Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 23 of 64 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 63 64
#112142 - 01/02/13 08:10 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Donkleaps]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 606
Brutal Offline
KGB Knight
Brutal  Offline
KGB Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 606
Originally Posted By: Donkleaps
Take guns out of the equation. If someone is going to run up and punch you then you better be able to kick them in the nads before they do.

That goes hand in hand with the government disarming citizens...what is to stop them from punching you in the face.

Another guy wanted to disarm the populace as well...his name was Adolf Hitler...remember that guy?

As a person that used to teach martial arts to kids I can say that YOUNG children playing violent games or seeing violent TV programming does affect their psyche. (Ever been in a room full of 6-10 year olds that just watched dragonball Z?

The problems lie in bad parenting and our countries recent laziness in dealing with problems. The ideology of just passing off your problem child to someone else or ignoring them and their growing issues is not good for anyone. If anything I say leave the gun issues where they lie and if you want a real radical agenda then move to not allowing people to have children without a license.

Personal responsibility is and should always be everything to an American citizen. If you are not capable of handling a problem or situation then have the personal wherewithall to not be in those situations.

I mean come on...people can't adopt russian kids anymore so maybe they will adopt the ones we already have hear that need homes.

A simple thing to remember:
It does not matter how many laws you make and how many ways you enforce that law. What matters is what you do in a situation where someone else is breaking said laws.

I'll put in terms everyone in KGB can easily understand.

RPK's are RPK's because they are RPK's. As an antiRPK group you know it is impossible to stop RPK's before they strike 100% of the time. I challenge you to pick a single crafter minded player in the guild and be their personal bodyguard for 1 week. Every time that person is logged in you stand there while they harvest and craft and guard them from any and all harm. If they decide to play at 3AM then you wake up at 3AM with them and shadow them.

Now anytime they are attacked no matter how many attackers you HAVE to protect them at all costs and never let them die or have their area overran.

Man it sure is a lot easier to defend your crafter from 2-3 RPK's that have swords and knives if you have a rifle isn't it?

Oh wait, the village you live in now says that noone is allowed to carry anything other than harvesting tools and crafting equipment. (WTFAMIRITE?!?!?) Now only designated members are allowed to carry weapons in the village and those are selected by the village council.

Hey man I just got told I am supposed to be a soldier and always carry my weapons. The leader said you have way too much stuff in your house and all of it needs to go into the guild bank. Now I have a gun and you have a harvesting sickle. Looks like you are handing over all your stuff.

You know I was in your house getting all the stuff to put into the guildbank...I have always been a soldier and never had time to build and decorate this cool of a house...I am going to live here now and you are going to live in the tent outside. Good thing I know you don't have any weapons.

"Crafting player unsubs and unstalls"



A single tear rolls down my face

#112154 - 01/03/13 01:52 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,516
Helemoto Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Helemoto  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,516
Nebraska,Omaha
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Donkleaps
Why does having a view similar to the NRA statement automatically make you an NRA supporter?


It doesn't, but I asked if posters here supported specific NRA statement - including parts of blaming video game violence on shootings and turning schools into TSA-like security theater.

In my mind you don't have to be anti-gun to oppose that statement as illogical.

Quote:
In knowing that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time why would you not want to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves or others from crazies?


Ability to defend yourself is a concept I support, but you have to weight benefits of that versus increased lethality of crazies. High powered large-clip hollow point semi-automatic rifle is above and beyond what one would need for self-defense, a low-caliber handgun will do just as fine, but a crazies armed with such weapons (as opposed to a simple handgun) are exponentially more deadly than they need to be.

We do we need to turn question of self-defense into MAD with high potential for collateral damage?



You such a fucking liar. You asked the question then when we responded to your idiot ideas you made a blanket statement that we all supported the NRA statement.

If you don't think violent games or movies can affect people then you are a fucking idiot.
The people who do these things are fucking psycho, they do not have the same reality we do, so yes they came be affected by it.

Most of the population can watch and play violent games a watch violent movies and not go out and think it is a good idea to kill.
Its backward ass thinkers like you that want to strip the rights of the American people, because you think its how it should be.


[Linked Image]
#112171 - 01/03/13 04:12 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Helemoto]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Well, video games certainly made you deranged.

I have repeatedly asked a very simple question and nobody on that list raised a single objection to anything that was said.

Fiscal conservatism? Forget it, we going to spend spend spend on guards, guns and more security theater. Because we can armed guard everything, all the time.

Small government? Forget it, we going to turn school into prison colonies and stick armed big brother at the every corner, for the children.

Taking responsibility for your own actions? No way! Licensing, insuring and securing your own weapons is against the Flag, Freedom, and Constitution and you non-gun owning public is there to pay to clean up the mess every time.


#112172 - 01/03/13 04:17 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted By: Derid

Military rifles are needed to provide the general populace with military potential.


Syria just had a gas station bombed with hundreds killed. Somehow I don't think more assault rifles are helping them in any way. This is third-world country with third-rate military.

The main reason why this won't happen in US is because military would refuse to do the same, not because some NRA whackjob has 10 assault rifles in his gun closet that he carcasses every evening to get off.

As much as you like to pretend otherwise, but marching lines of redcoats are not the kinds of threat we have to worry about these days.

Firearms will not provide populace with a military potential and have not done so since WW1 era.


#112176 - 01/03/13 05:00 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532

The fact that they are armed is why there is a war in the first place, I think you need to think again. The 20th and 21st centuries are both chock full of examples of relatively poorly armed populations waging war, even successfully against larger powers and even superpowers. Not sure how you could even possibly come to any other conclusion.

The US military *currently* would not likely engage in wholesale slaughter of US citizens.. today.... tomorrow is always a different story. It would take armed insurrection against the internal security services before the military chain of command would start to waver though.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#112180 - 01/03/13 05:16 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Russians had no guns, yet USSR fell despite having tanks in Moscow. Egyptians had very few guns, yet Mubarak regime fell. Syrians keep dying because Syrian military are willing to kill Syrians.

Personal firearms will not stop any modern military. Taliban had all the assault weapons they wanted, yet its unwillingness of US troops to engage in wholesale slaughter of what could be a civilian population dragged Afghanistan and Iraq on and on. If your theory on armed insurrection was anywhere near true then US would have been soundly defeated by now. Taliban certainly have more and better firearm than civilians in the US population.


Last edited by sini; 01/03/13 05:24 AM.

#112181 - 01/03/13 05:24 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Guess you never looked at the Iraqi death toll. Iraq makes a good case study really, things calmed down there due to political manuevering, buying off or otherwise employing the support of large chunks of the populace and etc.. it certainly was not a "military" victory.

Taking control is one thing. Maintaining it in the face of hostile armed populace is quite another.

If you are going for obliteration, then sure - modern WMDs are pretty scary. If you are talking about control, that is still fought out by humans on the ground. In many places, it is hard for a regime to maintain itself if the only way it can maintain control is genocide.

Also the USA has over 300m people. Even 1% of the populace taking up guerrilla arms - thats 3m people. Interspersed with the rest of the populace... for a regime to maintain control in the face of that would be impossible.

You should go read some about modern warfare. Your blanket assertions are quite ill informed.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#112183 - 01/03/13 05:26 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted By: Derid
Guess you never looked at the Iraqi death toll.


I have and most of them are IEDs and most of these (e.g. directed charges, EFP) requires very specialized know-how and materials that would not be available to insurgents without outside assistance.

Last edited by sini; 01/03/13 05:32 AM.

#112184 - 01/03/13 05:30 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted By: sini
Russians had no guns, yet USSR fell despite having tanks in Moscow. Egyptians had very few guns, yet Mubarak regime fell. Syrians keep dying because Syrian military are willing to kill Syrians.



You are citing situations where the state apparatus turned on itself, belying a lack of understanding of the topic. Just because a regime falls, obviously it is not always due to popular military insurrection. A wiser person would point out that the regimes lasted as long as they did, and tyrannized their people as hard as they did because the populace *wasnt* armed.

It took a *lot* for an unarmed populace to muster the collective courage to take to the streets and stay there.

The Reds massacred and imprisoned millions for decades after disarming the populace. If the Russians had been a bit wiser, they would never have bought the promises of the Bolsheviks, and turned on them as soon as the disarmament started. Countless millions would likely still be alive today, had the Russians simply been a bit more obstinate about never giving up their weapons.

edit: ^military

Last edited by Derid; 01/03/13 05:32 AM.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#112185 - 01/03/13 05:31 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
Guess you never looked at the Iraqi death toll.


I have and most of them are IEDs and most of these (e.g. directed charges) requires very specialized know-how and materials that would not be available to insurgents without outside assistance.


Quite a few are, but you are mistaken about the outside assistance. The fact that some outsiders assist does not equate into outside assistance being required. Most of Afghanistan that is not a warlords territory, the Capital, or close to a major US military base is still under Taliban control. /shrug


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 23 of 64 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 63 64

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.025s Queries: 16 (0.012s) Memory: 3.1530 MB (Peak: 3.2634 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-05-25 12:24:59 UTC