All the relevant information about Benghazi is out there and Republicans should move on to current stories.
A good cartoon.
Aw, isn’t that cute? Chuck Asay now has a friend to come over and play “Fast and Furious is a serious issue that will bring down Obama” with.
Like Chuck Asay, Chip Bok seems intent on ignoring that handguns exist.
If your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s probably not a good argument. If your hypothetical scenario to support your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s a stupid scenario.
Hell, I wonder if Bok is actually serious about this. I mean, the robber has a bandit mask on, for frack’s sake. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
I generally love your blog, but I feel the need to point out that almost all handguns are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means a bullet comes out every time you pull the trigger, without you having to reload in between.
You’re right, which shows that Bok is just outright lying. There’s no credible attempts to ban all semi-automatic weapons; Sen. Feinstein’s proposed bill was focused on assault weapons.
I don’t think there’s a credible attempt to ban semi-automatic either, but a lot of people think we should, especially in my area in NorCal. Still,
“assault weapon” is a political term, and its definition changes based on the legislation using it - Feinstein’s use of it happened to target many pistols. I’d imagine that’s the point that Bok is (clumsily) making here - semi-auto isn’t a category including just AKs, but *most* weapons. I still don’t see the outright lie here, since he’s not referring to a specific AWB proposal.The implication that there are any such proposals - when there aren’t - is the lie.
I wouldn’t call “not referring to legislation” lying, but that’s a matter of emphasis. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that most handguns are semi-auto, and that a very large number of them were going to be banned by the proposed AWB.
Well, I’m aware now. And quite frankly I wouldn’t be too upset about certain handguns being banned when the majority of gun deaths in America (over 3,000 just since Newtown) come from handguns.
But I’m not interested in getting into an entire debate about that now. If you haven’t seen it I laid out my views on guns and gun control here.
I just find the “Guns for everyone” or “Guns for no one” framing of the debate to be childish and inane.
Like Chuck Asay, Chip Bok seems intent on ignoring that handguns exist.
If your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s probably not a good argument. If your hypothetical scenario to support your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s a stupid scenario.
Hell, I wonder if Bok is actually serious about this. I mean, the robber has a bandit mask on, for frack’s sake. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
I generally love your blog, but I feel the need to point out that almost all handguns are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means a bullet comes out every time you pull the trigger, without you having to reload in between.
You’re right, which shows that Bok is just outright lying. There’s no credible attempts to ban all semi-automatic weapons; Sen. Feinstein’s proposed bill was focused on assault weapons.
I don’t think there’s a credible attempt to ban semi-automatic either, but a lot of people think we should, especially in my area in NorCal. Still,
“assault weapon” is a political term, and its definition changes based on the legislation using it - Feinstein’s use of it happened to target many pistols. I’d imagine that’s the point that Bok is (clumsily) making here - semi-auto isn’t a category including just AKs, but *most* weapons. I still don’t see the outright lie here, since he’s not referring to a specific AWB proposal.
The implication that there are any such proposals - when there aren’t - is the lie.
Like Chuck Asay, Chip Bok seems intent on ignoring that handguns exist.
If your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s probably not a good argument. If your hypothetical scenario to support your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s a stupid scenario.
Hell, I wonder if Bok is actually serious about this. I mean, the robber has a bandit mask on, for frack’s sake. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
I generally love your blog, but I feel the need to point out that almost all handguns are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means a bullet comes out every time you pull the trigger, without you having to reload in between.
You’re right, which shows that Bok is just outright lying. There’s no credible attempts to ban all semi-automatic weapons; Sen. Feinstein’s proposed bill was focused on assault weapons.
Like Chuck Asay, Chip Bok seems intent on ignoring that handguns exist.
If your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s probably not a good argument. If your hypothetical scenario to support your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s a stupid scenario.
Hell, I wonder if Bok is actually serious about this. I mean, the robber has a bandit mask on, for frack’s sake. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
Coherent political cartoons are hard.
*
*
*
(Wasn’t Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb in relation to Iran, not North Korea? I’ve never heard of Israel being particularly focused on North Korea.)
I’m not sure what Chuckie is trying to say here. Is he implying the committee members are unmanly for liking badminton instead of wrestling?
Chip Bok, of all people, delivered the best (and certainly clearer) take on the story.
And now Chip Bok has made a legitimately good cartoon. What is happening?
(Minor quibble: I’m not sure married couples can be deployed on the front lines (or just on patrols) like this.)
Ah, perhaps I can help.
As far as I can tell, it would be okay for two soldiers to be on the same squad when married…on the condition that they were not in each other’s chain of command (which would introduce possible conflicts of interest.)
This would, of course, be highly unlikely.
Each squad is led by a Squad Leader (who could not be one of the partners). The squad is further broken down into two Fire Teams, each led by a Team Leader (neither of whom could be one of the partners either, since succession of command is usually such that if the SL dies, the ATL assumes the position, then the BTL. So there’s conflict of interest problems there, as well). In addition, squads usually have a recorder to assist the SL who is often a part of succession of command.
Each Fire Team has one Rifleman, one Automatic Rifleman, and one Grenadier.
That means that out of 10 people, there are 6 on a squad who could possibly be married to each other.
Next you must understand that the ranks that an infantry squadmember would be in at those positions would be very low (E-1 to E-4, I believe). In addition to this, infantry is the branch of the army with the easiest track to promotion. As such, even if two soldiers were in this position at all, it would not be long before one or both was at a rank where they’d be duty-separated by necessity.
Now you know.
You’re assuming they have the same MOS and duties. When I was in Iraq I know of at least one married couple that was in my company, but they were each in different sections because they had different MOSes. The husband was an MP (if I remember correctly) and the wife was… I forget.
I want to say she worked in S2, but that’s not right.I think she was in the company headquarters.But my point is, it seems really unlikely a married couple would be in the same squad on patrol together.
I also said it would be really unlikely…where is the disagreement, here? 0.o
There is no disagreement.
And now Chip Bok has made a legitimately good cartoon. What is happening?
(Minor quibble: I’m not sure married couples can be deployed on the front lines (or just on patrols) like this.)
Ah, perhaps I can help.
As far as I can tell, it would be okay for two soldiers to be on the same squad when married…on the condition that they were not in each other’s chain of command (which would introduce possible conflicts of interest.)
This would, of course, be highly unlikely.
Each squad is led by a Squad Leader (who could not be one of the partners). The squad is further broken down into two Fire Teams, each led by a Team Leader (neither of whom could be one of the partners either, since succession of command is usually such that if the SL dies, the ATL assumes the position, then the BTL. So there’s conflict of interest problems there, as well). In addition, squads usually have a recorder to assist the SL who is often a part of succession of command.
Each Fire Team has one Rifleman, one Automatic Rifleman, and one Grenadier.
That means that out of 10 people, there are 6 on a squad who could possibly be married to each other.
Next you must understand that the ranks that an infantry squadmember would be in at those positions would be very low (E-1 to E-4, I believe). In addition to this, infantry is the branch of the army with the easiest track to promotion. As such, even if two soldiers were in this position at all, it would not be long before one or both was at a rank where they’d be duty-separated by necessity.
Now you know.
You’re assuming they have the same MOS and duties. When I was in Iraq I know of at least one married couple that was in my company, but they were each in different sections because they had different MOSes. The husband was an MP (if I remember correctly) and the wife was… I forget. I want to say she worked in S2, but that’s not right. I think she was in the company headquarters.
But my point is, it seems really unlikely a married couple would be in the same squad on patrol together.
