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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.

Or if you have even crude mortars, in which case you demonstrate why nobody has built a castle for anything but entertainment in a very long time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.

Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.

I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.

Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.

Or if you have even crude mortars, in which case you demonstrate why nobody has built a castle for anything but entertainment in a very long time.

In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.

If society has collapsed to the point that slingshots are all that is left then someone has already looted the local national guard armory, shelled the libertarian paradise into submission, and looted everything of value from the castle. Though I suppose hundreds of years after the collapse primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers will occupy the shattered walls to protect against the local wildlife at night, so maybe it does have some value.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In the event of the collapse of society I doubt many people will be making mortars that can hit anything accurately from outside the range of most rifles. Using a slingshot to hurl crude explosives would probably be more likely.

If society has collapsed to the point that slingshots are all that is left then someone has already looted the local national guard armory, shelled the libertarian paradise into submission, and looted everything of value from the castle. Though I suppose hundreds of years after the collapse primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers will occupy the shattered walls to protect against the local wildlife at night, so maybe it does have some value.

What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?

I don't know what happened to this thread but I kinda like it.

 Seaward wrote:
What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?

Nothing, except that the two go hand in hand often enough that when you hear about American survivalist groups you pretty much assume that even if they don't actively call themselves Libertarians that it's far more likely than not that whatever coherent political ideology they do have will be pretty close to libertarianism.

Looking at the website for these loons;
"Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles."

 Seaward wrote:
What on earth does survivalism have to do with libertarianism?

The two aren't necessarily the same, but their ideological statements and endless ranting about "rightful liberty" and no government interference make it pretty clear they're on the extreme libertarian end of the political scale in addition to being tinfoil hat survivalists.

Those survivalists are amateurs.

Here is a proper castle on a proper private island.



Good luck attacking that after the collapse of civilisation!

There was a militia here that I had friends in. They quit it when plans started being made by its leaders to raid for food in the event of a national collapse.

Mattman154 wrote:
Good to see states standing up for their rights.

Imprisoning police for enforcing the laws passed by an elected legislature is not a 'right'

@Kid_Kyoto--- Except for the fact that the Federal Government is not empowered to pass such laws. The Bill of Rights specifically lays out what the Federal Government may and may not do. It also states that all powers not specifically granted to the Feds are specifically held to the People and States.

 Bonecrusher 6 wrote:
@Kid_Kyoto--- Except for the fact that the Federal Government is not empowered to pass such laws. The Bill of Rights specifically lays out what the Federal Government may and may not do. It also states that all powers not specifically granted to the Feds are specifically held to the People and States.

Which includes regulating interstate trade and includes reasonable restrictions on firearms (just as there are reasonable restrictions on protest marches and everything else).

Seriously, are people reading an abridged copy of the Constitution?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.

Of course, it was a hollow clunk because the gauntlet was thrown down on a stage so that various local electorates could see it happening.

Seriously, arresting federal agents for enforcing federal law? Good luck with that. Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.

 dogma wrote:
Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.

Well, that would mollify the herp crowd, but the derp crowd demands more.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.

Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.

I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.

Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.

I think an underground base, would be better than a castle more concealable.

Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!

Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!

Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!

Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!

yeah... this will end well.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.

Now that I think about it, keeping and training an army of bees is a pretty good defence in the event of an animal uprising, unless of course the animal uprising consists of something other than elephants.

I mean, if you're going to spend a ton of money on the extremely implausible, why half ass it and only prepare for defence against one kind of attacker. That place needs a network of ambush points in which survivalists with AT missiles will wait in suicide missions for any enemy tank convoys.

Anything else is really just playing at weekend warrior.

I think an underground base, would be better than a castle more concealable.

I favor converting old missle silos...

Into this:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!

Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!

Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!

Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!

yeah... this will end well.

There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Had they simply proposed a law stating that Wyoming law enforcement personnel were not obligated, or prohibited from, enforcing federal law regarding firearms they would be on much better ground.

Well, that would mollify the herp crowd, but the derp crowd demands more.

Derp Herpson is the best news anchor there is and ever will be.

I'm curious: the politicians who created this bill, how close are they to reelection? I would bet this is ultimately just a political move to get votes.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!

Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!

Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!

Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!

yeah... this will end well.

There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.

Probably because the legal weed law was a clever ruse to flush out the pot users, thinking themselves to be safe, and so making them an easy target for federal agents. And so Colorado cleverly gets the Federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up the state of all its filthy potheads.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Just in, New York will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce banking laws!

Just in, New Jersey will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce pollution laws!

Just in, Oregon will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce drug laws!

Just in, Michigan will arrest any Federal agent who tries to enforce car mileage/safety laws!

yeah... this will end well.

There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.

Probably because the legal weed law was a clever ruse to flush out the pot users, thinking themselves to be safe, and so making them an easy target for federal agents. And so Colorado cleverly gets the Federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up the state of all its filthy potheads.

So when they start running the ads for "the best pizza ever made, only $2.99, call 1-800-DEAPIZZA" we know that the trap has been sprung?

Nah, its when the Drug Agent's begin disguising themselves as giant bannanas that we should be concerned. Its adaptive camo you see. The sober person can see that its a guy in a suit and will react accordingly. The stoner will attempt to eat it, its the latest test for soberiety you see. of course it will likely be abandoned after some video surfaces of a stoner eating a federal agents bannana.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nah, its when the Drug Agent's begin disguising themselves as giant bannanas that we should be concerned. Its adaptive camo you see. The sober person can see that its a guy in a suit and will react accordingly. The stoner will attempt to eat it, its the latest test for soberiety you see. of course it will likely be abandoned after some video surfaces of a stoner eating a federal agents bannana.

That reminds me of this:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a reason why the Colorado law doesn't say "we will arrest DEA agents for trying to arrest people who smoke weed", seems that the pot smokers were smarter than the gun folk.

Well, this isn't actually a law, it's a bill.

And it's symbolic. Nobody but the lunatic fringe on the left thinks another assault weapons ban is all that likely, and it seems closing "then gun show loophole" is the compromise we'll end up with. They might get the above 10 round capacity magazine ban, but I hope not.

@Kid_Kyoto...

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any single provision for the reasonable restriction of firearms. Not in one single place.

The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people can meet the Government on a level playing field for one simple reason. To prevent tyranny.

Does this mean that we can have semi-auto weapons with high-cap magazines? Yes.

Does this mean that we can have fully automatic machine guns? Yes.

Does this mean that we can own tanks and fighters? Sure does.

Does this mean that we can own naval combat ships or nuclear missiles? Yep.

Do I really think we need tanks, ships, fighters or nukes? Not really. For one thing the expense in maintenance alone is rediculous, and there is plenty of evidence that plenty of people in this world are only a slight push from falling off their rockers.

Now, nowhere in the 2nd is it said that any form of weapon is illegal to own. Nowhere does it say that the Federal Government is allowed to set restrictions at all. Any restrictions must be by the State level government. And for those restrictions to apply at the Federal level, they must hold a Constitutional Convention and add a new Ammendment or revise an existing one.

"Well regulated".

And all it takes to take the 2nd away is an amendment. You don't need a constitutional convention for that. Considering that the bill of rights were 10 changes (or amendments) to the original constitution to begin with, it is pretty amazing that people don't think we could simply get rid of any of them.

"Well-regulated" means trained in the context of the Constitution. Implying that people with the guns should be experienced in their operation and on military drill/tactics.

Does it say that?

Or is that just one if the many interpretations of that?