with facts rather than opinions.

Try asking any Korean especially the ones who have completed compulsory service. They'll easily tell you that South Korean military is in a pathetic shape and majority of them do not even want to fight. They're all a bunch of pansy and it's like a college dorm in there. They've got video games... they are able to decorate some of make their living quarter to make it more "homely"... and you can bullshit your way thru PT. a complete joke. The reason for conscription is just a show of force, hoping it would deter North Koreans from getting trigger-happy... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jiro]

Well, officially, they do not have military - however, they do have sort-of military called "Self-Defense" forces which they are designed to protect their country and their structure are much like military. What's more - recently, they have been involved with UN peacekeeping missions.

Japan Self-Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're not equipped nor trained to engage in war. Their military capability is extremely limited. They cannot be count on as ally. That's why there are approximately 36,000 Americans stationed in Japan.

Do you know what UN peacekeeping missions are like? just ride around in pretty white APC with blue flag and stand with rifles - hoping that enemy won't attack. and also delivering food & medicines to locals.

 

[VacationGuy234]

The South Korean military had a battleship attacked and sunk by North Korea in which 46 seamen died. I can assure you, they take what they do very seriously.

Vietnam and Korea were not military wars, our goal was not self preservation. For the South Koreans, however, IT IS self preservation.

You can spend all day long looking at facts and statistics, but you get a different perspective when the bullets are coming at you instead of shown in a newspaper.

Do not test the resolve of an ordinary citizen.

 

[Grummer]

Jiro, if you love Korea so much go there, volunteer the South Korean Army, show them the 'american way' of loyality in the military.

 

[Reba]

one more thing - the comparison between American soldiers and South Korean soldiers is incomparable.

in America - it's 100% voluntary. in South Korea - it's mandatory. who would you entrust your life on? a person who signed up for it voluntarily? or those who were forced into armed force? that's why I'm proud of being an American citizen and our fine soldiers have my utmost respect....

Just because a person is drafted into the military doesn't necessarily mean he's less patriotic or professional. TCS was originally a draftee but became a career Navy sailor. There were many draftees of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam who served honorably.

There are factors other than draft vs. volunteer that effect the quality of a country's military forces. One such factor is the rate/rank structure and how promotion is attained. During the Cold War, one big difference between American services and Soviet ones was that the Soviet military was mostly short-term enlisted conscripts and career officers. They lacked a strong middle management level of career senior enlisted non-commissioned officers (the sergeants and chiefs).

 

[TinCanSailor]

The South Korean military had a battleship attacked and sunk by North Korea in which 46 seamen died. I can assure you, they take what they do very seriously.

Vietnam and Korea were not military wars, our goal was not self preservation. For the South Koreans, however, IT IS self preservation.

You can spend all day long looking at facts and statistics, but you get a different perspective when the bullets are coming at you instead of shown in a newspaper.

Do not test the resolve of an ordinary citizen.

South Korea has a battleship? It must have been a miniature since it only had a crew of 104. Our battleship crews (when we had them) were about 1,300. :P You probably meant warship.

p.s. I wouldn't go around telling Korean or Vietnam veterans those weren't military wars. It might go badly for you.

 

[Jiro]

The South Korean military had a battleship attacked and sunk by North Korea in which 46 seamen died. I can assure you, they take what they do very seriously.

Vietnam and Korea were not military wars, our goal was not self preservation. For the South Koreans, however, IT IS self preservation.

lol.... a battleship? what TCS said. you better double-check your facts

I can assure you that Koreans especially the hardliners were very furious at SK's non-response to this crisis. and I can assure you that they were also very furious at another SK's non-response to NK's shelling on Yeonpyeong Island where 4 people died and 19 injured.

Why don't you tell me what were SK's response to those 2 crisises?

You can spend all day long looking at facts and statistics, but you get a different perspective when the bullets are coming at you instead of shown in a newspaper.

Do not test the resolve of an ordinary citizen.

oh I already know. you'd piss in your pants. so would I.

I can tell you what ordinary citizens did when the bullets were raining upon them. Look up No Gun Ri Massacre. SK civilians were gunned down by Americans for 3 days.

plus - you do realize that majority of Koreans do not own guns? they do not hunt either. you're using American perspective on them. tsk tsk.