On "Powerful" "Assault" Weapons

The AR-15 and like weapons fire the .223 caliber round, sometimes referred to as the NATO round. It is erroneously described as "powerful", but is much smaller and lighter than the 30-06 round our fathers fired from their Springfield rifles in WWII. The doctrine behind the NATO round is that wounding a soldier is more effective than killing him out right. You kill one soldier, you've eliminated one combatant. You wound the same soldier instead, and roughly ten to twelve men will be tied up caring for his wounds and transporting him for medical attention.
While any bullet from the lowly .22 short or .25 can be lethal with the proper placement, the .223 was designed to be less lethal than previous weapons of war, to tie up the enemy's resources and to possibly allow some of its fighting men to live, to return home after the fighting stops.

Consider that 103 people were shot in Orlando and over half of them, so far, survived the shooting. Knee jerk reactions to ban the AR style of rifle may have the unintended consequence of putting even more lethal firepower into the hands of some future evil assassin.

See also:
A Response to Yet Another Knee Jerk Reaction to the Orlando Shooting

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ on Ukraine, Syria & the Economy, Part Deux

"Next week, I'll be in Europe to coordinate with our closest allies and partners. In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO allies. At the NATO summit in the United Kingdom, we'll focus on the additional steps we can take to ensure the alliance remains prepared for any challenge."

Unwavering commitment? Check.

"Our meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will be another opportunity for our alliance to continue our partnership with Ukraine, and I look forward to reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the United States to Ukraine and its people when I welcome President Poroshenko to the White House next month."

"Partnership"? Check.

"...Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are. And we take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, and that includes the smallest NATO member, as well as the largest NATO member."

"...and take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously" (Having trouble suppressing a giggle here!) Check.

Let me see...unwavering commitment to our allies and "partners", taking our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, then why in the Hell haven't you grown a backbone and done something about the incursions into Crimea, which everyone has apparently already ceded to the Russians, and the continuing invasion of the Ukraine, which you will not call by its proper name?

Didn't we already have a "commitment" to the Ukraine, if not a signatory of NATO?

Let me remind you, Mr. President, since apparently golf clears empties the mind, from wiki:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control. The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.

So, because it was only a "memorandum" and not a treaty, the "assurances of security" are null and void? What happened to "unwavering commitment"? Partnership"?? Taking our commitments to defend each other very seriously???

And, of course, since it is Barack Obama, it gets worse!

As a newly minted Senator, Barack Obama pushed to disarm the Ukraine of not only its nuclear arsenal, but conventional weapons as well. Why would they need them? They have the US and Great Britain guaranteeing their security and territorial integrity!

Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine

* Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
* Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine
* The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact

And now, the man who helped disarm the Ukraine is in no hurry to ship them any arms with which they could defend themselves, after broaching the promise to keep them and their territory secure.

Barack Obama: The gift that keeps on giving.



Cross posted at LCR

Is Libya Coalition Failing Apart?

A Daily News reporter seems to think so!

*Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
*French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
*Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
*Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
*No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
*U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
*Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
*Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

"Days and not weeks", eh, Mr. Obama?

H/T Atlas Shrugs