Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Calhoun]

A civilian militia in modern times wouldn't have a chance.

You do realize that a great many civilians are military trained, right?  My younger brother is a civilian, but he was in the military at one time.  There's this thing called the National Guard where they train you to use weapons and other "tools of war" like artillery, tanks, missiles...  Maybe you've heard of it?

Also, since you mention it... why wouldn't we want to train ourselves on the finer workings of militant weapons if our chance of success is so grim (and even more grim without training?)  Doesn't it benefit society to have people who know what they are doing in case China (completely arbitrary) decides to invade?

Is china invading the new Military state? or is China just invading?
The reason a civilian militia has such poor chances is the equipment. I'd think that'd be obvious, You can have all the operating knowledge of something, but if you don't have the equipment. You can't very well use it. And i don't think the invasion of a Military base is something that a Civilian Militia would be able to easily complete, and even if they do manage to capture one, That would only provoke some serious retaliation. You're hopelessly out gunned.

If china just INVADES then we still have the Military. However, are you saying that the Chinese will just open fire on civilians and military alike? War has rules. Also, Civilians aren't supposed to take up arms, if they want to do that, then they should JOIN the Military.

If China invades during the Military state, Again, they shouldn't just kill Civilians, and Civilians shouldn't just kill the Chinese. Also, How many civilians do you expect to even take up arms? Invading china or no?


Your argument also seems to revolve around these doomsday scenarios. I like to think a bit more practically.

Stray bullets... because we both know that you can't have stray bullets unless it's an automatic weapon.  They are obviously the least accurate of all.   

It's a hell of a lot easier if you're shooting something that sprays them all over the place.

Also, Why'd you even need to kill the damn groudhog? He also didn't NEED to use an assault rifle to kill it. Hell, you don't even need a GUN to kill a groundhog.

Ground hogs are rodents.  I'd like to see you try to kill one without a gun... have you ever seen one, yet alone been near one?

Chemical solutions work.

[Dwarf]

What he said.

[Haspen]

Economic: -4.00
Social: 0.02

Hah, I always thought I'm leftist.

[Andir]

Stray bullets... because we both know that you can't have stray bullets unless it's an automatic weapon.  They are obviously the least accurate of all.   

It's a hell of a lot easier if you're shooting something that sprays them all over the place.

Now we are back to the argument on how many bullets can constitute "too much"... I can fire my semi-automatic pistol at an extraordinary rate of fire.  I've even had some double fire in the range (when you are holding the trigger too tight) and the bullet will fly off in an uncontrolled manner.  Who defines what is an acceptable rate of fire for a weapon?

Also, Why'd you even need to kill the damn groudhog? He also didn't NEED to use an assault rifle to kill it. Hell, you don't even need a GUN to kill a groundhog.

Ground hogs are rodents.  I'd like to see you try to kill one without a gun... have you ever seen one, yet alone been near one?

Chemical solutions work.

One bullet is cheaper and far less environmentally harmful.  What if you spray/use those chemicals and a deer manages to get into them?  What if a kid does?  Are you going to walk around a field with a spray can and spray them in the face when they pop up?  (I'll tell you right now, they'll feel you walking up through the vibrations in the ground and be underground before you have a chance.)

Oh man, maybe we should ban these assault chemicals because they are explicitly designed to kill!  BAN ALL ASSAULT CHEMICALS!  They aren't needed to defend one's home!

If china just INVADES then we still have the Military. However, are you saying that the Chinese will just open fire on civilians and military alike? War has rules

... and you are the one talking about stray bullets.

[Kagus]

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment"

Ooh, tricky...  Those "Learning is Fun!" programs are absolute filth, but I doubt that's what this question is referring to.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what it is talking about.

[Calhoun]

Stray bullets... because we both know that you can't have stray bullets unless it's an automatic weapon.  They are obviously the least accurate of all.   

It's a hell of a lot easier if you're shooting something that sprays them all over the place.

Now we are back to the argument on how many bullets can constitute "too much"... I can fire my semi-automatic pistol at an extraordinary rate of fire.  I've even had some double fire in the range (when you are holding the trigger too tight) and the bullet will fly off in an uncontrolled manner.  Who defines what is an acceptable rate of fire for a weapon?

I'm not going to make that decision right here, right now. As I said before, an investigation is necessary before legal classification are made.

Also, Why'd you even need to kill the damn groudhog? He also didn't NEED to use an assault rifle to kill it. Hell, you don't even need a GUN to kill a groundhog.

Ground hogs are rodents.  I'd like to see you try to kill one without a gun... have you ever seen one, yet alone been near one?

Chemical solutions work.

One bullet is cheaper and far less environmentally harmful.  What if you spray/use those chemicals and a deer manages to get into them?  What if a kid does?  Are you going to walk around a field with a spray can and spray them in the face when they pop up?  (I'll tell you right now, they'll feel you walking up through the vibrations in the ground and be underground before you have a chance.)

Oh man, maybe we should ban these assault chemicals because they are explicitly designed to kill!  BAN ALL ASSAULT CHEMICALS!  They aren't needed to defend one's home!

Fumigation with Carbon Monoxide isn't going to kill any deer of children.

If china just INVADES then we still have the Military. However, are you saying that the Chinese will just open fire on civilians and military alike? War has rules

... and you are the one talking about stray bullets.

That'd be your fault for standing in the middle of a battlefield. I'd venture to say that Civilians in areas with fighting will be relocated.

[Andir]

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment"

Ooh, tricky...  Those "Learning is Fun!" programs are absolute filth, but I doubt that's what this question is referring to.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what it is talking about.

I interpreted that as the "Daily Show/Colbert" type direction.  Where information is only presented when it's "fun" to talk about or make fun of it.  There is so much that doesn't get covered by these shows because they have to spend an hour making fun of someone in particular.  (See Jon Stewart's episodes recently where he basically makes fun of Glenn Beck the entire show.)  But people still view Colbert/Stewart as reputable information sources.  Also, think of Idiocracy.

[Haspen]

Heeey, wait.

Is that test non-US compatible?

Because I think it was based on some american way of thinking or something... just asking

[Kagus]

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

Shoot, I think that's more of a Center/Libertarian than the Left/Libertarian I just put down...  Ah well, guess it's close enough.

[RedKing]

Okay, let's step back from the edge of the crazy cliff for a minute here.

A. China (or Russia or India or whoever) is not going to invade us. In order to do so, they'd have to:

1. Defeat the largest and best-equipped naval force on the planet.
2. Disable or defeat the United States Air Force.
3. Pull off the largest amphibious assault in human history.
4. Do it all in such a rapid timeframe that we don't have time to nuke them.

If you're going to use a hypothetical that far-fetched, you might as well replace China with the Tentaculons of Gamma Hydri VI.


B. If they can do all of the above, do you really think a bunch of random yahoos with assault rifles are going to have a chance? 

C. Even if the scenario held any merit, simply having access to firearms != effective military training. If you want to create an effective citizen militia, let's have a mandatory enlistment in the National Guard. Everybody does, say 2-4 years sometime between the age of 18 and 25. Many other nations have something like this, and I'd be all for it. That would actually impart basic weapons training as well as unit tactics (and job skills and self-discipline to boot).



I was an 80's kid. I grew up on the notion that high school kids would be able to fight a guerilla war against the Red Army when the shit hit the fan. It was laughable then, and it's even more laughable now. And it's a piss-poor justification for extremely lax gun regulation.

[Andir]

Stray bullets... because we both know that you can't have stray bullets unless it's an automatic weapon.  They are obviously the least accurate of all.   

It's a hell of a lot easier if you're shooting something that sprays them all over the place.

Now we are back to the argument on how many bullets can constitute "too much"... I can fire my semi-automatic pistol at an extraordinary rate of fire.  I've even had some double fire in the range (when you are holding the trigger too tight) and the bullet will fly off in an uncontrolled manner.  Who defines what is an acceptable rate of fire for a weapon?

I'm not going to make that decision right here, right now. As I said before, an investigation is necessary before legal classification are made.

Nor is ANYONE qualified to make such a statement.  Because, like I said... as soon as that is in place, guns will be manufactured up to that point.  As you said, technology advances have made the assault rifles of yesteryear (shot and ball rifles) futile today.  This is ground you cannot tread because it's a living, moving target.

Also, Why'd you even need to kill the damn groudhog? He also didn't NEED to use an assault rifle to kill it. Hell, you don't even need a GUN to kill a groundhog.

Ground hogs are rodents.  I'd like to see you try to kill one without a gun... have you ever seen one, yet alone been near one?

Chemical solutions work.

One bullet is cheaper and far less environmentally harmful.  What if you spray/use those chemicals and a deer manages to get into them?  What if a kid does?  Are you going to walk around a field with a spray can and spray them in the face when they pop up?  (I'll tell you right now, they'll feel you walking up through the vibrations in the ground and be underground before you have a chance.)

Oh man, maybe we should ban these assault chemicals because they are explicitly designed to kill!  BAN ALL ASSAULT CHEMICALS!  They aren't needed to defend one's home!

Fumigation with Carbon Monoxide isn't going to kill any deer of children.

How do you intend on keeping the dirt air tight long enough to kill it?  Maybe you want to trap them, put them in a glass jar and kill them that way?  It's far easier, cheaper, and environmentally friendly to put a bullet in them.

If china just INVADES then we still have the Military. However, are you saying that the Chinese will just open fire on civilians and military alike? War has rules

... and you are the one talking about stray bullets.

That'd be your fault for standing in the middle of a battlefield. I'd venture to say that Civilians in areas with fighting will be relocated.

Hold up!  Hold those tanks!  This military base is surrounded by a community.  Don't fire until we can get everyone away.  Thanks for your cooperation!

[Lord Dakoth]

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment"

Ooh, tricky...  Those "Learning is Fun!" programs are absolute filth, but I doubt that's what this question is referring to.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what it is talking about.

For instance, if you think that newscasters are just trying to get as many viewers as possible and aren't really concerned with reporting the entire truth. Basically, are they reporting all the news, or just the news that they know will get approval from their audience?

[Haspen]

RedKing:

Part 1, additional E:

Or cut off the 'Mighty and Glorious' US from it's oil reserves around the world. That wouldn't be so difficult. Especially that those oil reserves are mainly not in US ground.

[Andir]

C. Even if the scenario held any merit, simply having access to firearms != effective military training. If you want to create an effective citizen militia, let's have a mandatory enlistment in the National Guard. Everybody does, say 2-4 years sometime between the age of 18 and 25. Many other nations have something like this, and I'd be all for it. That would actually impart basic weapons training as well as unit tactics (and job skills and self-discipline to boot).

I would also be for it.  Education is key to all this.  The stray bullet argument is moot when someone has the proper training and self control.  I'd bet all those "gansters" shooting automatic rifles on drive-bys are not the most educated people in the world.  Switzerland(?) has (had?) a good program running where they'd give everyone an assault rifle upon entering the militia (not military) and upon leaving, the gun would have it's automatic mode disabled.

[Andir]

RedKing:

Part 1, additional E:

Or cut off the 'Mighty and Glorious' US from it's oil reserves around the world. That wouldn't be so difficult. Especially that those oil reserves are mainly not in US ground.

The US has it's own oil... some of it's not as easy to get to though.  It would be plenty to support us while the prices go up and it's replaced with alternatives.  It may even be good for us, IMHO.