I probably wasn't too clear in my original post, but I agree with your insite to a point.
The great pics of all the weapons over history, have never stopped a determined force.
In Vietnam we faced Viet Cong with Mosins, Bow and arrows, simple IED's, AK's, and other primative weapons, most of the time we beat their ass, but sometimes they beat us with simple weapons that were the greatest. Booby traps, IED's, bungee pits, sharpened bamboo laced with human excrement to cause infection, and the list goes on.
In Iraq, the greatest amount of casualities came from IED's, planted by insurgents. Yeah, once they planted them, we could find and kill them with our technology, but we had dead people. They had no techology.
Keep in mind that a lot of these "feel good" video's of the kill shots in the sand box are reproductions of video games. They sound real but they are not.
Ask Russians what they think of the Enfield rifle.
If I were in a militia group it would be called humans. There would be no fighting within the group and our goal would be to colonize space to spread our human assets ensureing the survival of the human race. There would be nothing against humans of different colors cause we are all humans. We do not start fights but enemys of the human race will be met with resistance. Laws will be followed without exception but changed ASAP if they are unconstitutional or harmful against the human race. All members must know the difference between right and wrong, will not push their imaginary gods upon other humans, and will always display proper trigger control when handling firearms. What do you guys think, does this sound better than the idiots on the TV show or am I an idiot for believing humans can help each other out and get along without trying to control one another?
No personal disrespect meant to you but you sound like every arm-chair philosopher I ever heard in college. "If only it was done my way and everyone thought like me then all would work wonderfully"...sigh... We would have respect for all, except for anyone who is dumb enough to think something of which I don't approve (take your pick - God concepts, militant atheism, lack of empathy for the poor, too much empathy for the poor, etc.)
No, we have a pretty reasonable system right now that allows reasonable compromises between people of differing views without trying to plumb the depths of what motivates their thoughts. The main thing we need to do is stop trying to legislate many aspects of private behavior - that is how conflict develops. Legislate where needed to maintain public order and that's about it. There is a need for government action but we have gotten looney about how many laws we have and how far-reaching they are.
Having said the above, I acknowledge that there will still be controversies (example, abortion - is it a woman's freedom issue or the saving an innocent life, etc. - not trying to start an argument just pointing out an easy example) Ahhh, how I long for the days of opining about the better world I could build if only....
Last edited:
YOU are already pushing YOUR lack of belief in God by saying that my God is "imaginary". Shows lack of respect for my beliefs, so your utopia is already doomed to failure.
I don't think you should not believe in god, you should make that choice for yourself. Let me read your bible and listen to your beliefs but just because you say so doesn't mean I'll believe it. These books were written by men that in some cases believe the earth was flat. If you aren't hurting other humans you can believe what you want, doesn't make it true or fake. I respect your belief in god I just choose not to believe, respect that. Imaginary probably isn't the best word but i'm not the best speaker. Utopia is far from the best word either, at least in our lifetimes. Thank you for your opinion.
So...uhhh...how's the weather in Colorado?
