Matrix Games Forums

West Point is training for right wing nut job anti federal govt attacks.

http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/news/ ... e=10711513

ORIGINAL: Will_L

............. More importantly... I like pie. Does anyone else like pie?

warspite1

Depends on the kind of pie on offer. For example, I very much liked the Cherry pie (with custard) that my dear old mum used to make when we were kids, however I'm not so keen on 3.142 (whether with custard or not).

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Guys-keep it on topic. We've already had a moderator tell us 'no' to the whole abortion thing. Knock it off or you'll get the thread locked. Don't be trolls.

Thanks CB.
Fearing to be called a board troll, (and feeling more like Jonah being asked to go to Ninevah), I think that 20 dead/murdered children in Conn., compared to the ONE THOUSAND dead/murdered innocents that same day is valid.
The kids in the school did not ask to be slaughtered any more than those still in the womb?
Trying to justify something because it is "inconvenient" is not a great way to start, or end, an argument.

I think it was Stalin who said, "a handful of dead is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic"? Have we really come to that?

That said, I believe that the degradation of moral values in the society are at the root cause for the dilution of The Constitution. It helps people to devalue life (Yes the LIFE part of The Constitution) and lessens the LIBERTY part as well.
The rights of the people are divine rights. Not rights allowed to individuals by other men.

Life, liberty, happiness, free speech, self protection are our rights.

The 2nd Amendment should be fiercely defended. We should not even allow it to be parsed down to any point that makes a legal, law abiding, citizen to not reasonably be able to defend themselves. New York is trying to put regulations in place now that, as written, does not allow the police to legally carry their current handguns and Delaware is trying to pass a law that would allow you to keep large magazines, but if you have the guns to use them within twenty feet you will be in violation of the law (all from a knee jerk reaction by a few jerks who are more willing to take away freedom than use common sense).

Maybe putting to death those who use guns in the commission of a crime could be the answer? Justified because we already agree to kill 1,000's of innocents because they are "inconvenient"? How much more so is a murderer inconvenient to a safe society?

Said my piece, now back to the belly of the beast. [:)]

RR

Hey guys... Since we have been asked not to comment further on abortion and since there seems to be plenty of wind left in that debate I recommend going to the Maddogdrivethru to continue that debate. I visit the place every now and again and will be happy to continue the debate over there.

As for the current argument over "military style weapons", I will concede that current legislation being passed is perhaps an overreaction to recent events. Most people who own military style weapons are law abiding citizens who know how to handle the responsibility of having them. I suppose such legislation will not have much real effect on public safety considering all the alternative weapons available out there available for depraved individuals to use. But I suppose I would be equally distraught if they end up banning wargames. Freedom to choose our hobbies and passtimes is an important freedom so long as those passtimes don't significantly interfere with public safety.

That is my conclusion at this point. End of the debate for me.

Cant see what the fuss is about with guns in the states. The folks over there have always had them so I don't think they should be taken away or whatever they propose to do with them, just make it so that everyone who wants a firearm can own a gun or rifle that only fires a single bullet at a time, take away the automatic weapons and make sure everyone can go training so they can hit a target with a single shot. Home defense is one thing but having weapons like automatic machine guns and assault rifles is way to much overkill, a point that has been proven to many times sadly.

My 50p's worth.

Darkspire

Once again, you have to jump thru some serious hoops to get a Class 3 firearms license to own full auto weapons. They are not pervasive. Semi Auto weapons, yes, those are very common in the US. And we would scream long and loud about trying to limit us to single shot.

Same as if wargames were limited to Risk.

A grand total of two murders have been committed with legally held class 3 weapons since 1934.  One of them was by a cop.

Instead of Godwin's Law just run this "discussion" back to where
the first person said something really stupid like let's ban sharp things
or something similarly asinine and declare that person the winner of the
stupidity sweepstakes. The rest is pointless. I personally would be against
any regulations except that some of the guys with gun boners are such dickweeds
that they bring me nothing but revulsion for their cause. Good Luck.

No need to be insulting..

ORIGINAL: Darkspire
Cant see what the fuss is about with guns in the states. The folks over there have always had them so I don't think they should be taken away or whatever they propose to do with them, just make it so that everyone who wants a firearm can own a gun or rifle that only fires a single bullet at a time, take away the automatic weapons and make sure everyone can go training so they can hit a target with a single shot. Home defense is one thing but having weapons like automatic machine guns and assault rifles is way to much overkill, a point that has been proven to many times sadly.

Here's the rub.

1) The government is not supposed to "make" anyone do anything here. They should stay out of a persons personal life when it comes to rights given by The Constitution.
2) Automatic weapons are banned to general use. Only those who get specific permits are allowed to own them. In my State Automatic weapons are not allowed to be kept in the home. IIRC they are to be stored at State police facilities.
3) Assault rifle is a term used to blur the argument. Most of the politicians believe that assault rifles are those painted black and have a hand grip and military style magazine.
4) Reducing the magazine capacity will only bring about a miss match against someone who illegally has a large capacity magazine.
5) Give me one shot and I will choose a shotgun. But, that will not be restricted by "assault weapons" bans. Even if you can be assaulted by a shotgun. [;)]

Sorry I'd rather be able to protect myself and obey the law than be put into a position where I have to disobey a law to protect myself. The criminal does not care for the law so they have the edge.
Same with areas that are "gun free zones". It is restricted to law abiding citizens and a shooting range for those who want to murder.

As with most laws and regulations passed in the last 100 years, the US government has really gone contrary to Constitutional principles. Seems that when the checks and balances all agree it is the people who are on the short end of the scale?

For those who want to ban guns, don't own them. But, don't take them away from law abiding citizens. You don't like them? That is fine with me. Just stay out of my life.

RR

ORIGINAL: wodin
No need to be insulting..

+1

Insulting someone is a far cry from having a cogent argument and to civilly discuss issues?

RR

I wasn't insulted, put up with far worse from my ex missus [:D] but thanks Wodin.
I realize that it is somewhat of an ongoing topic and never meant to provoke anyone. Its just I watched the TV slot with Piers Morgan and as a Brit thought Morgan was well over the line but wasn't to sure who the chap having the heart attack was, no wonder therapy is in such widespread use over the pond. I don't condone the use of weapons, I know that the country grew with them as an integral part of the culture and something so deep rooted could, and never should, be taken away. Just as a Brit (and blonde) I just wished that the amount of innocent folks that get hurt because of them could be reduced in some way. I'm sorry of being a little in the dark over the subject and If I caused any offense It was not meant intentionally.

Darkspire

Probably Piers and Alex Jones. Go to infowars.com to see more about him.

ORIGINAL: danlongman

Instead of Godwin's Law just run this "discussion" back to where
the first person said something really stupid like let's ban sharp things
or something similarly asinine and declare that person the winner of the
stupidity sweepstakes. The rest is pointless. I personally would be against
any regulations except that some of the guys with gun boners are such dickweeds
that they bring me nothing but revulsion for their cause. Good Luck.

We made it pretty far before someone had to refer to someone as a "dickweed".(offensive comment removed, sorry)

ORIGINAL: danlongman
declare that person the winner of the stupidity sweepstakes.

Yes, congratulations danlongman. You win! Well done. Your prize? A green button! Again, good job.

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Take it offline, dude. PM him your displeasure or green button him, but these posts will get the thread locked if they continue.

Applications for permits to purchase firearms in Minnesota reflect a huge demand nationally in the last month. EVERYTHING is selling at breakneck pace. Applications for permits in this state have trebled year over year, with the greatest increase since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Most of the applicants are first time gun buyers.

It seems most of the American public isn't buying the government's argument and is acting on their constitutional rights while they still have them. The NRA is *not* fomenting fear and discord-I've not seen anything from them screaming "go buy a gun now!". Its that the average American who was sitting on the fence about gun ownership is deciding that-rather than letting the government dictate their rights in what will probably be an unconstitutional manner-they'll go ahead and get it now while they still can. No amount of hand-wringing, anti-NRA bandwagon nonsense can explain this otherwise.

John Q. Public doesn't trust the Federal government to do the right thing here. Full stop. That's the message. They're acting on their own accord while they are still capable of independent thought-good on them.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Applications for permits to purchase firearms in Minnesota reflect a huge demand nationally in the last month. EVERYTHING is selling at breakneck pace. Applications for permits in this state have trebled year over year, with the greatest increase since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Most of the applicants are first time gun buyers.

It seems most of the American public isn't buying the government's argument and is acting on their constitutional rights while they still have them. The NRA is *not* fomenting fear and discord-I've not seen anything from them screaming "go buy a gun now!". Its that the average American who was sitting on the fence about gun ownership is deciding that-rather than letting the government dictate their rights in what will probably be an unconstitutional manner-they'll go ahead and get it now while they still can. No amount of hand-wringing, anti-NRA bandwagon nonsense can explain this otherwise.

John Q. Public doesn't trust the Federal government to do the right thing here. Full stop. That's the message. They're acting on their own accord while they are still capable of independent thought-good on them.

I hope all of them will get training on gun safety and how to use them properly. Along with a course or two of gun laws in their own States and local communities.

RR

Yes. That would be appropriate, wouldn't it? I'm all for firearms training (and safety).

It's fair to state the obvious here too: that the polemics and knee-jerk reactionary punditry of the current administration is driving gun sales. I guess the proportion of the population still 'clinging to their guns and religion' is telling. Maybe it's even growing due to this bombastic imperial bent of the current administration?

Would it have been different if the administration hadn't ramrodded through some "Executive Orders", but rather taken a slow and measured tone? Would it have been different if the administration had genuinely listened to gun owners, prospective gun owners and conservatives? Perhaps. Of course, we'll never know now.

Another lesson learned: If your words are divisive and people don't trust your motives, they will revert to conservative principles of independent living. If the people don't trust you to govern their lives, they will react to ensure their own private governance of their ideals.

ORIGINAL: Darkspire

I wasn't insulted, put up with far worse from my ex missus [:D] but thanks Wodin.
I realize that it is somewhat of an ongoing topic and never meant to provoke anyone. Its just I watched the TV slot with Piers Morgan and as a Brit thought Morgan was well over the line but wasn't to sure who the chap having the heart attack was, no wonder therapy is in such widespread use over the pond. I don't condone the use of weapons, I know that the country grew with them as an integral part of the culture and something so deep rooted could, and never should, be taken away. Just as a Brit (and blonde) I just wished that the amount of innocent folks that get hurt because of them could be reduced in some way. I'm sorry of being a little in the dark over the subject and If I caused any offense It was not meant intentionally.

Darkspire

The " chap having the heart attack was" is a conspiracy theorist (I think that is the word for it) who sees little green men around every corner.

IMHO, Piers Morgan intentionally went out and found the wackiest guy available to "represent" the pro-gun viewpoint. He wanted to paint them all as being crazy.

It would be the like having (the late) Sir Jimmy Savile on a BBC TV program as a child safety advocate.