Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Don't worry, if your government decides you are wrong, those rifles and pistols won't slow them down. It will just show what a nut you always were when they put your picture in the paper. But it makes people feel better and somehow "safe", so meh.

The post said guns AND knives. Firearms are fun, but knifefighting is something else! Close combat is some rough stuff, especially when you add in weaponry. Anybody can point and pull a trigger (though not accurately!), but trying to force a blade beetween someone's ribs or bludgeon them until they stop moving while they struggle against you, striking back, is some dirty, messy stuff....

Posted By mauleed on 05/24/2007 11:42 AM

Like every free man I own firearms and am well versed in their use.

Slaves and serfs aren't permitted weapons. And thank God for that.

Your not going to find a bigger supporteer of the 2nd ammendment than me, but with that being said many members of this forum are from nations that dont share the same view because they, the citizens don't share the same view. You shouldn't try and alienate yourself and those of us who are pro-gun to our foreign gamers. This topic is a powder keg waiting to explode and be locked if we don't watch we say.

Serfs were peasants who were tied to land under the feudal systems of Russia and eastern Europe from ~1600 to as late as the 1860's (or nearly there) in Russia. Serfs weren't slaves, per se, but they could not leave the land that they worked, and were "owned" by the noble who owned their land. A noble couldn't simply kill a serf, but the serf also didn't have a lot of recourse against the noble.

It is often shocking for Europeans to see the attitudes towards firearms exhibited by Americans. There is a good historical reason for this: for most of it's history, the countries of Europe have always been terrified of each other. France and England. France and Germany. Poland and Austria. Spain and England. Italy and the Ottomans. Etc, Etc.

In the US, after a long and bloody revolution, the Founders realized that there really wasn't a threat to our borders. (sorry Canada and Mexico). What they did fear was a powerful central government like they had just thrown off. The constitution is interesting in that it protects "the people" from both an aristocratic, central government as well as from a tyranny of the majority. One of the results of this fear was the 2nd amendment, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Keeping in mind that this was written over 200 years ago by people who used language and words in slightly different ways, there are plenty of interpretations of this document. Some say that it merely allows for the National Guard (a well regulated militia). Others state that, like the 1st amendment, the power of the government to restrict weapons should be as limited as possible, thus making as many weapons legal as possible.

One interpretation, long accepted by the Supreme Court, was that the 2nd Amendment allows for state and local militias, above and beyond the national army, to be used against the Federal Government if need be. After the civil war, state militias have declined in regulation, but the meaning of the text is still generally though to mean: the government cannot overly oppress a well armed populace.

I hope this helps our international friends.

As has been said many gamers are in the military. I own a lot of knives.

- Greenie

Well, this topic is likely to generate a lot of heated opinion and get locked.

The attitude to firearms and their use depends on local culture. For example, not many people in the UK think the government is likely to repress them with armed force, and most people do not think guns help protect from criminals either. That said, our already fairly restrictive gun laws were tightened in the 80s and again in the 90s (to the point that it will be illegal to hold many of the Olympic shooting events in London.) Gun crime has actually increased since that time.

In the US there is a lot of gun crime despite the easy availability of weapons. There is almost no gun crime at all in Switzerland, despite the widespread availability of military weapons.

hey maleed I heard a rumor you gave up backgammon for checkers.

- Greenie

Posted By Brother Tiberius on 05/24/2007 9:20 AM
I own many firearms. I target shoot, do sporting clays (trap mostly), and hunt (mostly whitetail deer). I shot a 10 pointer last season, it should be on my wall very soon when the taxidermist is finished with working on it.

east coast 10 or western 10?  in other words did you count one rack or both racks?

I have owned and shot weapons for 35 of my 40 years.  pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, black powder etc.  I hunt to supplement the meger amount of meat we can afford to eat.. usually venison is the beef in our house.. it's just too expensive to buy it anymore..

now if I could just shoot something that would net me a couple hundred gallons of gas each year..

Posted By roneldar on 05/24/2007 8:23 AM

anyways,  out of 5 dudes, myself and only one other had EVER fired a gun. Is this true of most gamers out there???

Is your average gamer a sustenance hunter? Do they all work in security, or as members of the armed forces? Does the average tabletop gamer reside in a violent or war-torn region where they have been witness to or involved in armed combat as a way of life, and needs to at least understand how to operate firearms?

If the answer to the above questions is No, as I suspect it is for most, then I don't see any reason for the average table top games player to have ever used a firearm.

Posted By Caern on 05/24/2007 1:26 PM

Posted By roneldar on 05/24/2007 8:23 AM

anyways,  out of 5 dudes, myself and only one other had EVER fired a gun. Is this true of most gamers out there???

Is your average gamer a sustenance hunter? Do they all work in security, or as members of the armed forces? Does the average tabletop gamer reside in a violent or war-torn region where they have been witness to or involved in armed combat as a way of life, and needs to at least understand how to operate firearms?

If the answer to the above questions is No, as I suspect it is for most, then I don't see any reason for the average table top games player to have ever used a firearm.

Please...

There are a lot of activities that involve firearms and none of the things you mentioned above.

I am an avid shooter, who legaly owns firearms. In fact I might shoot some skeet tonight now that I am thinking about it.

You people do understand that you can own a firearm and not use it shoot people right?

I also own cars, and do not run anybody over with them.

Posted By methoderik on 05/24/2007 1:42 PM


I also own cars, and do not run anybody over with them.

Wait, you're NOT supposed to run people over with them? Then whats the big bumper on the front of the truck for?

*EDIT*

After rereading the post that I had made here, I decided its content was largely irrelevent to the initial topic and ill-suited for these boards.

I have thus deleted the contents.

Methoderik, the point of your post in response to mine is what, exactly? The OP question is about average gamers. I made a post about what is typical of an average gamer. Your post is just about you, and no one else (edit: well, it's also a defensive mini-rant in reaction to a perceived slight against your right to use firearms for entertainment, which I am not arguing nor care about, since it's not part of this topic). Unless you consider yourself the epitome of the average gamer, in which case then I suppose you are indeed responding to the original post here.

Posted By Caern on 05/24/2007 2:08 PM
Methoderik, the point of your post in response to mine is what, exactly? The OP question is about average gamers. I made a post about what is typical of an average gamer. Your post is just about you, and no one else (edit: well, it's also a defensive mini-rant in reaction to a perceived slight against your right to use firearms for entertainment, which I am not arguing nor care about, since it's not part of this topic). Unless you consider yourself the epitome of the average gamer, in which case then I suppose you are indeed responding to the original post here.

Whatever. Spin it however you want.

Please, read before you post.

Wait wait, back to this truck running over thing. I can understand when the police say you shouldn't randomly fire paintballs at passing vehicles when you're on the freeway cause it could block traffic, but whats this deal about not running over people again. Then why are moms with strollers worth three points huh? Answer me that?

One day to a three day holiday...

Well if you are talking about vehicular homicide in sport... well then all bets are off. Are you sure moms with strollers are only 3 points? I could have sworn it was 5. No wait that is Grandmothers with seeing eye dogs... silly me.

Yea come on Methoderik Grandmothers are five. But watch out, most grandmothers are packin' (which ties back nicely to the topic).

Rumours are they are remaking Deathrace 2000...

Mauleed has said it best above. A requirement of any free man that wants to stay that way.

I guess my point was that anyone interested in owning a gun doesn't need to buy one. You can easily make one! The technology for making revolvers is ridiculously old, and a google patent search, an old $300 lathe and mill, a chunk of forged steel, and you are in business.

I'm just not convinced any government could stop people from just making these weapons, if that person really wanted to. I could be in production in a few weeks, easily. It wouldn't be efficient, no, but possible? Sure.

engine

It's Euthansia Day at the old folks home!

Posted By Whitescar on 05/24/2007 11:53 AM
I carry one for work on occasions, and it is a tremendous responsibility not to take lightly

Agreed. I have my MA FID card (though that form of weapon id has expired), have fired a variety of small arms (pistols, shotguns and rifles), and have three+ years of sport fencing under my belt. Many of my friends own guns and I grew up in a house with a pistol. Every time I pick up a weapon of any kind, I'm VERY careful, whether it's a loaded firearm or a practice foil with a blunted tip. I would even go so far as to say that I have a healthy fear of the weapon; too much can go wrong too fast if one is not careful.

Posted By engine on 05/24/2007 2:44 PM
Mauleed has said it best above. A requirement of any free man that wants to stay that way.

For all your bravado, if the US Army decided to invade, Wisconsin is it?, in force supported by a heavy bombing campaign for the month before, weeks of shelling from battleships on Lake Superior, and a full tank thrust (crushing the cows beneath the treads), I don't think that your .22 is going to make much of a difference really...

Asmodai EXALT!!

It is isn't bravado. It is a willingness to defend what I hold dear with more than words, or with the notion that the government will protect me, and never turn in to power grubing totalitarian regimes. If a bad guy shows up at my door at night, I know I have at least a decent chance of having as much firepower to bear as he does. I won't turn a blind eye to the evil in this world.

And you'd be surprised what a number of poeple trained in defending themselves can do. I think you'd find that if the government did invade a state, that state would find help within the military ranks, and from the rest of the US citizens trained in defense. Americans have a general distrust of central governments. Hm, I wonder why?

And if the US government shells WI, well, at least I didn't run and hide, or have to call my next door neighbor for help. Like Canada would have to.

Have fun in your seperate peace. I hope it never comes crashing down around you. But if does, fear not! I'll send the US Marine Corp. We've got your back, Canucks.

engine

Advances in technology, training, and the logistics of war make the gulf in capabilities between a governmental military organization and a band of armed citizens (even military-trained themselves) much wider than it was when the Bill of Rights was drafted. I support the right to bear arms, I believe it's a nice life skill to add to a well-rounded person, and I've fired a few shots downrange myself, but I don't hold any illusions that any weapon I can purchase or operate can defend me from tyranny.

IME the pen (and the dollar) is mightier than the sword. Much as I love swords. I tend to find that written discussion, public debate, and organized voting are much more effective means of resisting forces I oppose in my government. And they're ones I can employ right now.

I did make a conscious effort to avoid any flamebait partisan content in the above, and I appreciate that most of you are doing the same. Keep it clean, polite, and respectful folks. Thanks.

Mannahnin and Asmodai make some decent points, in that a modern military can gain territory and defeat organized resistance more easily than they could 200 years ago. that's not the complete story, however. Armed resistance to occupying powers, in the last 60 years, have been overwhelmingly effective. From Vietnam (twice) to Afghanistan (once and counting), over matched local resistance forces have been brushed aside by a powerful invader, only to eventually outlast the occupier.

Sure, the Federal Government could invade Wisconsin, but if you've ever been there, you'd know that there is virtually no way you can hold that territory, without hundreds of thousands of troops. There are hills, forests, and a couple of million irate cheesheads with pick up trucks and rifles. That's another aspect of the US that Europeans don't understand right away: how freaking big this country is. The US is more than twice the size of the EU, yet has 300million people compared to nearly 500million in the EU.

Armed resistance to a tyrant is not a quick process, but it's also not a futile one. While the .22 caliber rifle may be of little use, the shotguns, handguns, and hunting rifles will be of use.

There's really nothing wrong with either system. Guns, or no guns, both are fine systems. Americans are descendants of immigrants and pioneers, and we crave the frontier attitude. Firearms are a link to that.

I know how to use rifles and pistols. My dad, an avid hunter, wanted us to be able to use one. We ended up in the back woods of Alaska and had a couple run ins with a bear or two. Nice for protection in that case.

Also, I have a large cache of weapons in my basement along with enough supplies for a few years. Just being prepared for the coming zombie invasion.

The zombie invasion has come and is here to stay. I'll let you know when
reality tv passes, but it looks like it will be a long difficult battle.

Aluminium baseball bat is the best weapon against zombies. Never goes blunt, jams or runs out of ammo.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 05/24/2007 9:51 PM
Aluminium baseball bat is the best weapon against zombies. Never goes blunt, jams or runs out of ammo.

Yeah, but I have a wife and three daughters.  Kinda difficult to get up close and personal when I have those 4 to worry about.  Think Tau.  Long distance is honorable. 

Shot a few weapons in my time (5 years in the Army and counting), but nothing bigger than an AT4 or Mk19. I don't really enjoy shooting that much though. After getting shot at all the time in Iraq, I kind of lost interest in guns. Being forced to carry 15 pounds of M249 everywhere I go for 358 days didn't help either.