Yes, we should be allowed to arm bears, with anything...
Comment has been collapsed.
Clean water, clean air, clean internet, and clean bear arms should be a right to every citizen of this concurrent planet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer my human arms, which conveniently can turn in to beer arms by changing out attachments.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's better with no arms...
Comment has been collapsed.
good old deus ex had the gep gun that could fire phosphorus rockets.
i always wanted one of those...
if that is asked too much i'd like one of fallout's plasma guns to gooify everybody who gives you a funny look.
that would be...funny indeed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, the GEP gun. I used mine mainly as a lockpick.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only one kind of arms allowed!
Comment has been collapsed.
I wrote a 5 paragraph rant about how to make country wide militias until I realised noone take this discussion seriously
Comment has been collapsed.
Yay! Let's just arm all the nutcases of the world with weapons of mass destruction and finish it once and for all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're taking seriously a post that was never intended to be taken seriously, by anyone, under any circumstances.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want bear arms you gotta go to the gym more dude.
Also if bombs were that smart they'd stop destroying themselves all the time, what idiots!
Comment has been collapsed.
When I saw the thread title and your avatar, I fully believed in all sincerity that I was walking into a thread where you would defend people's right to the front legs of animals from the Ursidae family. And I'm mildly disappointed that I was wrong. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I think the arm of a bear counts as a weapon alright. And if it comes attached to an angry (or, perhaps worse, hungry) bear, it's probably about as dangerous as an entire arsenal...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm all for responsible gun ownership together with strict liability for gun ownership.
Make people take a real training course, and a test, and a license. And then, if something happens with your gun, it's your responsibility. Any harm caused by a gun, the owner also goes to jail of course the perpetrator goes to jail too
Comment has been collapsed.
+100
like in most responsible countries who have you know... police.
Comment has been collapsed.
you also need to realize the history of the U.S., and the role it plays in the gun debate.
The Northeast was colonized with the full support of the government back home, and turned urban very quickly. There was always a reliance on a strong government and adequate police force, and it's the part of the country most in favor of, and which has the strictest, gun control.
The Midwest and the Southwest was a bunch of frontiersmen/women going out on their own - there was no government or military or police force to protect them, they did everything on their own, including being armed for their own protection (just think about every western you've ever seen). the Southwest also had the Mexican wars to contend with note: they relied on the army far more than their myths/stories let on. The generally accepted version is that the frontiersmen/women were in constant danger from the elements, the natives, and from outlaws so that part of the country has a strong culture of gun ownership for self-defense.
Plus, the area is very sparsely populated, and there are a lot of homes out on a farm or in the woods where it could easily take half an hour, or more, for police to arrive, so it actually makes sense.
The South has forever been scarred by the civil war. Without an adequate understanding of history, they misunderstand the cause of the civil war and idolize the ideal of states' rights. they truly believe that being armed will protect them from an overintrusive government
Note:, how Johnny with his AK-47 will be able to fight off tanks and jet fighters is beyond me, but let them believe
The west coast is a bit more complicated. But generally speaking, the coastal cities had stories much closer to the Northeast (not to mention a large swath of the population moving there from the Northeast fairly recently), whereas the inland areas are much more in line with the midwest and the southwest.
Basically, there was a lot more government support during the establishment of the coastal cities, which have had larger populations for longer, including functional law enforcement, compared to the inland areas, which had little support and a lot of danger. And the Southern States are still suffering PTSD from the Civil War (or, in the case of Texas, the Mexican wars)
Comment has been collapsed.
I really do understand the historical stigma of the second amendment in the US but I also think that history is well... history. Taking lessons from it and changing things as we go, depending on how things are going, is essential.
Personally I have nothing against guns themselves. I own them and I shoot them and I've done so since I was a kid. I also know that an assault rifle is not needed to defend yourself, unless you're in a war and the odds of that happening are low.
When you're in a boat that's sinking, holding on to your furniture because they mean a lot to you and damn if you're going to give them up, whether the boat sinks or not... it's, well, myopic.
Right now, there is more harm than good done to society in the US by the second amendment. There may come a time when people have to violently overthrow the government in the US (but considering they haven't after the last election, I doubt it will ever happen) but there is a reality right now, not a chance, not a probability, that thousands of innocents are dying because of the lack of control on guns.
I'm not (and most people, I think, aren't either) saying that there should be a total ban on all guns. I'm just saying there should be more control and I don't mind infringing on the holy rights of a few citizens if that prevents a total meltdown of the American society as a whole.
My point was only that times change, whether we want it or not, and holding on to the past is not helping us in the long run. Never have, never will.
And the Southern States are still suffering PTSD from the Civil War (or, in the case of Texas, the Mexican wars)
Besides the point but I do agree about that and I think most people do the easy thing and just made a mockery of it, or worse, blame or accuse the South, without thinking that maybe there are more useful things to do to remedy the situation. I dont know how you cure PTSD on a societal level but nothing's ever even tried, and that's a shame, imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that times change, but, it really is ingrained in the culture. I'll talk to people who really believe that a gun will protect them, or that they can't rely on the police. I've talked to people who really believe that they need guns to keep the government in check. And a lot of these people believe that any regulations are just the first step toward confiscation and an outright ban.
As for curing PTSD on a societal level, well, germany was able to do it. but there's no incentive for the South to come to terms with its past.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've talked to people who really believe that they need guns to keep the government in check. And a lot of these people believe that any regulations are just the first step toward confiscation and an outright ban.
Minds can be changed. The problem is that most of the time, liberals are just trying to score points with undecided voters by pointing finger, rather than by educating and communicating.
As for curing PTSD on a societal level, well, germany was able to do it. but there's no incentive for the South to come to terms with its past.
True. I also don't think Germany would have been able to do it if the whole of Europe had kept blaming them for what the generations before them did.
Comment has been collapsed.
- most of the time, liberals are just trying to score points
This attitude is the problem. Politics in the U.S. is an us vs. them mentality, red shirt vs blue shirt. Preventing the opponent from scoring is as important as your own team scoring (and often easier). Both sides are guilty of this. Saying "liberals are just trying to score points", well, it's true, but, it's just as true about conservatives. Every dirty trick you see the other team doing, your team is doing just as much.
What that also means is that there's no room for compromise, no room for practical discussion. As an easy example, the loudest voices in the gun debate are the unrealistic crazies on the far ends. Most people don't want a total ban, and most people don't want unfettered access for anyone - most people are for sensible regulations. The problem is, rather than discussing what's sensible, the debate is between all or nothing.
Part of Germany getting over it is that they accepted blame, and took actions to make up for it. The South refuses to acknowledge the problem, and won't even admit the truth. It's not so much that the rest of the country is blaming the South for what happened, so much as that they're trying to point out the truth
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is just a lot more complicated than most people realize. There's no quick and easy fix when you have 50 states with 50 different sets of gun laws, many of which might be inclined to resist or just flat out ignore federal mandates. Legislators from states with lax gun laws will naturally bend to the will of their constituents if they want to get reelected. Not saying that it's impossible, but finding a compromise that is palatable to so many different players who are accustomed to enjoying autonomy on this issue is going to be challenging even without all the contentious bullshit and grandstanding. Also commonly overlooked (or in many instances purposefully ignored) is that all these different sets of gun laws are the basis for illegal gun trafficking across state lines, which accounts for the lion's share of gun violence in high crime areas and inner cities.
I have to ask, because it's a subject that interests me - do you really think that the South is in denial of some latent guilt over the Civil War? Because I really don't. Southerners (generalizing shamelessly here, i know) see themselves as the wronged party. From their viewpoint, they tried to leave the Union and were bullied into staying. They were also punished mercilessly during the reconstruction and have not forgotten or forgiven that.
Comment has been collapsed.
1st Paragraph - Agree completely. But it also gets ridiculous. For example, North Dakota recently abolished the need for a concealed carry law, but the class (which is still available for reciprocity purposes) is taught without a single gun in the room, and the instructor reads out the answers to the very short multiple-choice test conducted at the end of the session. That just means that when the State did require a permit, they didn't take it seriously.
2nd Paragraph - that's exactly what I mean when I say the South is still scarred from the civil war. It's incredibly rare for a Southerner to know the actual cause of the Civil War (Slavery - it's written in most articles of succession). Instead they've concocted a fantasy that it's about States' rights, that they were the victims, and that they were bullied into staying. and that's not to mention that reconstruction was both short, and fairly hands-off: Johnson was against Reconstruction, And Hayes bargained to end it to become president, so Reconstruction really was only effective during Grant's presidency. Most of reconstruction was basically passing the 14th Amendment, creating the DOJ to enforce laws that local prosecutors wouldn't, and fighting the nascent KKK. The South was still very racist, and all reconstruction was was trying to give some rights to black people. When reconstruction ended, the Jim Crow era began, which was not much of an improvement
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure southerners or even moderate northerners of the time would characterize the federal military occupation of the ex-confederate states and the disenfranchisement of large portions of white voters as hands off though. Radical republicans under Grant basically tried to force reform down the South's throat - not surprising that that backfired and Reconstruction ended in failure. Maybe it would have anyway, but it seems like no one thought to try the carrot instead of the stick. There was certainly opportunity there, considering the complete shambles of the southern economy and infrastructure. No doubt things would have turned out better if Lincoln had survived. I see the comparisons made between the south and post Nazi Germany, but I actually think the comparison would be more apt to the Wiemar Republic.
Comment has been collapsed.
of course they "tried to force reform" - otherwise, the South wouldn't reform and would just go back to what it was like before. Which is exactly what happened when reconstruction ended. People in the South were "giving" their domestic help to their friends/family, and even passing them along int heir will well into the 20th century.
Post-WW2 Germany and Japan are good examples of what to do after winning a war - force the reforms, but also rebuild the countries in your image.
Post-Reconstruction South, Weimar Germany, post-Soviet Russia, and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of what not to do - which ranges from punishment, to doing nothing, to leaving a military force, but not to do any rebuilding, to take a hands-off approach.
The other thing worth noting is that rebuilding Germany and Japan were both long-term projects. It takes a generation to change minds, and you need to go in knowing that that's how long it's gonna take.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh damn, that's not what I meant at all.
I'm a Canuck leaving in France so I have no skin in the game, beyond having friends who live in the US and who are scared to send their kids to school. I am on the liberal side of most issues but like I say, I have no skin in the game so I try to look at both sides in most of these issues.
I am for extensive gun control and a complete overall of the gun issue in the US. I just think that the issue would be solved way faster if Republicans and Democrats were actually working on it instead of both trying to score points when there's a shooting somewhere, while accusing the other side of politicizing/ignoring the issue.
My point in this case was merely that I don't believe that so many people so completely support the 2nd amendment, and to hell with consequences, that it's impossible to change minds. But while Republicans avoid the issue altogether because of personal beliefs, because they are courting votes from gun owners by saying liberals are after their guns, or just because the NRA is paying for their campaigns, a lot of the time it feels like Democrats prefer demonizing gun owners than really solving the issue.
It is a political issue, don't get me wrong, because at this point it can only be solved by politics. But there's something to be said about communication instead of the blame game, on both sides.
As for the South, well I know people there. Good people. I don't always agree with them on everything but they're not all tone-deaf about everything. I think shame is a huge part of PTSD and sometimes it's easier to pretend nothng happened than to own up to it.
Germany did own up to their deeds, as a country, but they had a government to blame for it. Once the Nazi regime was removed, it was easier for people to accept the German people was as much victims as anyone else in Europe. The South can't really play that card.
And sure, some of them are still way too proud of the Confederate Flag, willfully ignoring all the negative stuff that goes with it, but most I think a lot of people would just like to be able to move on from that, and can't.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Unfortunately, U.S. politics is a two-party system, and you support your team and denigrate the other. It's all about scoring points, and preventing the other side from scoring points. It's not just on gun control, it's on all topics. Due to the way voting districts are carved up, most districts are safely democrat or safely republican, and so it's all about portraying the other side as evil. In the areas where it's not clear-cut, candidates must first win a primary, where only members of their party vote.
Due to the nature of the system here, the more extreme candidates are most likely to win.
However, on an individual level most people are not extremists. I have friends who are self-professed gun-nuts who believe more regulation is required. I have friends who are very pro-life, who can agree to some restrictions on abortion, etc. etc. I'm sure the vast majority of people are more along those lines, but politics here doesn't allow that.
2) Some Germans were victims, but plenty weren't. (over a third of the country voted for Hitler before they started rigging elections, and the Nazi party had 2 million members before he came to power). A lot of Germans supported Hitler, and most of the rest were happy to turn a blind eye, as long as their own situation improved. During the postwar era there was very little incentive to punish all but the most public Nazis, and the situation was quickly brushed aside (which is why there are still Nazis being 'found' now, where there is more appetite to punish the handful of Nazis who are left). At the time, just about everyone was related to, or friends with, a Nazi. It took a generation to be able to say "what our parents did was wrong; we accept that". and part of that acceptance is teaching and memorializing it.
In the South, for the most part, people don't accept it, and become defensive about it. And that means creating revisionist myths - the gentlemen protecting their homeland from the oppressive federal government, the nobel fight for states' rights, etc. (it also helps that it's easy to romanticize the lifestyle of the ladies/gentlemen of the old south, a bygone era where everyone was well-off and chivalrous - see e.g. Gone with the Wind)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure the vast majority of people are more along those lines, but politics here doesn't allow that.
It's pretty much that way everywhere now these days, hence the rise of extremes in most countries but yes the US political system is the perfect storm for this.
Some Germans were victims, but plenty weren't. (over a third of the country voted for Hitler before they started rigging elections, and the Nazi party had 2 million members before he came to power)
Well, they had been pretty well doinked after WWI (I wish that had taught the rest of the world that humiliating losers is not the way to go when you win) and to be fair Hilter's platform when he ran was far from anything he did in the following years. I think we'll never know for sure but I like to believe that if he had ran on a "let's kill millions of people and invade every neighboring countries", he wouldn't have been elected so easily.
And it's not as if Germany was the only country where racism and xenophobia were pretty much the norm. I live in France now and there are a lot of movies and shows about the bravery of the resistance, and very very few about the collaborating regime. Most of my friends I've talked to about it say French schools still teach a very selective version of WWII in history classes (in high school I mean) and the Vichy government is presented pretty much only as an outlier.
It seems I've wandered off the point quite a bit lol but my point is just that revisionism is a universal thing, sadly. As human beings, we tend to minimize our mistakes and inflate our achievements so minimizing the mistakes of past generations is easy.
I do take your point about the romanticizing of the noble South though. There is also a massive rejection of anything (movies or tv shows or books) that talk about the flip side of things.
We're all just humans. Stubborn refusal to accept reality and try to fix what's wrong is in our nature but I still believe the gun issue is going way too far these days for people to just claim "the right to bear arms" is inalienable. It seems to me the right to live without fearing some guy with a history of mental issues is going to grab the available arsenal and use you as target practice should take precedent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Running on "I hate foreigners and want them out of my country" tends to work pretty well. Including when it's veiled in a more acceptable package, xenophobia tends to get a pretty decent share of the vote, and in the absense of alternatives, you can bet on it getting a third, easily
Comment has been collapsed.
There would be fewer school shootings, if there were fewer schools. We should eliminate all schools to stop this violence!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm for the private ownership of most weapons; as the constitution of the United States was designed in part to protect it's citizens against tyranny, no citizen should be restricted from owning weapons that are used by the government or law enforcement.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".
That said, I'm against the ownership and use of nukes, bombs, biological and other weapons of mass destruction because they cannot be used defensively without collateral damage.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am all for responsible gun ownership. To me, that has two requirements:
1) training real training in how and when to use firearms, time spent at a gun range, etc
2) strict liability if your gun causes harm, you're responsible (as well as the perpetrator, of course)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves his whole life.
Definitely the guy who knew what society would be like 200 years after his death and what would be needed.
Comment has been collapsed.
He was far from perfect and I would never condone his ownership of slaves, but his views on slavery are a little more nuanced than you suggest.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't mean to throw shade on Jefferson. I actually think he was a great thinker and I know his opinions on slavery were not aligned to that of his time. My point was only that he was of his time, and for all his wisdom, he was not prescient.
His views were limited by the lack of perspective that history has afforded us.
When I said he owned slaves, I didn't mean "oh he owned slaves so who cares what he thought". I really just meant he couldn't talk about society as it is now because he only knew society as it was then. Things have changed. Some for the better, some for the worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm for the private ownership of most weapons; as the constitution of the United States was designed in part to protect it's citizens against tyranny
Not to get into this too much, but the "tyranny" has been over for centuries now. The tyranny was the British. The point of the second amendment was to have militias available to recruit from with smaller costs during that turmoil. It had nothing to do with government uprisings or to "keep the government in check". If it were, then it'd be pointless since the civilian population poses no threat to anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
.The point of the second amendment was to have militias available to recruit from with smaller costs during that turmoil. It had nothing to do with government uprisings or to "keep the government in check".
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789If it were, then it'd be pointless since the civilian population poses no threat to anyone.
See the Bundy Standoff, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Also realize that most of the US military and law enforcement supports the Second Amendment (the actual law, not a misinterpretation) and will not "just follow orders" and fire upon their own people and families.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool post. I have always been terrible at history but love the subject all the same. I have read maybe two of these before.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Soviets in Red alert 3 had the right idea. They militarised bears. Now all of us citizens of whatever countries don't need guns at all. We can all just get personal war bears.
I for one approve of allowing my pet bear to slaughter people at my discretion.
Comment has been collapsed.
In Rome: Total War you could have an army of war dogs and flaming pigs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQONU-Hx70
Comment has been collapsed.
Funnily enough I must have put hundreds of hours into rome since it first came out, never once actually bothered to train a unit of dogs or pigs. Mostly because in total war I just tend to stick to one formulae in my armies. Trying new things can have consequences and all.
Whereas in skirmish mode for Yuri's Revenge, I'd fill the oceans with dolphins and my base with dogs just because I could.
Comment has been collapsed.
I liked using a few units of warhounds to chase down fleeing enemy units, and flaming pigs are great against elephant units
Comment has been collapsed.
Usually I have a couple of cavalry units for when the enemy is routing. It's a good way to give a General some experience without putting the idiot in actual danger. Elephants don't really tend to be a problem for me. On the rare occasion that the enemy can afford to buy more than a single unit of them I always field a few squads of archers per army. Rain down a couple of flaming arrow volleys and that's usually enough to send them running. Heck, even in Empire the ai doesn't usually decide to use many elephant units for some reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh, it's not the most effective way to play - but it's fun
Comment has been collapsed.
Can definitely understand that! Sometimes you just need to find the most ridiculous ways to win. Half of me wants more games to have hilarious animal based weaponised units...because that is just fantastic. But the other half knows that further inclusion means times I'll have to kill them/get the killed. Which is saddening.
Comment has been collapsed.
That weapons itself exist, is stupid. I dont understand how you can think this way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Soo to continue with an other non controversial topic...
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/wbu5U/survival
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/yU2H0/the-adventures-of-fatman
I'm a liberal thus I support right to bear arms. But I want it to be done properly not this namby-pamby USA way. With all sorts of stupid limitations about magazine sizes, full-autos, bumb-stocks and so on...
Every private person should have right to own and use any sort of weapons, be it pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, mini-guns, tanks, fighter jets, artillery, bombs, smart bombs, fire bombs... I mean what's the point of inventing all off the fun stuff like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if private citizens can't use them freely? The control over lives of people has just gone too far...
Comment has been collapsed.