Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

NRA vs Videogames?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 252 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:28:07 PM PST
I think that many on here empathize with your convictions in wanting to remove guns from the hands of those who don't know how to use them/are able to show restraint to not use them except under extreme situations. Any responsible adult would be ok with the suggestions that you mentioned... It's just the fact that many on here have been around firearms most of our lives and they have gained a treasured status.

The idiots at the NRA do not represent us in their statement here. They are a lobbyist group, and they feel like they are doing damage control by playing with Salem Witch Trials fear. We, as a people, have the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the defenseless. If the bad guys, who don't care about the laws that you are promoting and we are ok with, have a firearm and you do not, then your only recourse is to either give in and possibly endanger yourself/whoever you would have been protecting or risk confronting an armed man while you are unarmed.

I am pessimistic about humanity. I am not going to 'throw down' at the drop of a hat, but I will not give up my right to do what I must to protect myself and/or others.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:31:52 PM PST
Frank says:
"I have to completely disagree with that. The US, if they really wanted too, could bomb the entire rabble within seconds. They wouldn't know what hit them, literally. The rest of the populatin would cave and give up resistance. The idea of civilians fighting the government seems like folly to me. It just isn't 1700 anymore. :)"

Recent history disagrees with you.

Posted on Dec 21, 2012 2:41:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 2:42:24 PM PST
Mortal Kombat is responsible for all violent crimes. Next someone willl go to a public place, freeze people with an ice ball they shoot out of their hands and promptly rip their head off.

The NRA are the people who should not be allowed to own guns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 2:51:58 PM PST
What? Do you know the difference between total war and an occupation?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 3:22:24 PM PST
Uncle Ulty says:
I doubt any of us on this board know what total war is like. Probably the reason why we are so soft and want to get rid of all guns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 3:39:28 PM PST
DVvM says:
It's pretty unlikely that our government would declare total war on its citizens, regardless of the rebellion they cook up.

I think that the situation in which the second amendment still applies as "a check against the government" in a modern setting is actually on a local scale. The citizens of an isolated town or county could effectively defend themselves against a hypothetical corrupt and aggressive armed band of government officials (think a "Sheriff of Nottingham" situation), since nobody in this situation is going to have tanks or predator drones. This effectively discourages Nottingham Sheriffs from taking power in small isolated communities, since those communities shoot back when sufficiently provoked.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:53:59 PM PST
That's fine, but I was merely asking if he knew the academic distinction, which it seems he does not.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:56:13 PM PST
I agree. But Frank seems to think what the US military does now can in any be linked to "bomb[ing] the entire rabble within seconds," and it cannot.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 4:59:36 PM PST
J. Pardee says:
Exactly! It's probably more likely that a meteor will fall from space and slice us in half than we will have to fight back the government. People using that as the reason for keeping their weapons are mental.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:07:27 PM PST
I don't expect to ever have to shoot anyone, but to use a phrase, "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have." The problem is the people who think that firearms are just toys. Everybody who knows and respects weapons will readily agree that the first thing that anyone needs to know about weapons is you don't want to have to use them. Instead, we have too many that have a weapon, but wants to show it off and prove how macho they are. This is a mentality that will cause many problems.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:09:20 PM PST
Agreed.

That's why I never use that argument, and I merely say that the state has no right to tell people they cannot own guns. The state has no right to do a lot of things that the state does.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:12:22 PM PST
Yes.

Do not fear guns. Do not play with guns. Respect guns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:18:52 PM PST
J. Pardee says:
I don't mind guns themselves, I do mind on people that have them though. I would trust a monkey with a gun more than the people that spout nonsense like using guns to protect themselves from our government.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:21:23 PM PST
Well most of these people are also the type who believe we should kill all the Muslims, but they are too cowardly to go fight themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:37:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 5:38:37 PM PST
Frank says:
Obviously you don't know what total war means. Total war is a state of complete mobilization of all military resources. The US cannot sustain non stop fighting over more than a few weeks. The political will aside, it certainly does not have the conventional resources to completely wipeout a population that has a way to resist. Especially if the opponents don't wear uniforms and are out of reach of sea assets (leaving the burden of the fighting/supplying to 3/4 of the Services).
At some point you have to slow down, consolidate your gains and occupy the land. That's when the rabble begins to gain an advantage over the occupying force.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:54:02 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 5:57:34 PM PST
Why are you talking about "uniforms" alongside "total war?" I get the idea that maybe you don't know what total war means.

Total war means you don't CARE about uniforms, everybody dies.
Men, women and children, the elderly, wounded, mentally-deficient, everybody.

It would be a lot easier than the crap we do now. Having to sit there and wait for them to shoot at me before I'm allowed to shoot back SUCKS.
This "kinder, gentler, hearts and minds" stuff takes way longer and uses more resources than extermination.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:58:17 PM PST
It is also the use of the full military force of a nation. The United States has not engaged in a total war since World War II.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 5:58:53 PM PST
It is also more morally defensible.

But I've been there, I know it sucks.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:06:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2012 6:08:38 PM PST
The whole world hates the US anyway, and accuses us of all kinds of BS.
Sometimes I think everyone would have been better off if we just smoked Iraq and Afghanistan, completely, instead of screwing up our economy in a long, drawn-out decade-plus of conflict while the people we left behind grew lazy, fat, and stupid.

Total war doesn't have to be until complete extinction, just until the enemy completely loses the will or ability to fight. And it isn't like they showed any kind of distinction between combatants and non-combatants when they attacked us. All of their major attacks have been on unarmed civilians, including chopping that guy's head off with a dull machete on television. They were already engaging in total war, they just suck at it. And our country is run by people more worried about looking good on television than the lives of America's young men who signed up to protect people who don't even care.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:10:45 PM PST
DVvM says:
I'm categorically opposed to any war that results in the extinction of the human species.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:18:14 PM PST
Shut up, hippie! Take your peace and love somewhere else!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:34:11 PM PST
I won't agree with the idea of totally killing everyone there, because that would make us as bad as them (or at least as bad as they wish they were capable of being).

That said, there were times I totally felt the way you do.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 6:34:23 PM PST
Moral behavior is survival behavior.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:38:30 PM PST
J. Pardee says:
Even they they weren't engaging in total war though. I would consider total war as everyone is fighting the enemy no matter if you are a man, woman, or child. They were that full on with us so if we did it to them I would definitely consider us worse.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2012 7:45:33 PM PST
This post is an example of why correct syntax is important.

"Even they they weren't engaging in total war though." What does this mean?
"They were that full on with us so if we did it to them I would definitely consider us worse." And what in the hell does this mean?

English, MFer, do you speak it?!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  252
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions