• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

What is your viewpoint on Guns?

Migrated topic.
Virola78 said:
And about martial arts and fighters... i very much enjoy the hardcore fighting that can be seen on you tube.
Fedor Emelianenko is surely one of my heroes : ) I absolutely love his strategies, style, surprise attacks, etc. Imo he is the best. Hardcore to the bone. Nice guy too i think.

:)
Click to expand...
I'm also a fight fan (MMA, kickboxing, jiu jitsu, submission wrestling, etc.)
I'm still a Fedor fan, but I do also think he's been really careful about who he's chosen to fight in the last couple years. Doesn't seem like he's challenging himself as much as he could. Still, a very soft-spoken, polite guy. Much different than many American MMA fighters :D
 
I think fedor was a fool to turn down UFC's offer. Since all the best fighters are now in UFC and he didnt go over... he has dropped off the top. Terrible shame. But thats what greed gets you. Fedor wanted 50/50 profits and door money from the events he fought in, and co sponsorship with ufc.
Ufc simply wont give up the hold they have on the market, fedor was too big for his boots.
 
Dioxippus said:
Doesn't seem like he's challenging himself as much as he could. Still, a very soft-spoken, polite guy. Much different than many American MMA fighters :D
Click to expand...
maybe he's evolving:wink:
 
xtechre said:
I think fedor was a fool to turn down UFC's offer. Since all the best fighters are now in UFC and he didnt go over... he has dropped off the top. Terrible shame. But thats what greed gets you. Fedor wanted 50/50 profits and door money from the events he fought in, and co sponsorship with ufc.
Ufc simply wont give up the hold they have on the market, fedor was too big for his boots.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts. I kept thinking, "Is he really serious? No fighter is going to get what he's asking for, at least not from the UFC."

It also strengthens my point about him not challenging himself. The best fighters are in the UFC, and he wouldn't have complete control over who he was to fight. The current heavyweight champion in the UFC, Brock, could take him out fairly easily I think.
Phantastica said:
maybe he's evolving;)
Click to expand...
As a fighter, no. But there comes a time for everyone that they realize they don't want to (or can't) fight anymore. Mirko Cro Cop needs to come to this realization as well.
 
I enjoy shooting at the firing range with rifles and pistols. I shot some when I was young with my dad, and a little bit in my 20's. Then I took a long break. A few years ago the Virginia Tech shootings occurred. I was convinced that I wound not remain unarmed, and I purchased a few handguns and a few rifles. I took a defensive handgun course and got my CCW permit. I still did not feel adequately trained and decided to attend Front Sight in Nevada for a serious 4 day long handgun training course. That was a great experience and gave me some more dynamic shooting experiences than a typical firing range experience shooting holes in stationary paper targets.
 
I support the right to bear arms. Not for defense against criminals but for freedom. Countries who do not allow their citizens to possess guns are at the mercy of their government. In the US our government knows that the people can rise up against them if it becomes nessissary.
 
just because you have the right to bear arms is never going to make it a fair fight - your freedom is surely illusory. I mean, honestly, if it was Citizens vs Marines you wouldn't stand a chance. I think the moral argument for bearing arms is completely overshadowed by the fetishism of actually carrying a gun - packing heat gives you a lower bullshit threshold and means you're more likely to start a fight than walk away. Anyone who'd ever held or fired a gun will surely attest to the fact that it confers an enormous feeling of power, and I think that is why Americans will never relinquish their arms.
 
88 said:
just because you have the right to bear arms is never going to make it a fair fight - your freedom is surely illusory. I mean, honestly, if it was Citizens vs Marines you wouldn't stand a chance. I think the moral argument for bearing arms is completely overshadowed by the fetishism of actually carrying a gun - packing heat gives you a lower bullshit threshold and means you're more likely to start a fight than walk away. Anyone who'd ever held or fired a gun will surely attest to the fact that it confers an enormous feeling of power, and I think that is why Americans will never relinquish their arms.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Any thought of US citizens rising up and taking control of the government is ridiculous. The military is much better armed and much better trained. And I do also agree with the fact that having a gun makes you more prone to start/engage in a fight because you feel powerful with that death machine hanging off you.

Personally, I would rather seek other things that can empower me and make me feel safe. Carrying a gun around with you is (psychologically, at least) saying to yourself that you're willing to use it against another human being/and or any living creature that threatens your safety. I don't wish to kill another living being, and will only harm another in self-defense if it was absolutely necessary. The use of a firearm has too fine of a line in the wounded | fatal department.
 
88 said:
just because you have the right to bear arms is never going to make it a fair fight - your freedom is surely illusory. I mean, honestly, if it was Citizens vs Marines you wouldn't stand a chance. I think the moral argument for bearing arms is completely overshadowed by the fetishism of actually carrying a gun - packing heat gives you a lower bullshit threshold and means you're more likely to start a fight than walk away. Anyone who'd ever held or fired a gun will surely attest to the fact that it confers an enormous feeling of power, and I think that is why Americans will never relinquish their arms.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself about what people do who carry and about how they carry themselves in public.

I know several people who carry weapons every day, and they are like me. If anything I am more reluctant to get into confrontational situations with people like arguing about a position in a line or the like. I really don't want to be involved in a shooting or an assault at all. I do my best to keep my situational awareness in public situations high (condition yellow) so as to avoid putting myself in danger.


Dioxippus, you ignore the beginning history of this country. The revolutionary war was fought by the relatively untrained colonial people against the most well trained and equipped army in the world: The English Red Coats. The US was born out of the resourcefulness and determination of those original colonists. Ultimately they prevailed against the English Army against all odds. Without weapons they would never have had a chance.
 
rivea said:
Dioxippus, you ignore the beginning history of this country. The revolutionary war was fought by the relatively untrained colonial people against the most well trained and equipped army in the world: The English Red Coats. The US was born out of the resourcefulness and determination of those original colonists. Ultimately they prevailed against the English Army against all odds. Without weapons they would never have had a chance.
Click to expand...
While all of this is true, I would have to say that the American civilian population is a far, far, far cry from those colonial people. Much fatter and lazier, in general, no offense :) In those colonial times, every farmer had a gun and knew how to use it. That just isn't the case at our present time in history. And the weaponry that the US military possesses, pretty much no civilian possesses. Things have changed quite a bit from those revolutionary times, especially in the way wars are fought. Most US citizens are so brainwashed into absolutely loving their country, they're die-hard patriots. It was quite the opposite during those by-gone days where they hated the English tyrants and didn't want to be taxed anymore ;)
 
Dioxippus said:
rivea said:
Dioxippus, you ignore the beginning history of this country. The revolutionary war was fought by the relatively untrained colonial people against the most well trained and equipped army in the world: The English Red Coats. The US was born out of the resourcefulness and determination of those original colonists. Ultimately they prevailed against the English Army against all odds. Without weapons they would never have had a chance.
Click to expand...
While all of this is true, I would have to say that the American civilian population is a far, far, far cry from those colonial people. Much fatter and lazier, in general, no offense :) In those colonial times, every farmer had a gun and knew how to use it. That just isn't the case at our present time in history. And the weaponry that the US military possesses, pretty much no civilian possesses. Things have changed quite a bit from those revolutionary times, especially in the way wars are fought. Most US citizens are so brainwashed into absolutely loving their country, they're die-hard patriots. It was quite the opposite during those by-gone days where they hated the English tyrants and didn't want to be taxed anymore ;)
Click to expand...

Theres another type of brainwashing you don't realize. It makes you think the all powerful government and its army can't be beat.

Sure as it stands the general people let the government stick their grubby little fingers wherever they wish. Taxes get higher and people get more defiant. Just as england did to the early colonists. Are we close to this revolution likely not. Will it eventually happen? Of course.

As for revolutionary warfare its hard to know who's your ally and who's your enemy. All that army technology can't tell them who's with them or against them.
 
hyperspacing said:
As for revolutionary warfare its hard to know who's your ally and who's your enemy. All that army technology can't tell them who's with them or against them.
Click to expand...
Plus, now it's significantly easier for civillians to get their hands on military-grade hardware. Aaaand, if you actually know how the US army teaches tactics, you realize that US soldiers aren't some all-powerful, unstoppable force by any stretch.
 
hyperspacing said:
Dioxippus said:
rivea said:
Dioxippus, you ignore the beginning history of this country. The revolutionary war was fought by the relatively untrained colonial people against the most well trained and equipped army in the world: The English Red Coats. The US was born out of the resourcefulness and determination of those original colonists. Ultimately they prevailed against the English Army against all odds. Without weapons they would never have had a chance.
Click to expand...
While all of this is true, I would have to say that the American civilian population is a far, far, far cry from those colonial people. Much fatter and lazier, in general, no offense :) In those colonial times, every farmer had a gun and knew how to use it. That just isn't the case at our present time in history. And the weaponry that the US military possesses, pretty much no civilian possesses. Things have changed quite a bit from those revolutionary times, especially in the way wars are fought. Most US citizens are so brainwashed into absolutely loving their country, they're die-hard patriots. It was quite the opposite during those by-gone days where they hated the English tyrants and didn't want to be taxed anymore ;)
Click to expand...

Theres another type of brainwashing you don't realize. It makes you think the all powerful government and its army can't be beat.

Sure as it stands the general people let the government stick their grubby little fingers wherever they wish. Taxes get higher and people get more defiant. Just as england did to the early colonists. Are we close to this revolution likely not. Will it eventually happen? Of course.

As for revolutionary warfare its hard to know who's your ally and who's your enemy. All that army technology can't tell them who's with them or against them.
Click to expand...
Well, with or without teabaggers, the USA is lost anyway.
It's gonna plunge into another recession for sure and it's likely to get much worse than the one that's supposed to be over now.

Once the bankers of the world (who're as we all know and contrary to their own beliefs, are not the brightest people in the world) will start realising that the USA is never gonna be able to pay it's debts things are bound to get realy unpleasant for america.

A bit like greece maybe. Accept that america is a bit too big for the EU and IMF to rescue.
 
When it comes to war and anarchy, i can imagine there is no more USA or USA army. There will be modern tribes and hired guns. Mask off, gloves off.
Damn i promised myself to be less cynical.
 
Virola78 said:
When it comes to war and anarchy, i can imagine there is no more USA or USA army. There will be modern tribes and hired guns. Mask off, gloves off.
Damn i promised myself to be less cynical.
Click to expand...
I don't know how deep the thirst for blood goes in those who want to end any form of government interference. I think there will still be a USA for some time. But it's role as so-called 'superpower' is realy over. Both militarilly and economically. And it won't come back.

On the whole i think you can see an interesting trend in western industrialized nations: although the poor in western industrialised nations are significantly less poor than the poor in poor countries and although they are thanks to their government, big corporations and intellectual elites who're the driving force behind the economy, their hate towards big company's, the government and the elites is huge. Bigger than the hate towards the elite is in poor countries.

This must be partly because they feel they don't get a fair share in all the prosperity created by the elites. (Hillbillies won't like what i say but it is the elites who create prosperity, not the so-called 'hard working people', you have hard working people everywhere and in china and india they work a lot harder than in any western nation. It's not hard work that keeps the economy afloat, it's brains)

You see the same trend in china: as the country get's richer, the people who remain poor, who benefit the least of all the economic boom going on, become more and more dissatisfied.

For america and the roman empire, the remedy to restore unity among it's people has always been: yet another WAR. But it just so happens to be that wars cost money and lives, so the remedy works only as long as there's still enough money and flesh available.

Can we all just get along? Well, apparenty that's kind of hard. Realy hard. :?
 
I want to state clearly that i don't have anything against 'joe the plumber'. I just find the political sentiment that intellectuals are bad people and joe the plumbers are good people kind of wrong. It's like saying to your childeren:"don't do your best at school, you don't want to become a proffessor, a doctor or an engineer, those are all bad people". It's a very wrong signal, and none of the politicians who say they're on the side of the 'common people' are actually one of those 'normal hard-working people' themselves. Sarah palin isn't, george bush isn't, silvio berlusconi isn't and nicolas sarkozy isn't.
 
The US citizenry could definitely take on the U.S. army if it came down to that. I agree that the Revolutionary War connection is a bit outdated, given the current state of the American populace, but let's look once again at Afghanistan. Allow me some licence to simplify.

The US armed forces are trying to quell an insurgency, lead by idealism and the Taliban. This is happening in a country with about 1/10th the population of the US, and which is about half again the size of California. Large portions of it are made up of farming and herding villages, with little infrastructure compared to Western standards. The insurgents themselves aren't lead, as far as the US can tell, by any one man and there is no sign of a total chain of command; the insurgency is comprised of multiple groups. Although the stereotype shows the Taliban waving AK-47s, a large number of them are equipped with BOLT ACTION RIFLES, like the Mosin Nagant and Lee Enfield, some of which have been shown to be almost 100 years old.

The end result? FAIL. The world's "best military" is defeated by a bunch of divided shepherds with bolt-action rifles.

Personally, I don't think the US armed forces could put down the west coast, much less the whole country... it wouldn't be pleasant for anyone, don't get me wrong, but I doubt it could happen. Even when discounting the number of obese and unwilling people. A lot of people have shiny assault rifles. And explosives.

Just a thought...
 
I disagree with this. I think the war in afghanistan could be won...well not anymore, but it could have been won. Militarily superiour army's have always lost guerilla wars because they choose the wrong strategy, thinking they could easily win. The moment you start thinking like that you've already been ambushed...the thought itself is already like an ambush.

But look at it like this: guerilla army's are voluntary army's, for them the morale of their troops is much more important.
Superiour army's always fall for the temptation of a quick victory through an offensive tactic.

But if you just sit there for years and years in your military bases, choosing a defensive strategy instead of an offensive strategy, you force the taliban to take the innitiative.
And for the taliban, sitting somewhere and doing nothing is much more demoralising, so they'll be forced to do make a move, regardless of whether it is a wise move or not.

The NATO and american mission in afghanistan have been plagued by strategic blunders from the beginning and as the whole world knows by now, there curently isn't a strategy at all since the white house and the generals who're fighting the war cannot agree on anything and NATO partners cannot agree on anything either.

That's why the war is being lost. If NATO would just sit there and do nothing for a few decades, that would eventually wear the taliban out and NATO would easily win the war.

But then again, a presidential term lasts only 4 years, so long term strategy's are a bit of a utopic fantasy there.
 
Back
Top Bottom