Battlezone Forums

Interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 74101-2300

Iron_Maiden wrote:Interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 74101-2300

It's as if we are closer to early humans than we are apes!

... Wait...

MrTwosheds wrote:Either way they are merely trivial human scale crimes, dealt with by human justice. The crimes I speak of may ultimately become those of the highest order, justice is not a viable option, the cessation of the crimes is all I seek. Is it really too much to expect a lumber industry to actually grow their own trees? I don't think it is. I think it is essential for the long term survival of that civilisation.

Dealing with them by destroying property and killing people is terrorism, not justice. Nor will it cause them to cease.

Not sure why people are arguing over what fringe groups of terrorists do more damage (the right wing terrorists or the left wing terrorists). It's terrorism, plain and simple, and it doesnt matter which party they support, or whose ideology they are taking too far. I'm sure that most people (left-wing or right-wing) do not support terrorism at all.

Part of me wonders if the focus of media on 'gun control' and local terrorism is part of a plan to try and manipulate people into removing their own 2nd amendment rights, which was probably put into place to give people an opportunity to overthrow a tyrannical federal government (should it ever need to come to that).

Dealing with them by destroying property and killing people is terrorism, not justice. Nor will it cause them to cease.

Absolutely, it is just fools showing themselves to have as little self control or understanding as those they oppose. Humans love resorting to violence, they just need to justify it to themselves, that it almost never advances the cause they think they follow does not actually matter to them. The prospect of violence simply offers a false hope of some sort of sense of victory that their narrow minded cause's will otherwise never deliver.

Part of me wonders if the focus of media on 'gun control' and local terrorism is part of a plan to try and manipulate people into removing their own 2nd amendment rights, which was probably put into place to give people an opportunity to overthrow a tyrannical federal government (should it ever need to come to that).

It may also be a recognition that a heavily over armed population will inevitably at some point become a serious threat to its own stability.

MrTwosheds wrote:It may also be a recognition that a heavily over armed population will inevitably at some point become a serious threat to its own stability.

Only in the presence of an outside oppressive force.

Americans being armed is not the problem. Stupid Americans being armed is the problem.

A good decision?:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... -to-women/

Iron_Maiden wrote:A good decision?:

An interesting article from USMC Captain Katie Petronio on the subject.

Only in the presence of an outside oppressive force.

Civil conflict can afflict any nation, it really takes very little provocation to start trouble and it is very hard to stop again once it gets going.

APCs r Evil wrote:

Iron_Maiden wrote:A good decision?:

An interesting article from USMC Captain Katie Petronio on the subject.

I see an argument for women to choose not to join, not an argument for barring women from joining.

AHadley wrote:Americans being armed is not the problem. Stupid Americans being armed is the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xnhgkYa9dQ

AHadley wrote:Americans being armed is not the problem. Stupid Americans being armed is the problem.

Now I wonder how one should go about trying to spot the difference.
Most of us have no need, nor ever will, for a gun or any weapon at all. So how should one go about clasifiying people who do buy weapons with the potential to do a lot of harm, without the need to have it?

Do note that I say weapon, I should probably say 'handgun', but seeing that machineguns get soled like candy at some places I felt a need to be more generalising.

I think the old "handgun in the drawer by the bed" is a pretty reasonable thing for people to have. It's kind of like a fire extinguisher... you will almost certainly not use it, but if you do need it, you need it really bad.

Love to see some statistics on this, eg what % of people actually use a gun to defend themselves and what % gun owners family/friends end up being injured by them one way or another. It would be useful info when calculating the real risks of owning a weapon vs not owning one.
My own personal statistics are so far are that I have never had need to use a gun and I know nobody who has been shot (warfare excluded)
I suspect the statistics would actually show that gun ownership increases the risk of serious injury occurring to those in its vicinity, one way or another.