WFB wouldn't have published that piece.

Alan Moore's V for Vendetta: Someday there might be a nuclear exchange, and the fascists will take over Britain.

American conservatism: Someday there WILL be a nuclear exchange, so we should just rule in perpetuity until that happens.

"Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II."

Just two nuclear bombs... plus more than three years of war against the Allies preceded by a decade of war on the Asian mainland, firebombings of major cities, the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and the declaration of war by the USSR. If Iran musters all those things, the USA would have no choice but to surrender.

Thomas Sowell knows that the base wants red meat, and the advertisers want more dimwits to buy more crap. So he's going to deliver the red meat the dimwits love. Gotta keep those advertisers happy.

Sowell is selling us out! I bet ideals from the European Enlightenment, now some 400 years on, against Sharia Law any day in the West. Is Sowell a whimp or something? To have such thoughts is to revel in delusion! -Kevo

If Iran musters all those things, the USA would have no choice but to surrender.

Yes. If it musters all those things and our own nuclear arsenal somehow also completely disappears.

I was reflecting on the wingnut contingent the other day as I worked out in the gym . They have a bank of flat screens so you get all the major news networks with subtitles. Fox news is there and like a car crash I can't help myself . They seem to be talking to themselves all reaffirming each others inane comments led by Krauthhamer . Do they think they are changing anyones mind? The circle is getting tighter and tighter.

I'm a mid-list novelist. If I wrote that, I bet I'd make a million and become a right-wing star. It's kinda tempting.

If Iran musters all those things, they deserve to win!

Maybe someone can explain this to me: How could have Obama quadrupled the national debt in one year when he's been in office for 5 months? I mean, I know most Republicans have very flawed logic, but how can they say he's done something in one year when not even half that has passed?

What exactly has Obama done or said to lead anyone to believe he is a pushover pacifist? Everything he had done has indicated otherwise.

If Iran had two nukes they wouldn't use them, at least, not against us. If memory serves we have something way north of 10,000 nuclear bombs. The Iranian city list is pretty short. We would simply end their existence. They know it.

Frankly, to believe that America would "surrender" to a nuclear armed Iran is nuts.

Economist Thomas Sowell lies about the quadrupling of the national debt (or he doesn't know the difference between debt and deficits) and ignores the fact that the 2008-09 budget belongs almost entirely to former President Bush.

Good thing this "serious thinker" is not affiliated with a major educational institution.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender -- especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Yes, it's too bad that the United States has no nuclear weapons or armed forces, so we would be completely unable to retaliate in any way if Iran somehow managed to launch a nuclear missile. If a single nuke went off, we'd have no choice but to completely surrender since we would have absolutely no other way to respond, like maybe requesting NATO forces on our behalf.

Seriously, these guys have read way too many X-Men comics if they really think the supervillain can stroll into the White House and take over on a whim because HE HAS A BOMB!!!!1!!11!ONE!!!

These unhinged rightwing nuts are hilarious. So much frothing and ranting - so little sense. How will they survive these next 4 years? Reminds me of the crazy homeless guy ranting and raving and talking to himself on the street corner. Actually, I value what the homeless guy has to say much more than these GOP whackjobs.

Chris: He also ignores the fact that the deficit and debt only look bigger because Obama ended dishonest bookkeeping practices, like keeping the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars off the books.

Why are the wingnuts all, excuse the expression, such pussies? First they adamantly believed that a bunch of cave-dwelling religious fanatics with boxcutters and no air force are an existential threat. Now, apparently, two suitcase nukes would bring the US to its feet? WTF?

Please God there will never be a case of nuclear terrorism that wipes out an American city. But certainly if there were, I presume any country which could tenuously be tied (in real or fabricated ways) to the attack would be wiped off the map. Not only would Tehran, Masshad and Qom be wiped out, but I bet there'd be a groundswell to take out Mecca, Medina, just for good measure.

If 9/11 had been a nuclear blast and 6 million NYers were killed, there'd be no Baghdad, Fallujah, Kabul, Basrah, Karbala, etc. standing today and I would be worried if I lived in Qatar just because Al Jazeera is there. North Korea could probably be tied to it somehow and I would probably take a vacation if I lived in Islamabad. it would be a massacre and we would feel totally justified in doing it.

But none of those things lead to us surrendering to Iran and implementing shari'a. idiots.

How did Dumbsfeld put it so delicately a few years ago..."Henny Penny, the sky is falling, the SKY IS FALLING!!"

"Turn tail and run in Iraq" you say? Na, we just wanted to send you and your ilk to fight there, since you love war/death/blood and imperialism so much. So, go have at it. You are so terribly afraid that you need to start a war. You aren scared shitless of a small country (with massive natural resources, coincidentally of course). What are you waiting for a-hole? Go sign up. Send your wife and your kids. Haliburton and the Carlyle Group NEEDS YOU!

Why were we told we had to start a war again? Oh yea, be AFRAID, BE VAER AFRAID!! There's was the 'grave and growing danger" of Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The 'mushroom cloud' on the horizon that was 'imminent'. The 'slam dunk' of stockpiles of banned explosives, the 'no doubt' reconstitution of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. So, Sowell, go find 'em. What's wrong chicken-shit? Oh..., that's right, you just want to send "other people's" children to die for your lies.

Fear mongering anyone? Obama's a socialist, no a communist, no a secret Muslin, no a secret Jew, no he's an Iranian-lover who wants to turn us into a theocracy and rule under sharia law. Pull-ease. Get real.

It's actually not clear that the atomic bombings were the critical factor in Japan's surrender, even though almost all Americans seem to believe this. In his book "Racing the Enemy," historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argues that the Soviet entry into the Pacific War was what did it.

And if we don't stop the Commies in Southeast Asia.... oh.

I'm sorry, but even Sowell's craziness pales to what Rush Limbaugh said on his show yesterday. He actually accused Obama of being filled with anger toward Britain over African colonialism.

Mike

if one were to look at the reputation of crazy tom sowell over the last 25 years, he embodies the rise in legitimacy of the wacko voice of the extreme right...

sweet jesus -- it's like living dylan's "ballad of a thin man"

additionally, it is the most telling evidence to me that this society is sinking slowly -- or not so slowly -- into a hideous imbecility.

It's the same thing as always with the Republicans - "Here comes the Boogeyman! Be afraid of the Boogeyman! Only *we* can save you from this outrageous claim we're making!"

Whatever. :P

If one nuclear bomb managed to hit ANYWHERE !!! in the United States, the response would be a massive, smoking hole of whomever launched the damn thing! Is Sowell so ignorant to believe any POTUS would collapse like that? Two bombs!?! Give me a break!

Look at our response to only two planes crashing into one building! What do you think would happen if a nuclear bomb went off and we knew who did it?

It is really hard to take conservatives seriously these days. They all seem to have gone nuts. I guess that is what happens when instead of using mass media to explain your ideas for dealing with real problems, you let mass media shape everything you do. Remember a curved wall looks straight on television.

National Review has merged with the National Enquirer and are insisting that a country smaller than Tx. will impose Sharia law and have Martian Children with two heads.

"It only took 2 Nuclear weapons to get Japan to surrender"...completely loses site of the fact that Japan had no nukes with which to counter...much less a huge nuclear arsenal capable of removing America from the face of the earth like Russia did later on. Why would Sowell forget this one overwhelming fact which negates his whole premise...Enquiring Minds want to know.

Lee said:

even though almost all Americans seem to believe this.

even though almost all people seem to believe this.

There, fixed that for you.

Ok NONE OF THE REPUBLICANS really believe the silly and stupid statements they put out. What they are doing is attempting to distract the nation from serious discourse.

The reason is that they know that in the area of serious, research based, political theory and governing techniques they cannot compete -- so they make outragous statements hoping to be picked up by the news and thus wasting everyone's time. (as we have only so much time)

I am not quite sure I have a solution, but I promise you, it sure as heck is the problem.

As Brad DeLong noted, the national debt grew by 17% not 300%. Sowell pretends to be an economist but he can't even get simple arithmetic right.

If they know they aren't being serious and we know they aren't being serious, why is Steve wasting our time with this post? Maybe because the media also knows they aren't being serious, but prints their mindless drivel anyway.

I have a somewhat different take on both Sowell and the fact that NRO actually ran this. It goes back to the origins of the "conservative movement" after WWII, when WFB united the factions around the crusade against communism. In the wake of WWII, when Americans were used to the notion that we were fighting a global struggle for our values against an enemy capable of subjugating the whole world, anticommunism was one of conservatism's great strengths; it bolstered its patriotic credentials [which had been a bit battered by the New Deal] and allowed it to accuse liberals of not simply being wrong, but being treasonous. Unfortunately for this version of conservatism, the International Communist Conspiracy [ICC] has collapsed. Ever since that time, conservatives have been pining for a moral equivalent to the ICC. "Culture wars" worked in the short run, but wound up driving more people away than they attracted. What was really needed was a powerful global enemy, whose ideology could be branded as "foreign" and which permitted one to tar one's opponents as fifth columnists without targeting what might turn out to be a majority of Americans. Unfortunately, no current global problem fits that bill, so they repeatedly have had to anoint some minor country as the next Evil Empire and make its threat equivalent to that of Hitler [the gold standard for existential threats to the USA--WWII again]. Further, while there really were "fellow travelers" among interwar American liberals, political Islam has virtually no adherents on the modern left. So they just have to make stuff up, hoping that the dogs will continue to salivate when they ring the old bell. This has effectively been the whole history of the *Weekly Standard.* Essentially Sowell is trying to relive the glory days of the ICC; but rewriting the play with Iran in the role of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union replaces tragedy with farce.

I am a liberal, and an advocate of gun control.

That said, IF the Iranians got the bomb, and IF they managed to get it here to the US, and IF they managed to blow it up, and IF the US Government and greatest military in the world surrendered, and IF the Iranians then came to the US to put my granddaughter under Shari'a law, you can be pretty sure that I, and the rest of us Massachusetts pinko lefties would head on down to the Bass Pro Shops, stock up on guns and ammo, and fight like hell. Maybe we could even talk some of our conservative friends into fighting too, but I certainly wouldn't count on Sowell and the rest of the fakt tough guys on the right.

Sowell is one deluded fellow, and obviously a senior one at that. What is most enjoyable in his piece besides the bizarre 'two nuclear bombs' thing, is his description of the current state of the GOP as 'tussles' 'between the liberal and conservative wing of the party'.

What magnification factor would a magnifying glass have to have in order to see any residues of a 'liberal' wing in the GOP? The diagnosis of delusional is inescapable.

Sowell used to do serious work that was worth reading, but now he's just mailing it in and embarrassing himself.

If I ever again hear anyone describe Sowell as an intellectual, I'll be sure to show them this clip. It brings the stupid in so many ways, it's a challenge to list them all.

As rt42, I took a stab at it over at Ezra's place this morning.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a sponsor of International Terrorism when he created/supported the Contras ?
how about when he suppported UNITA ? or FRELIMO ? or the Salvadorean Death Squads ?

to say nothing of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden

Sowell should know better as an economist.

First of all, as others have mentioned, the Debt is not the deficit.

Second, the only way wingnuts can say Obama quadrupled the deficit is to ignore all of 2008.

Bush handed Obama a current accounts deficit of more than 1.2 trillion dollars. He handed him a debt of nearly 11 trillion.

Obam's first budget is for 3.4 trillion. Bush's last was for 3.1 trillion. Obama's stimulus was for a little less than 800 billion. So, roughly speaking, Sowell could say Obama went from Bush's 3.1 trillion to 4.2 trillion. Roughly a 33% increase.

Not sure what universe he's in. In this one, 33% doesn't mean quadruple.

If he's really, really talking about quadrupling the debt, that means he thinks Obama has already spent 44 trillion dollars.

Sheeesh.

Wasn't Sowell once considered one of the more thoughtful conservative intellectuals?

There must be something in the water these people are drinking. Flouridation? Sapping those precious bodily fluids?

Are you sure someone didn't play a joke on him and tell him that he was writing a piece for National Lampoon?

The opening math error (or math error combined with confusing the deficit and the national debt) is particularly ludicrous when you consider that the last three Republican administrations are responsible for more of the national debt than all other presidents combined.

The "sharia" bit, I suspect, is a shout-out to the wingnut belief that liberals are somehow in league with ultra-conservative muslims.

I've never been clear on the supposed basis for this, whether it's just "you both disagree with us, therefore you must agree with each other" or "you are against bombing these people, therefore you must loooove them" or what, but it's clearly entered the realm of wingnut articles of faith like "tax cuts never cause deficits" -- ideas that even though they are obviously batsh*t crazy to anyone with a functioning brain, are taken by wingnuts to be so obviously true that they require no justification or support.

Can't these nitwits make up their minds? Are we supposed to teach our kids Farsi or Spanish?

Are we supposed to teach our kids Farsi or Spanish?

Sparsi.

Someone (can't remember where) posted something similar about this piece (sorry no verbatim transcript):

Sharia law forbids women from having control over their bodies, is against homosexual rights, wants to eliminate its enemies (by force if necessary), is anti-science, and seeks to impose it's religious dogma upon everyone.

Republicans want to forbid women from having control over their bodies, are against homosexual rights, want to eliminate their enemies (by force if necessary), are anti-science, and seek to impose their religious dogma upon everyone.

That's the reason the National Review printed this piece -- sharia law is actually their vision of America. They're just too stupid to realize it.

Rick said: "There are some neighborhoods of New York you shouldn't go into."

The Kings of New York will fight tooth and nail!

These war-mongers just aren't all that bright on these subjects. Their thinking is like that of a beached whale. It just lies there getting in the way.

Our bigger problem is the big ol' rogering we gave ourselves last year. It's going to take a while to recover and a lot of people have been hurt.

Of course, there were some who made tons of money without getting their hands very dirty. Take the Swiss for example and there may be other financiers, who like Madoff, appeared very clean, own lots of expensive paintings and mansions, but who are rotten to the coeur.

Here's the alarming thing: the reason a clearly delusional and borderline insane- you could probably drop the borderline part- made it into the supposedly serious NR is that there is very little remaining of the intellectual conservative movement. The modern conservative movement's origins- assuming you trace these back to William F. Buckley- truly were intellectual. For a good while the GOP really *was* the party of ideas. They may not all have been good ideas, and many of them were just plain awful, but at least they had intellectual heft.

What we see now, though, is the inevitable result of the conservative movement inviting the religious right into the big tent. A cursory look at the current Christian fundamentalist movement will reveal it to be an *explicitly* anti-intellectual movement. For a while, the intellectual elites of the movement, if you want to call them that, were able to manipulate the fundamentalists just enough to get their votes w/o giving them a seat at the table.

Now, though, anti-intellectualism not only has a seat at the table, it's dominating the table. Put simply, the true intellectuals of the GOP have either died off, or left the party in disgust. When Newt Gingrich realistically qualifies as a conservative intellectual, it's a big problem.

As liberals, we can't just get smug and think that this is all wonderful. For the two party system to work, you need two working parties; you need a loyal opposition. Today's GOP, dominated as it is by the dysfunctional, anti-intellectual rump conservative movement, can hardly be said to be a working party. And, given that fundamentalists of all stripes are loathe to negotiate or compromise at all- indeed, part of the definition of fundamentalist is an utter refusal to compromise- it makes the GOP utterly worthless as the Loyal Opposition which we really need it to be.

-Z

How many nuclear bombs did the Soviet Union have? I wonder how Sowell accounts for Jimmy Carter's failure to surrender to them.

I think the most important component of a Loyal Opposition is not neccesarily the "opposition" part but the "loyal". Loyalty is what keeps the right-to-lifers from going the jihadi-suicide bomber route. I would prefer they remain that way.

I understand that propaganda of the kind these people absorb on a daily basis can have a radicalizing effect, and that sort of thing occured in Rwanda, Weimar Germany, and China during the Cultural Revolution. I don't think we should by any means be cheering on the radicalization of the right-wing mob because I think it has potentially very dangerous consequences.

Does anybody seriously believe that the US would nuke Tehran (or take any other military action against Iran) if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv? Not that Iran necessarily will do that, but they have said that they will when they can.

Obama said that he would use any means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He repeated that "all options are on the table". In response to his open hand, the Iranian government showed once again their closed fist. According to some of the time lines that have been announced (conjectured?), Iran will obtain its first nuclear weapon during Obama's first term unless he actively prevents it. According to other time lines, it will be during Obama's second term (I'm assuming he'd be reelected, based on performance to date and the lack of exciting Republican challengers), unless he prevents it.

So, on that, Obama's expressed views are substantially in agreement with Sowell. Obama has the power, not Sowell, and Sowell's point is that there is much doubt whether Obama will use the power effectively.

Katie: How could have Obama quadrupled the national debt in one year when he's been in office for 5 months? I mean, I know most Republicans have very flawed logic, but how can they say he's done something in one year when not even half that has passed?

It's a prediction based on spending bills passed to date, added to the inherited deficit, and other spending bills proposed for the next few months. Check back next January.

How could have Obama quadrupled the national debt in one year when he's been in office for 5 months? --Katie

Because Sowell is too effing dumb to tell the difference between "debt" and "deficit" and still got the numbers wrong, even though he's using figures projected out until 2019.

The really scary part?

Dude's an economist.

"Does anybody seriously believe that the US would nuke Tehran (or take any other military action against Iran) if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv?"

I do.

Matthew,

Are you trying to explain wingnut math, or agreeing with it?

I have to correct my own post above, btw, but I was close. Obama would have to spend roughly 33 trillion more in order to quadruple the 11 trillion he inherited.

Are you of the opinion that Obama's planning to do that? Even including all of the interest, etc. etc. Of course, if we do that, we have to do it for Bush's debt as well. Comparing apples with apples, etc.

His current budget plus the stimulus is about 4.2 trillion. That's a long, long way from 33 trillion. Even if we add up all of the bailout stuff, including the Fed, which Obama does not control, it's not close.

It would literally be impossible for Obama to quadruple the debt in five months, a year, or eight years.

Also, Bush set him up with the worst economy since Hoover, and his tax cuts are what created the massive deficits and debt anyway.

Tax receipts fell for Bush's first three years and his last. Tax cuts did that.

Conservatives want to have it both ways. They want to blame Obama for a rising deficit, AND they want to cut taxes which created the deficit in the first place. Well, that and the war.

Wingnut math isn't math. It's fantasy.

If Iran had two nukes they wouldn't use them

If Iran had two nukes, it'd have a deterrent effect against Israel's nukes, so Israel's nukes would be less effective.

Occam's Razor -- an Iranaian bomb is much more of a strategic problem for the State of Israel than it is the United States.

It's a prediction based on spending bills passed to date, added to the inherited deficit, and other spending bills proposed for the next few months.

You left out, also, dropping the dishonest accounting methods Bush used to justify giving you those sweet, sweet tax cuts, Marler. Shame on you.

"Does anybody seriously believe that the US would nuke Tehran (or take any other military action against Iran) if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv?"

Umm, absolutely. What would make you think otherwise?

Does anybody seriously believe that the US would nuke Tehran (or take any other military action against Iran) if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv?

Of course the US would take military action, dumbass. Israel is our ally.

NATO joined us in attacking Afghanistan because al Qaeda attacked us, remember?

Plus, saying "any means necessary" and "all options are on the table" contains an implicit threat, hardly an "open hand." Yes, Obama has been more open than Bush's disastrous cowboy diplomacy -- which showed Iran that a nuclear program was in its security interests -- but your example is way off the mark.

Sowell's point is that there's doubt Obama will use unilateral military action, which you bedwetting conservatives always, always prefer -- if not to pay for -- but non-insane and non-cowardly people recognize should be a last resort.

You always discuss here in bad faith, Marler, and Sowell does nothing but, but you usually show a little more imagination.

Jackass.

By the way, Marler, when you post disingenuous bullshit like that, the forum doesn't respond with, "Gee, that reasonable and honest fellow Marler makes a good point that just happens to parrot the insane Republican line!" but rather "There goes Marler, dropping his pretense as an honest commentator yet again." You don't fool anyone. And really, isn't it time you realized that if you have to be dishonest all the time, the position you're defending isn't worth defending? Are the Republicans' sweet, sweet tax cuts really that important to you?

Shame on you, Marler.

Look at our response to only two planes crashing into one building! What do you think would happen if a nuclear bomb went off and we knew who did it?

If the Bushies were in charge, they'd nuke someone else.

If the Bushies had been in charge on 12/7/41, they'd have nuked Mexico.

-Z

Does anybody seriously believe that the US would nuke Tehran (or take any other military action against Iran) if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv? Not that Iran necessarily will do that, but they have said that they will when they can.

Hey Marler, if you really want to put up a premise in order to make a point in your role as a concern troll on this site, then you should probably make up your mind whether you want to put up that premise or not, and not commit an act of intellectual coitus interruptus. Cause that just ain't worthwhile engaging with.

Every now and then, it's worth injecting a little grown up-itude into these threads:

if Iran detonated a nuclear weapon in Israel, as an act of state, what Colin Powell said of North Korea in similar circumstances should apply: "it would shortly cease to exist as an organized society".

However foolishly, Sowell was raising a not-uncommon charge against progressives -- that if we were hit hard at the outset of a war in the 21st century, as we were at Pearl Harbor, the progressive reflex would be to equivocate, to negotiate, to see if there isn't some way to avoid shedding flood tides of blood even after our enemies had hit us first.

It is a lunatic column, but it's not hard to see where the half-baked recipe comes from: we WERE attacked on 9-11, and an explanation of Obama's policies in Afghanistan and/or Iraq gets pretty complicated. But there's no need to be nuanced about stooopid hypotheticals or daft matters of principle.

I remain convinced that Iran knows it is better off as a nearly-nuke state, but even if they were Pakistan, this ain't a case of MAD.

So as progressives, let's just be clear in a way that one wishes our former President had been after 9-11 -- the LAST time somebody did something like that to us, we utterly crushed all of our enemies all over the world, burning their cities, destroying their economies, and not incidentally inventing nuclear weapons. We are still the same people. The bad guys thought we'd quit. What kind of people do they think we are?

The perversion of Islam that persuades young people to become suicide bombers is a death cult -- and no one should be deluded that we owe it the slightest respect.

Should, God forbid, it actually control a national government again as it did in Afghanistan, much less one that possesses nuclear weapons, no one should have the SLIGHTEST doubt what we're capable of -- both to deter AND to retaliate against indefensible attacks on ourselves or our allies.

Not that Iran necessarily will do that, but they have said that they will when they can.

Not that Marler has the intellectual honesty to defend his partisan bullshit, but when, exactly, did Iran threaten to nuke Tel Aviv? I call bullshit. Put up or shut up, Marler -- and please, no citing vague references to "wiping Israel off the map." You claimed they said they'll drop The Bomb on Israel; prove it.

So the 16 or 17 "intelligence" agencies with budgets north of $60,000,000,000 annually conclude that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons project. How much does the barking mad Sowell spend on "intelligence" that enables him to be so sure that it does?

Sowell and his ilk apparently forgot that liberls, progressives, conservatives, independents, etc, were UNIFIED after 9-11.

This is just another way of saying that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. He is just waiting to turn us all into Muslims. And he is a tax and spend liberal to boot. No inconsistency with those beliefs, huh?

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece has been amended since its initial posting.

Does this mean they actually took some of the crazy out of it before running the piece?

Bill Jones: Iran has a large-scale uranium enrichment project. If you you succeed in that, you're 99% of the way to a nuclear weapon. Heck, my friends and I could probably build one in a few months given sufficient supplies of HEU, and we're IT geeks.

That said, there's no evidence to suggest that Iran is currently either a) taking steps to actually produce HEU rather than LEU (the stuff you need to run a reactor), or b) actually doing any work on building weapons.

As others have noted, if Iran uses a nuke on Israel, the Israelis can turn Iran's cities into smoking radioactive wastelands all on their own, without any help from the USA.

Hi all. By the time I'd grown up, I naturally supposed that I'd be grown up. Help me! I can not find sites on the: 32 degrees rebal paintball guns. I found only this - best paintball guns. This section, paintball guns or markers means a weapon powered by compressed relating to weapons paintball guns. Username or mail log in back to tippmann paintball guns. Thank you very much :eek:. Nadie from Angola.