"This isn't just a second amendment issue, it's not just a firearms issue. It's an issue of an overreaching government that wants to come into your kitchen, that wants to come into your living room, and just see what you're doing," says Dimitrios Karras, CEO of Ares Armor in Oceanside, Calif.
Last week, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) raided Ares Armor to confiscate 80 percent polymer receivers for AR-15s. These receivers are the lower part of the gun that contain the trigger operations when fully completed. The polymer version that the ATF is contesting is not completed and requires the purchasers to finish machining it. The ATF claimed that these are unlicensed firearms, but Karras says otherwise.
"It's an object that's in the shape of a receiver, but it hasn't been completed to a point that it would be considered a firearm," says Karras. "This was a nice way for them to get their arm inside of the business and grab the information that they are actually looking for. To think that this is over a piece of plastic is ludicrous."
Karras says the true reason for the ATF's piqued interest in his shop was his refusal to relinquish the list of customers who had purchased the polymer product. He sat down with Reason TV's Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss why he plans to continue fighting the ATF to maintain his customers' privacy and other Constitutional issues at stake.
"They have trampled on the entire Bill of Rights," Karras says.
In light of NYS Governor Cuomo's retarded understanding of firearms and gun safety, we have decided to share some gun porn with you, both to inform the layman and amuse the better informed.
Most semi-automatic pistols today are constructed to hold a standard magazine which exceeds the deluded Governor's 7-round limit. Even a small .22-caliber pistol designed for shooting squirrels and pigeons will usually hold a magazine of 8, 12, even 16 rounds. I wonder, will BB guns now be illegal too, with their 200-round reservoirs of copper death, or my .177-caliber CO2 pistol with 18-shot clip? Technically, I believe so, ridiculously enough.
Essentially, what the Governor has done is shoved NYers back to old wild west technology from two centuries ago, and made NY revolver country once again. Even the trusty .45 semi-auto used by American servicemen in the trenches during World War One, and on up through the modern day as a standard sidearm for professional and personal protection, will now be illegal in New York State. The smaller caliber but ubiquitous 9mm semi-autos, now too, illegal in most models. These new laws have essentially banned all of the most popular models favored by CCW permit holders in New York State, as well as other non-police professionals such as security and bodyguards. (In his haste, the idiot governor has even made it illegal for police, but that is expected to be re-legislated soon.)
Okay Gov, so I can't have a little .22-caliber pea-shooter that holds an 8-round magazine? That's just fine with me. you can take your 7 rounds and even have 2 back. This bitch gets the job done in 5.
That monster is a .50 caliber custom built Super Red Hawk by Ruger. The pistol was re-worked by the customizer to fire special .500 Linebaugh rounds, considered to be the most powerful handgun ammunition in the world. The bullet is so big, that this pistol can only hold 5 rounds, instead of the typical "six-shooter" style common to revolvers.
To get an appreciation of the hitting power we are talking about here, let us do a rough ammo comparison. The AR-15 rifle, made notorious now by several recent murder sprees, uses a .223 caliber round. That is, a round that is less than a quarter-inch in diameter, as compared to the half-inch diameter monsters we are comparing to. In this image just below, is an ammunition magazine being loaded for a military grade version of the same rifle, designated the M-16 with NATO 5.56mm ammunition.
With extensive reworking, the military can also convert the M-16 rifle to fire the special .50-caliber Beowulf cartridge. That round, is roughly the same size as the cartridge fired from the revolver handgun shown above. Here is a comparison of the Beowulf round, as compared to standard "assault rifle" ammunition.
For another way to get an impression of the power we are talking about here in a .50-caliber round, here is a night time photo of a .500 Smith&Wesson Magnum round being fired.
So yeah, basically, fuck you Gubner.
Finally, to really bring the point home, here is a video which displays the hitting power of a 50-caliber round. This compilation video shows US military snipers operating in Afghanistan, hitting live targets, with a single 50-caliber round from distances of a mile or more.
In the wake of recent tragic shootings, millions of people are suddenly familiar with the weapon, but actually have no real understanding of what they are talking about when they speak of it. The rabble rabble of gun-control advocates has become an ignorant roar. I happen to be against most restrictions on gun ownership myself, but this article is meant to inform, no matter what your stance is on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
To start, the term "assault rifle" is being sorely misused by the media, as always. To be an assault rifle, the weapon must be a selective-fire full-auto capable machine-gun. Which means that when you pull the trigger and hold it, the bullets will continue to fire automatically until the magazine is empty. Or, that you may "select" your fire to a "burst" mode in which (usually) three rounds will be discharged per trigger-pull, preserving ammunition and increasing accuracy, while at the same time putting some serious lead-on-target. Finally, you may select a standard semi-automatic rate of fire, meaning a bullet will fire once each time you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic rate of fire is the most accurate, and preserves the most ammunition. Contrary to the Hollywood perception, standard semi-automatic is the most effective method of fire, whereas full auto machine gun fire is generally the least efficient selection for killing people. Full-auto fire is often referred to as "spray and pray" because you spray a lot of lead, and pray you hit something. You might also pray that you don't run out of ammo before you actually hit your targets as well.
M-16 Variants
Kalashnikov AK-47
The U.S.-designated M-16 is the standard combat rifle for our military personnel. It is a selective-fire assault rifle specifically designed for combat use. First deployed in the Vietnam War, it was not well-received at all by combat troops at the time. The weapon jammed frequently, was unreliable, and the small caliber round lacked killing power. Despite its initial lackluster performance under combat conditions, the weapon has been continually refined over the years since to become the standard, not only for the United States military, but for military and police forces around the world. "Western" nations in particular favor this rifle over its chief rival, popularly known as the AK-47, which was originally designed by Soviet hero Mikhail Kalashnikov. That weapon is widely circulated among nations with Communist leanings and/or anti-American sentiment. It might be said that the M-16 is to the AK-47 what Kentucky bourbon is to Russian vodka. The pros and cons of each weapon are debatable, but you might see either or both at any real party.
Today, the M-16 is available in a wide variety of configurations with Colt being the leading manufacturer and supplier to the U.S. military. Some other manufacturers have been licensed by Colt to produce the rifle, with many other manufacturers also producing "knock-off" versions of the popular weapon. Colt also produces the M4, which is essentially a shortened tactical combat version of the M16, initially designed for Special Operations use, as well as other military-grade variants. They also produce the now ubiquitous AR-15.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle." It was the original military designation for the version of the M16 produced by manufacturer ArmaLite, who sold the design rights for the original M16 to Colt back in 1959. You see, ARmalite, the first letters of the manufacturer name, not "assault rifle." Colt now uses the AR-15 designation strictly for civilian-use only models of the popular rifle. Civilian-use models are actually stripped of their "assault" capability, and do not have selective or fully-automatic fire. The AR-15 has the appearance of the popular soldier's rifle, but not the same capability. You might say, the AR-15 is like a 4-cylinder Ford Mustang. Looks fast, but really doesn't have any ponies under the hood. The AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle on the market, and is certainly no assault rifle.
The name Bushmaster does not refer to any sort of special capability either. Bushmaster is simply the name of the manufacturer who produces a rifle similar in appearance to that manufactured by Colt. The designation AR-15 is now widely applied generically to any rifle of similar appearance, but in truth, rifles produced by companies like Bushmaster are not authentic AR-15's at all. This is sort of like calling any generic aspirin a Bayer, or even like calling a Coke a Pepsi. Same, but different. So despite the menacing-sounding name "Bushmaster," once again we are left with a watered-down generic version of reality.
There's a thinker
Finally, we have the ".223" portion of the rifle's description. To the uninformed, the number sounds like a big technical number that probably makes this rifle more deadly than other rifles. Again, not actually so. Technically, the number .223 refers to the diameter of the bullet. Twenty-twos's are often used for small-game hunting, like birds and squirrel, and for backyard tin-can plinking on summer afternoons. Some BB/pellet guns even come in a .22-caliber design.
Admittedly though, there is some difference between a .22-caliber pellet fired from an air-rifle, and a .223 round fired from an AR-15. The difference here is not about the width of the round but how fast the round travels. It will still make a very small hole, but it will hit a target with a lot more energy, giving it more penetration power, and allowing the round to travel further distances. This is made possible because more gun-powder is loaded behind the projectile than in a standard .22-caliber round, forcing it out of the gun a lot faster.
The .223 is actually the smallest commonly used rifle ammunition, despite a relative high-power gunpowder load like that used in a combat rifle or a hunting rifle. Even when used for game hunting, the .223 ammo is not a large enough caliber to take down commonly hunted game such as deer. As a matter of fact, this small ammunition is used specifically in combat operations to not kill the enemy, but rather to wound the enemy instead. Why would you not want to kill an enemy in combat you ask? Because a wounded enemy will require aid from their comrades, distracting them from the fight, whereas a dead enemy can be left to be dealt with later when the fight is over. Just to make that perfectly clear, the .223 caliber rifle, when used as an anti-personnel weapon, is meant to wound the target rather than to kill it outright. So technically, this would make this rifle the "safest" rifle that a civilian could possibly own. A person is less likely to be killed by an AR-15 .223 round than by any other rifle shot. You can see from the image provided here, the difference between a .223 round used in the AR-15, a .308 round commonly used in bolt-action hunting rifles, and the 7.62mm round used in AK-47 style rifles.
Ammo Comparison
We could talk all day long about the merits and lethality of different sorts of ammunition, from rifle loads, to jacketing, to hollow-tips, to fragmenting rounds, and so forth. You can search for yourself numerous charts which display comparisons of all different sorts of ammunition. No one type of ammo is necessarily any more deadly than the other. It all comes down to how it is used. And the same goes for any firearm.
From the zip-gun to the shotgun, to your grand-dad's hunting rifle, to your brother's combat rifle, no one firearm is inherently more dangerous than the other. It all comes down to how it is used. While the public suddenly panics over the AR-15, we seem to forget that school shootings are not a new phenomenon and that even old-fashioned weapons were used in the past to commit similar crimes by bizarrely deranged individuals, such as Charles Whitman.
Whitman's Weapons
In August 1966, Whitman opened fire from the tower of the University of Texas in Austin, killing numerous people. His rampage actually began with the murder of his mother and wife with a knife, not a firearm. He then mounted the tower killing several people there with a shotgun, before sniping the campus from his accomplished vantage point, with WWII-era rifles. His self-authored account of his own mental breakdown is chillingly familiar to so many mass murders and particularly school shootings. Sixteen people died in that event nearly a half-century ago.
All in all, at the end of any day, there is no single firearm which is truly "safer" or more dangerous than another. Nor are firearms any more or less dangerous than other methods of killing. Timothy McVeigh used farm fertilizer to kill 168 people, many of them children. The Unites States government used fire to kill the inhabitants of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Among the dead there were twenty-one children under the age of sixteen.Your kitchen cabinet probably contains enough bleach and ammonia that would make enough mustard gas to wipe out hundreds of people.
Firearms are just a tool, like any other, in the hands of man. They can be used for evil, they can be used to defend against evil. They can be used for Olympic-grade sport, they can be used to feed your family. Madmen will always find a way to kill innocents, even if they do it by taking away your guns.
The timing for this video to come out seems awfully suspicious, given the events of the past few weeks and all of the feverish anti-gun rhetoric that has come along with it. But having said that, even if this were staged propaganda, it is all too real. A word of caution, this is probably the most profound display of ignorance you have ever seen on this webpage, or even on YouTube. Enjoy the stupid, it burns.
Now let the shock wear off a little bit, and let's take a little closer look at what we just saw.Well, let's start with what we didn't see. We didn't actually see the shot. We heard it, but the camera veers away just in time for the report. Which is, of course, very good for the defense now that his has become a criminal matter. The sound might have been overlaid for one thing. For another, we don't get a look at where the projectile was likely to have struck. Which means that this idiot was very lucky that the camera veered away just at that point, of he planned it that way. Which of course, would also show that he is more intelligent than we might take him for. There is also the possibility that a blank round was used.
Now some of these observations also leave open the possibility, to reiterate, that this is purely staged propaganda against gun-ownership.The story first appeared in the Huffington Post. An excellent publication, but one that is undoubtedly left-wing as well with a vested interest in vilifying guns. Admittedly though, such a conspiracy would have to go beyond just a simple video, as 23-year old Ronnie Wynn is now facing a whole slew of other charges, many that are unrelated to this video.
It is reported that police discovered that video on his Facebook page during the course of their investigation after he was arrested for crashing a stolen car. Accorging to the HufPo link above:
While in jail, Wynn was also accused of residential burglary,
second-degree theft, two counts of theft of a firearm, three counts of
trafficking stolen property, forgery, second-degree identity theft,
financial fraud and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in
connection with an unrelated case.
So while it is possible that this entire story is purely a media fabrication, we have to take it at face-value. And really, even if it were made up, we all know there are punk clown wannabe thugs out there that are indeed just this flippin' stupid. Which is why the left-wing anti-gunners have come out to use this video as a rallying cry and "perfect" example of why guns should be illegal in America.
They conveniently overlook, however, the real and continuing danger displayed in that video. While the gunfire was indeed shocking, even revolting, that is not the only wanton display of potentially deadly recklessness. What I am speaking of now, is his reckless driving through a suburban neighborhood. That car he was driving was every bit as deadly as the gun in his lap. He could have run over some little kid on a bicycle, a pedestrian crossing the street, spun out into someone's living room, or even just crashed into another car.
So let us imagine that scenario for a moment. Imagine you wind up in a serious collision with this wannabe tough-guy showing off for his little 'hood rat. How much provocation do you think he would need to shoot you the minute you got our of your car, or confronted him, or tried to stop him from fleeing? Would you rather come across a lunatic like that while you were unarmed, or armed yourself, with your own legally owned firearm?
While the typical left-winger might rely on the police to be there to help them, take note too that this clown drove right past a police cruiser, who did nothing to protect all the left-wingers out there from this menace in their midst that day. Indeed, even the police officer himself was a potential target, as the punk declares he "should have popped" the officer. The difference between an unarmed civilian though, and the police officer, was that the officer was armed. If little Ronnie had decided to bust a shot, the cop would have unleashed a hell-storm of lead, with more skill and precision than little Ronnie could ever imagine. But it doesn't take just a police officer to be the counterpoint to a threat like this. Any American has the right to defend themselves, with a firearm, in a situation like that. There are many out there who want to take away your right to defend yourself though. Would you rather have the same power as the police officer to defend yourself if you were to be shot at, or would you rather wait ten minutes for the police officer to show up? Maybe to find you and your whole family executed in your own car, defenseless, against this petty thug who is just itching to kill someone for no reason at all.
Of course, there are those who will say that if guns were illegal, this kid would not have gotten his hands on the stolen guns portrayed in that video. But keep in mind a few key points here. The guns were in fact, stolen. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still be around. Police would have them, certain specialists would still have them, certain collectors would still have them. In other words, there would still be guns out there for a degenerate like this to go out and steal, while the average citizen can no longer legally purchase a gun to defend themselves against this loser.
But more importantly, he doesn't even need a gun. As pointed out above, the way he was driving that car was every bit as dangerous as firing a gunshot. Not to mention that he could get his hands on knives, explosives, even household chemicals, and you would still be unarmed in this left-wing utopian vision of a perfect world.
Here is another video that shows what sort of degenerate animal we are dealing with here. If you were to come across this scum, would you rather be armed with a gun, or a cellphone?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
By now you have, no doubt, heard about the tragic shooting spree that occurred in Aurora, Colorado. If not, you can see a video of one of the original news report here...
When I heard about the tragedy, one of my first thoughts was to wonder how this could have happened in Colorado, which is a fairly gun-friendly state, where many citizens carry firearms regularly. I was surprised that the shooter was able to kill and wound so many people without anyone in the theater returning fire and killing the gunman.
My question was answered when I learned about the policy of Cinemark Holdings Inc. who own the Century 16 theater where this tragedy took place. Although it is not stated on their website, the company prohibits legally carried firearms in their theaters, unless you are a law-enforcement officer.
Which means, of course, that any citizen in that theater who did legally own a firearm, was barred from attending the show with their weapon. Any citizen in that theater who might have engaged the threat, lacked the necessary tool to do so.
There have been complaints in the past to Cinemark about their weapons policy. You can search the web to find them, but here is an example shared at DefensiveCarry.com and another at OpernCarry.org
To any sensible person, this tragedy is yet another example about the ineffectiveness of gun-control policies. Those who institute such policies endanger the lives of free and law-abiding citizens of this country.
When Cinemark instituted a ban on firearms, they also took on a responsibility to effectively enforce that ban. They failed to do so, and now at least 14 people are dead as a result. Not to mention all of the wounded, injured, and psychologically traumatized patrons who will be effected by this horrific event for the rest of their lives.
I hope that Cinemark is sued into bankruptcy for their critical error. I also hope that other companies are put on notice by this, that our government eases restrictions on the Constitution, and that citizens stand up to demand that our right to bear arms not be infringed.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is taking a
rare step of allowing public comments prior to issuing a decision on a
study that could result in outlawing certain types of shotguns currently
available to citizens.
The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of
certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely
defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all
pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all
capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more
than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the
ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.
Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are
currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA
and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an
individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.
Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun
Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns
it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control
Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate
home defense shotguns.”
The ATF is currently allowing public comments on the study
until the end of the month. Those wishing to express concerns about the
study can send an email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov
We try to not get into outside political debates here that don't have anything to do with gun control. But this is sort of a "global gun control" issue that we are facing here. Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
We thank Captain Six for this article here, followed by the feature presentation:
My (Captain Six) personal opinion is that we should deter any nation from building or acquiring nuclear weapons, and the nations that do have them should strive to reduce their own stockpiles. However, I do not believe that any nation or group of nations has any right to dictate that sentiment upon another nation. So basically, I say yes, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons if they are determined to. What right do we have to tell them "no" they can't build a nuke?
Because they are a threat? Let's take note here that Iran, the Persian people, have not attacked anyone in over 600 years. A much more peaceful track record than other nations who are armed to the teeth with nukes. Other nations that include the United States, who carried out a proxy war against Iran via Iraqi strongman and CIA asset Saddam Hussein. Look what we did to him in the long run too. With friends like that, who needs enemies, eh?
Speaking of which, let's have a look at what happens when you bow to western demands to abandon your nukes, and even offer to fight America's avowed enemy, the Al-Qaeda terrorists...
The same thing that happens to any people who give up their guns, is exactly what happened to Quadaffy. The same reason why we, as American people, cherish our right to bear arms. It is not a right given by one power to another. It is an inherent God-given right. A right, which comes with responsibility of course, but a right nonetheless. When you give up that right, you are finished. Is it better to resist fascism by force, or go quietly into the night?
Now some folks point to Iran's Islamic theology as enough grounds to deny them nukes, by force if necessary. By that logic, that means that American citizens who are Muslims, or even Jews or devout Christians for that matter, should be denied a right to bear arms here in the U.S. So strike one on the religious rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.
But nukes are different than regular guns you say? I don't think so, but okay, let's have a look at that for a second. First, you have Pakistan which is a pretty hard-line Muslim theocracy themselves. If it weren't for their hard-line stance in favor of Islam, Pakistan would not even be a country at all, and would be a peaceful province of secular India. Instead, they are a Muslim fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons, that could attack Israel, but have never attacked anyone outside of their border dispute with India, and have only used conventional weapons.
Okay, can't do much about that now though. Maybe we missed that boat on that one, and let one religious theocratic state have a nuke, but we shouldn't do it again and we should take it away from them if we can. We should not support any state that is a religious theocracy that has nukes, right? Well, in case you missed the secret memo, Iran is not starting a nuclear Cold War race for the bomb with Israel. Israel already has nukes. Ironically enough, it seems that Israel got their nuke program started with the close support of apartheid-racist South Africa.
Now, having said all of that, I want to be clear. I am not an anti-Semite, I am not a Muslim, I am not a religious zealot of any kind. I believe in Israel's right to exist, as well as the right of Gaza and the West Bank to be unified as a nation. I am, however, extremely concerned about the heavy beating of the war drums in recent days, with the rhetoric ramping up to support yet another preemptive attack on a nation that has never attacked anyone.
I truly fear, that World War III is imminent, and it scares the hell out of me.
All reasons and politics aside, the fact remains that what you see in this video might very well depict events which we might view live in the next few months...
Air Force Pulls Christian-Themed Ethics Training for Nuclear Missile Officers After Publication of Truthout Report
by: Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report
The Air Force, in response to an exclusive report published by Truthout earlier this week, has withdrawn materials used in a training session that relied upon passages from the New and Old Testament and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare training "has been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed," said David Smith, chief of public affairs of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. "The commander reviewed it and decided we needed to have a good hard look at it and make sure it reflected views of modern society."
Smith said the ethics training has been in place for "20-plus years" and the decision to remove it was made on Wednesday after Truthout's report was published. He added that it will now be "given thorough scrutiny" and "folks will be appointed to look at what we have and determine its utility and if they think its useful to continue having an ethics course they will develop a new course."
The course was led by Air Force chaplains and took place during a missile officer's first week in training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Officers who train to be missileers were required to attend the ethics course, which included a PowerPoint presentation on St. Augustine's "Christian Just War Theory" as well as numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament the training materials asserted engaged in warfighting in a "righteous way."
St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way the Air Force characterized it in slides used in the ethics training, are: "to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order (just cause)" and "to restore moral order; not expand power, not for pride or revenge (just intent)."
One of the PowerPoint slides also contained a passage from the Book of Revelation that claims Jesus Christ, as the "mighty warrior," believed some wars to be just.
At the conclusion of the ethics training session, missile officers were asked to sign a legal document stating they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) "if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor."
The documents' blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous references to the New and Old Testament would appear to constitute a violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state.
The 43-page PowerPoint was included with more than 500 pages of other documents pertaining to a missile officer's first week in training that was released by the Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provided to Truthout by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a civil rights organization.
Another PowerPoint slide quoted Wernher Von Braun, a former member of the Nazi Party and SS officer who is regarded as the father of the US space program. Von Braun was not cited in the PowerPoint as a scientific expert, rather, he was specifically being referenced as a moral authority, which is remarkable considering that the Nazi scientist used Jews imprisoned in concentration camps, captured French anti-Nazi partisans, civilians, and others to help build the V-2, a weapon responsible for the death of thousands of British civilians.
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein said more than 30 missile officers contacted his organization over the past week to complain about the Christian imagery and biblical passages in the ethics training. He said the decision by the Air Force to pull the ethics course material is a "great victory for the constitution." [Full disclosure: Weinstein is a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.]
"We are not going to commend the Air Force for doing something they should have done a quarter-century ago," Weinstein said. "It's an outrage and a deliberate attempt to torture and distort our constitution when the US Air Force mandatorily teaches its nuclear missile launch officers that fundamentalist Christian theology is inextricably intertwined with the 'correct' decision to launch nukes."
.jpg)
