Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://conquerclub.com/forum/
The police seem to get us precisely dick in this country with the ethnic and council-house violence problems.Snorri1234 wrote:Because Vigilante-justice is such a splendid idea.
I never really pegged Nappy as the type to get behind populist mobs. Besides, all they'd succeed in doing in this sort of climate is fucking up some rich-looking guys and looting stores.Snorri1234 wrote:Because Vigilante-justice is such a splendid idea.
We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).
And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations. The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).
While I can't deny the attractiveness of looking fucking cool, that perspective seems as inclined toward the idealistic as all those adjectives you use to describe your usual opposition.Napoleon Ier wrote:I dunno... I was thinking more about something along the lines of the Freikorps, or maybe the Texas Rangers, than a disorganized mob. You'd have rank hierarchy and organizations. Then they'd patrol the countryside and cities alike, rescuing damsels from social undesirables and generally looking fucking cool.
I wasn't talking about wild animals at all.... and I probably have a LOT more experience in the woods than you. I pretty much speant my life there, not just backpacking, but living there... and frankly, if you need a gun to protect yourself against wild animals in America (other than the grizzly and now some Mt lions), .... you haven't speant that much time there. That's nothing against carrying a gun for hunting, or in the few places where they are needed, but first rule of hunting is understanding the animal.dewey316 wrote:We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).
skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.Should I start a countdown now, until you respond with how you once knew someone who did x, y, and z?
And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations.EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).
No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.
dewey316 wrote:We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).
Should I start a countdown now, until you respond with how you once knew someone who did x, y, and z?
EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).
And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations. The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.
It is the same reason I take a first-aid kit, and water filtration with me. 99.99% of the animals, of course are not going to be a problem. It is unexpected run-in with an animal that for some reason might become a danger to me. Honestly, I don't need to justify my taking a gun with me into the wilderness. My point is that, many of us own and carry guns for a vast array of reasons. That reasons do not always include just hunting, and are perfectly legitimate.PLAYER57832 wrote:I wasn't talking about wild animals at all.... and I probably have a LOT more experience in the woods than you. I pretty much speant my life there, not just backpacking, but living there... and frankly, if you need a gun to protect yourself against wild animals in America (other than the grizzly and now some Mt lions), .... you haven't speant that much time there. That's nothing against carrying a gun for hunting, or in the few places where they are needed, but first rule of hunting is understanding the animal.
I know you are not, but at the same time you also try to un-legitimize everyone elses reasons for owning or using firearms. Instead of doing that, why don't you work on educating people about responsibile use, and ownership of guns.Nor am I anti-gun by a long stretch.
See above. The first post you painted a picture that hunters in general, are a trigger happy irresponsible group.I am FOR fun owners being responsible, because it is the idiots that will result in gund being taken away from the rest.
Where did I ever say anything about liberal? I was pointing out the over generalization of your original comment.skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.
Hey, common ground!Which we are.
Again, I never made a single political statement. People are anti-gun for many reasons, some of them are valid concerns, some fear. Either way, it doesn't matter. The responsible gun owners in our country need to stand united, and stand up for our rights. We need to do a better job of educating new gun owners, and also of educating non-gun owners. There are a lot of things we need to change, and one of the most important things, is peoples perception of gun-owners. In your post, you did a good job of summing up, the negative stereo types.No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.
Uh-- I do!dewey316 wrote:I know you are not, but at the same time you also try to un-legitimize everyone elses reasons for owning or using firearms. Instead of doing that, why don't you work on educating people about responsibile use, and ownership of guns.PLAYER57832 wrote:I Nor am I anti-gun by a long stretch. I am FOR fun owners being responsible, because it is the idiots that will result in gun being taken away from the rest.
No, I spoke specifically.dewey316 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: See above. The first post you painted a picture that hunters in general, are a trigger happy irresponsible group.
My comment was directed at the intial posting, blaming Obama and saying he is going to take everyone's guns away.dewey316 wrote:Where did I ever say anything about liberal? I was pointing out the over generalization of your original comment.PLAYER57832 wrote:skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.
Hey, common ground!PLAYER57832 wrote:Which we are.
Again, I was addressing the intial post. I read some of the intervening posts, but not all. I rarely do that.. and this is one reason why.dewey316 wrote:Again, I never made a single political statement. People are anti-gun for many reasons, some of them are valid concerns, some fear. Either way, it doesn't matter.PLAYER57832 wrote: No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.
[/quote]dewey316 wrote:The responsible gun owners in our country need to stand united, and stand up for our rights. We need to do a better job of educating new gun owners, and also of educating non-gun owners. There are a lot of things we need to change, and one of the most important things, is peoples perception of gun-owners. In your post, you did a good job of summing up, the negative stereo types.
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”
Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
I can go with that i suppose. But if your planning on invading a nation with nuclear capabilities at this point the game (its possible Japan didnt know at the time i would presume) then maybe you shouldnt be the barometer for rational military policy, and therefore i dont know how relevant it is to contemporary discourse.GabonX wrote:They are meant to empower the masses, people shouldn't be afraid of their governments but governments should be afraid of their people and all that. Clearly they are afraid which shows that we are doing well in the States.
In addition, these kind of weapons acts to discourage foreign powers from interfering here. It has been recorded that the Japanese chose not to invade the continental United States durring WW2 because the Generals knew Americans were well armed.
If some entity did want to use nuclear weapons obviously rifles wouldn't avert that threat. With that said, there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.got tonkaed wrote:I can go with that i suppose. But if your planning on invading a nation with nuclear capabilities at this point the game (its possible Japan didnt know at the time i would presume) then maybe you shouldnt be the barometer for rational military policy, and therefore i dont know how relevant it is to contemporary discourse.GabonX wrote:They are meant to empower the masses, people shouldn't be afraid of their governments but governments should be afraid of their people and all that. Clearly they are afraid which shows that we are doing well in the States.
In addition, these kind of weapons acts to discourage foreign powers from interfering here. It has been recorded that the Japanese chose not to invade the continental United States durring WW2 because the Generals knew Americans were well armed.
GabonX, stop being ridiculous. Of course a nation would use nukes as a weapon of last resort. Why else would nations keep stockpiling them or making more?GabonX wrote: If some entity did want to use nuclear weapons obviously rifles wouldn't avert that threat. With that said, there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.
Not only would it completely destroy huge populations and trigger nuclear retribution but it also destroys the environment. An area that has hosted a nuclear explosion is of no use to anyone, whether that be the current population or an entity which would choose to take it from them. In addition, if too many nuclear bombs were to go off in one place in the world, there is a very real chance of a nuclear winter which would have adverse affects to all countries.
Yes you did.GabonX wrote:I didn't state that a nation would not use nuclear weapons as a last resort or even as a first strike.
Don't forget your history, also, regarding the Punic Wars. What was it that Rome did to Carthage again? Something to do with ruining the environment, before the days of nuclear weapons...GabonX wrote:there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.