SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Sternjaeger II]

I still really do wonder what these anti-guns preachers are doing here in a military combat simulator where they fire with cannons and machineguns at other aircraft.. why you're not using Flight Simulator or X-Plane?

[F19_Klunk]

Of course u understand that Stern... I have higher thoughts of u (or anybody else in this forum) than that. Of course u understand that people can discern fiction from facts. Just because I don't like the notion that firearms are free for all to buy with no restrictions, doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good action movie or can't be interested in combat flight sims... I am SURE you understand that.. your just trying to make a point mate

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

Of course u understand that Stern... I have higher thoughts of u (or anybody else in this forum) than that. Of course u understand that people can discern fiction from facts. Just because I don't like the notion that firearms are free for all to buy with no restrictions, doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good action movie or can't be interested in combat flight sims... I am SURE you understand that.. your just trying to make a point mate

It's still a contradiction in terms though, when I fly the sim myself I don't think "die you Nazi s..t!", it's more of a measure of skills, yet when I fly for real I have a completely different attitude, I don't even dare doing manoeuvres that I do in the sim, but I wonder how turning one of the darkest conflicts of human kind in a sim is actually doing us any good..


I was thinking about this watching the latest Batman a few nights ago: Batman used to be a super-hero and his reality was a bit dystopian, and there was an element of surrealism to it. Nowadays they're desperately trying to make as realistic as possible, even when it's not strictly necessary, and in a way they're kinda doing more harm than good to our society. Fiction has become a perfect portrayal of reality, and if back in the days there used to be some non-written rules about keeping decency and strong images outside the mass stream communication, nowadays it's ALL about it.
And no, not all people can discern fiction from reality apparently, surely not 24 years old that rig their house with explosives and go on a shooting rampage killing people randomly. THAT is the stuff to worry about, the signs that the problem with society is alienation, not firearms.

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

It's still a contradiction in terms though, when I fly the sim myself I don't think "die you Nazi s..t!", it's more of a measure of skills, yet when I fly for real I have a completely different attitude, I don't even dare doing manoeuvres that I do in the sim, but I wonder how turning one of the darkest conflicts of human kind in a sim is actually doing us any good..


I was thinking about this watching the latest Batman a few nights ago: Batman used to be a super-hero and his reality was a bit dystopian, and there was an element of surrealism to it. Nowadays they're desperately trying to make as realistic as possible, even when it's not strictly necessary, and in a way they're kinda doing more harm than good to our society. Fiction has become a perfect portrayal of reality, and if back in the days there used to be some non-written rules about keeping decency and strong images outside the mass stream communication, nowadays it's ALL about it.
And no, not all people can discern fiction from reality apparently, surely not 24 years old that rig their house with explosives and go on a shooting rampage killing people randomly. THAT is the stuff to worry about, the signs that the problem with society is alienation, not firearms.

Contradictions in terms? That I want gun control but can enjoy action movies and enjoy flying combat sim? I see no contradiction there at all mate.. naaah sorry mate
I would say at least 98% of all Swedes are FOR our regulations and gun laws... does that mean they/we can't enjoy a good action movie or play brainless 1st personn shooters? naaah

Sure, there are nuts who cannot discern fiction from facts.. like this dude who thought he was the Joker.. and a great example of why gun control is important... a necessity even. AND as you say; alienation... and/or medical healthcare (phyciatric treatment) in this case. ( too bad if you or your family can't afford it but that is another topic... )

I think is still boils down to; people who are against gun control is against it because it's a matter of principle...(it's a "right" and it is regulated in 2nd amendment)... people who are for gun control seems to me to be more pragmatic. It's up for each and every country to decide, through democratic process, which way to go. I can't see any gun control law beeing introduced in any/many of the US states any time soon (maybe some blue states). Not a chance for a federal law though.

[kendo65]

Given the vehemence of the arguments here on both sides, can I offer a hypothetical question...

There has been a lot of talk about the need for guns to defend oneself/family/freedom from a government gone wrong or bad, with the implication being that the U.S. may at some point in the future (if not already according to some people) be ruled by such a government.

In such a scenario those in favour of gun ownership see themselves as potential defenders of freedom.

Here's the hypothetical bit: supposing that after several more shooting incidents of the kind seen recently a big majority of the US population and both main parties switched to advocating stronger gun control. Supposing that a democratically elected government expressing the will of the majority of the people enacted to enforce these measures.

What do you do? Do you reluctantly admit to the democratic will of the people? In such circumstances you can hardly see yourselves as still upholding freedom and democracy?

(I suppose what I'm getting at is that in Europe there seems to be more of a distrust and fear of loose amalgams of people or organisations that may be armed to the teeth and possess certain political views than there is of democratically elected governments. The general mindset here is that we need good governments to protect the population from whatever rag-bag set of extremists with a grievance that may come along...and that consequently it is wise to limit the availability of guns so that such extremists can not challenge democratically controlled police and armed forces)

[kendo65]

Can i also say that many in the U.S. seem to have extremely low faith in democracy, checks and balances, etc, etc.

If the country was emerging from 60 years of communist dictatorship I could understand more what that was about, but for a country that prides itself on democratic values and freedom there seems to be one hell of a loss of faith.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Can i also say that many in the U.S. seem to have extremely low faith in democracy, checks and balances, etc, etc.

If the country was emerging from 60 years of communist dictatorship I could understand more what that was about, but for a country that prides itself on democratic values and freedom there seems to be one hell of a loss of faith.

THe peopel who have low faith are primarily the hard core right wing extremists (aka republicans). They are the american equivalent of the taliban.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

THe peopel who have low faith are primarily the hard core right wing extremists (aka republicans). They are the american equivalent of the taliban.

That's a bit of a ridiculous comparison but your point is valid. However, I would not say they have a low faith in government, rather a low faith in overwhelming government.

To me the only thing worse than the far right is the far left. That's why I reside near the middle. Neither right nor left, I call it the intelligent zone.

--Outlaw.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Given the vehemence of the arguments here on both sides, can I offer a hypothetical question...

There has been a lot of talk about the need for guns to defend oneself/family/freedom from a government gone wrong or bad, with the implication being that the U.S. may at some point in the future (if not already according to some people) be ruled by such a government.

In such a scenario those in favour of gun ownership see themselves as potential defenders of freedom.

Here's the hypothetical bit: supposing that after several more shooting incidents of the kind seen recently a big majority of the US population and both main parties switched to advocating stronger gun control. Supposing that a democratically elected government expressing the will of the majority of the people enacted to enforce these measures.

What do you do? Do you reluctantly admit to the democratic will of the people? In such circumstances you can hardly see yourselves as still upholding freedom and democracy?

(I suppose what I'm getting at is that in Europe there seems to be more of a distrust and fear of loose amalgams of people or organisations that may be armed to the teeth and possess certain political views than there is of democratically elected governments. The general mindset here is that we need good governments to protect the population from whatever rag-bag set of extremists with a grievance that may come along...and that consequently it is wise to limit the availability of guns so that such extremists can not challenge democratically controlled police and armed forces)

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tk471138

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

If the right to bear arms is God-given, or a basic human right, is there a limit in your opinion to what type of weaponry an individual citizen should be able to own?

(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread)
Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere).

If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom?

Because, after all, nukes dont kill people, people do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer my own question - I'd say the reasonable place to draw the line would be fully automatic military style rifles