Extremist Militias in the US

[rejenorst]

Well this is interesting. There's a militia group called oath keepers, one of its members apparently had his newborn child seized due to his affiliation:

Spoiler

http://64.19.142.10/static.infowars.com/2010/10/i/article-images/irishdoc.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZRM-P46rI

 

[MrMeat]

I just read through some of these new posts, and I'd like to make one final point before I'm quiet...

It's true that if all guns in the world were removed, no one could ever get shot. But that doesn't solve the problem of human violence; do you think that if guns go away, all violence in the world will dissappear as well? Guns would simply be replaced by knives, and if you removed those, fists.

Violence is a problem embedded in human nature. Not inanimate objects.

I support guns for self defense because I know that as long as this world persists, guns will never disappear. They've become a staple of human arms. And there may be a time when someone means harm to me or someone I love. And if/when that happens, I want to be able to fight effectively.

 

[Ashmond]

As I stated before, the next step would be to remove cutlery. 

Would you like more straw for that man?

Straw man? 
*looks over data
Yikes!  Hate when that happens.  But I must inject "you too!". 

 

[rejenorst]

Straw man? 
*looks over data
Yikes!  Hate when that happens.  But I must inject "you too!". 

Its every posters nightmare to be quoted by Archonsod in disagreement. I have had quote wars with Arch that have lasted days, nay weeks...

 

[Ashmond]

I caught some of your exchanges, I was cheering for you rejenorst.  That dude is superior where it concerns using fallacies to his advantage.

 

[rejenorst]

I caught some of your exchanges, I was cheering for you rejenorst.  That dude is superior where it concerns using fallacies to his advantage.

Haha, When arguing with Archonsod you must make sure there are no gaps in the front lines of your argument. make sure your flanks are covered and have the foresight for a possible rear attack to your argument. For surely he will exploit the gaps and wear down your mighty argument and lead you to a battlefield of his own choosing. Not good. Nah but its a major challenge. When Arch enters the argument its like a gong has sounded as your argument is challenged to the death.

haha

 

[Almalexia]

I caught some of your exchanges, I was cheering for you rejenorst.  That dude is superior where it concerns using fallacies to his advantage.

Haha, When arguing with Archonsod you must make sure there are no gaps in the front lines of your argument. make sure your flanks are covered and have the foresight for a possible rear attack to your argument. For surely he will exploit the gaps and wear down your mighty argument and lead you to a battlefield of his own choosing. Not good. Nah but its a major challenge. When Arch enters the argument its like a gong has sounded as your argument is challenged to the death.

haha

There's a reason why I don't argue with Arch anymore. 

 

[Shatari]

You know MrMeat, I'd have an easier time taking you seriously if you could tone the melodrama down a bit. I'm personally all for keeping guns too (I like to hunt just as much as the next guy around here), but you take it to such a level that I can't help but wonder if you're trying to parody pro-gunners.

It's true that if all guns in the world were removed, no one could ever get shot.

Because gods know there are no such things as crossbows, hunting bows, or zipguns...

But that doesn't solve the problem of human violence; do you think that if guns go away, all violence in the world will dissappear as well? Guns would simply be replaced by knives, and if you removed those, fists.

The upshot to banning guns is that knives and fists aren't as lethal. Further, it's really hard to do a drive-by stabbing.

Violence is a problem embedded in human nature. Not inanimate objects.

Actually, many gun fatalities are the result of ignorance or stupidity. Guns can kill people quite easily if the people don't know how to handle them. Unfortunately, it seems competency tests and requiring people to attend classes if they want to own a gun isn't on the agenda for either political wing.

I support guns for self defense because I know that as long as this world persists, guns will never disappear.

Why not pepper spray and martial arts? Those typically work better for self defense, and you're less likely to kill bystanders with them.

They've become a staple of human arms.

That's neither a here nor a there, since most of Europe has yet to spontaneously combust despite a lack of firearms.

And there may be a time when someone means harm to me or someone I love. And if/when that happens, I want to be able to fight effectively.

Again, I don't see a firearm working nearly as well as pepper spray and martial arts. There's some situations where having a gun on hand might help, but unless you have it immediately on hand, know how to use it, and can actually hit your target, you aren't doing any better for having a gun.

 

[Familyguy1]

But that doesn't solve the problem of human violence; do you think that if guns go away, all violence in the world will dissappear as well? Guns would simply be replaced by knives, and if you removed those, fists.

The upshot to banning guns is that knives and fists aren't as lethal. Further, it's really hard to do a drive-by stabbing.

Not with a throwing knife! or that knife in Black Ops 

 

[FrisianDude]

If you throw a knife you're obviously not stabbing with it.

 

[Shatari]

Not with a throwing knife! or that knife in Black Ops 

Jests aside, accurately throwing a knife at any notable distance is a hard earned skill; doing it from a moving vehicle is career worthy.

 

[Archonsod]

It's true that if all guns in the world were removed, no one could ever get shot. But that doesn't solve the problem of human violence;

Nobody is trying to solve the problem of human violence. They're just making it less lethal. Or at least less immediately lethal. Most people chicken out when you demand they put in an effort to kill someone.

 

[Urlik]

Most people chicken out when you demand they put in an effort to kill someone.

unless you are in a UK town centre when the pubs kick out and there is a queue at the take-away

 

[Archonsod]

unless you are in a UK town centre when the pubs kick out and there is a queue at the take-away

The reward of kebab is more than worth the effort ...

 

[Almalexia]

Not with a throwing knife! or that knife in Black Ops 

Jests aside, accurately throwing a knife at any notable distance is a hard earned skill; doing it from a moving vehicle is career worthy.

I predict a increase in car-born joust-bys.

 

[Shatari]

I predict a increase in car-born joust-bys.

Motorcycle jousting, the new wave of gang violence!

 

[ealabor]

Yes, and I'm pretty sure Caesar regretted being incapable of consolidating power once that knife plunged into his spine.

And im sure he did.

He was disillusioned with himself on the notion that the senate members he spared would legitimately recognize him.. something he could have easily solved by wiping them all out, and replacing them with trusted men within his own ranks. Kinda like most other conquerors did whom set their own policies through threat of violence.

And when Ghengis Khan was trampling through the mideast in pursuit of Sultan Muhammad, and encountering the Sultan's cities and towns which he absorbed through ultimatum; Capitulate or be wiped out, Would you say that the cities that did capitulate, did so because Ghenghis was just a charming kind of guy and a political tiger, or that he had force of arms to do so?

Just sayin'

 

[Archonsod]

He was disillusioned with himself on the notion that the senate members he spared would legitimately recognize him.. something he could have easily solved by wiping them all out, and replacing them with trusted men within his own ranks.

He didn't have any trusted men in his own ranks. The problem with Caesar's method is that it sets the precedent and sends the message that if you feel like changing the government for any reason, it's simply a matter of deposing the current incumbents and doing it yourself. Hence why the Empire ended up beholden to the military (and the praetorians in particular) and had a tendency to fall into civil war whenever the succession was unclear.

And when Ghengis Khan was trampling through the mideast

Yet another "empire" which collapsed as soon as Ghengis died. Although calling it an "empire" is a bit of a stretch, extortion racket would be a more accurate description.