Gun owner poll

[*bfine32*]

I've said numerous times. There should be no restrictions to owning a weapon to maintain in your house; however, I do think there should be a degree of responsibility to remove that gun from your house. These open carry clowns in Walmart make it hard to fight the urge to go up and slap them

[Bengalzona]

I have no problem with owning a gun. And I have no problem with a registry.

What better way to tell folks not to f*** with you and your arsenal, eh? A little free advertising!

Yeah... if they go that route, I want a registry section that is at least several pages long.



Wait! Oh, crap! Do I have to note grenades and land mines on said registry?!?!?!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 08:52 PM)Dill Wrote: People sometimes forget--that ended badly for the Spartan king.

No, it didn't.  He accomplished his goal and delayed the Persians long enough for the successful naval action that prompted the Persian's retreat.  I suppose if you think dying to prevent the enslavement of your countrymen a failure then sure, he failed.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 08:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've said numerous times. There should be no restrictions to owning a weapon to maintain in your house; however, I do think there should be a degree of responsibility to remove that gun from your house. These open carry clowns in Walmart make it hard to fight the urge to go up and slap them

I don't disagree about open carry, I absolutely loathe it and find it entirely counter productive.

(10-03-2019, 09:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I have no problem with owning a gun. And I have no problem with a registry.

What better way to tell folks not to f*** with you and your arsenal, eh? A little free advertising!

Yeah... if they go that route, I want a registry section that is at least several pages long.



Wait! Oh, crap! Do I have to note grenades and land mines on said registry?!?!?!

I can tell you definitively that advertising your gun ownership is a sure fire way to get your house burglarized.  Criminals look for things like "Forget the dog, beware of owner" signs, American flags flying outside (the logic being that those are right leaning people who are more likely to own guns), or basically anything to would lead one to conclude the homeowner owns a gun. Also in areas with a high Asian population they look for shoes on the porch.  Asians are more likely to keep cash in their home and not trust banks.

Criminals breaking into your home are looking for 1a: money, 1b: firearms, 2. jewelry, and a distant 3. easily portable electronics.  They will carry them out of your house in your pillowcases so if you see a person/persons toting an apparently full pillowcase outside a neighbor's home, call the police.  Unless it's Halloween and they're kids, in which case don't. 

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 10:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it didn't.  He accomplished his goal and delayed the Persians long enough for the successful naval action that prompted the Persian's retreat.  I suppose if you think dying to prevent the enslavement of your countrymen a failure then sure, he failed.  

According to this his goal was to stop them...so he did fail.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/leonidas

Quote:Battle of Thermopylae

Under Xerxes I, the Persian army moved south through Greece on the eastern coast, accompanied by the Persian navy moving parallel to the shore. To reach its destination at Attica, the region controlled by the city-state of Athens, the Persians needed to go through the coastal pass of Thermopylae (or the “Hot Gates,” so known because of nearby sulfur springs). In the late summer of 480 B.C., Leonidas led an army of 6,000 to 7,000 Greeks from many city-states, including 300 Spartans, in an attempt to prevent the Persians from passing through Thermopylae.


Leonidas established his army at Thermopylae, expecting that the narrow pass would funnel the Persian army toward his own force. For two days, the Greeks withstood the determined attacks of their far more numerous enemy. Leonidas’ plan worked well at first, but he did not know that there was a route over the mountains to the west of Thermopylae that would allow the enemy to bypass his fortified position along the coast. A local Greek told Xerxes about this other route and led the Persian army across it, enabling them to surround the Greeks. Much of the Greek force retreated rather than face the Persian army. An army of Spartans, Thespians and Thebans remained to fight the Persians. Leonidas and the 300 Spartans with him were all killed, along with most of their remaining allies. The Persians found and beheaded Leonidas’ corpse–an act that was considered to be a grave insult.

After the Battle
Leonidas’ sacrifice, along with that of his Spartan hoplites, did not prevent the Persians from moving down the Greek coast into Boeotia. In September 480 B.C., however, the Athenian navy defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis, after which the Persians returned home. Nonetheless, Leonidas’ action demonstrated Sparta’s willingness to sacrifice itself for the protection of the Greek region.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 11:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: According to this his goal was to stop them...so he did fail.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/leonidas

Mary, Mary, quite contrary, who won the effing war?  Leonidas stayed behind after being betrayed and delayed the Persians.  He could have retreated with the vast majority of his forces, that he ordered away.  He fought a delaying action at the cost of his life to protect his people.  

It's rather telling that two of our farthest left leaning posters view such an intentional sacrifice as a "failure".

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 10:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it didn't.  He accomplished his goal and delayed the Persians long enough for the successful naval action that prompted the Persian's retreat.  I suppose if you think dying to prevent the enslavement of your countrymen a failure then sure, he failed.  

LOL sure, that must be what I think.

Anyway, I don't see where any significant "delay" occurred. A blocking action failed. Possibly the Spartans, with a few hundred unremembered Thebans and Thespians were able to delay pursuit of the bulk of retreating Greek land forces for a day.  Whatever. Land resistance was shattered and ineffective for he remainder of that year. The Persians controlled Boeotia, the Attic peninsula and Phocis. Athens, Thespiae, and Plataea were burned. It wasn't until the next year, 479 BCE, that the Poleis combined enough allied strength to defeat the Persians at Plataea. (Not before the Persians burned Athens a second time.)

Not sure what naval action you are referring to. The battle of Artemisium was occurring at the same time as Thermopylae to protect the land army's flank, but that was pointless once the Greeks abandoned the pass, and ended in a Greek naval retreat when they couldn't sustain any more losses. 

The Persian naval defeat was at Salamis a month later, but that was a rather ad hoc affair won by same forces that had been engaged at Artemsium. I don't see how a "delay" at Thermopylae a month earlier helped the Greeks win that.

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 11:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Mary, Mary, quite contrary, who won the effing war?  Leonidas stayed behind after being betrayed and delayed the Persians.  He could have retreated with the vast majority of his forces, that he ordered away.  He fought a delaying action at the cost of his life to protect his people.  

It's rather telling that two of our farthest left leaning posters view such an intentional sacrifice as a "failure".

How do you judge the success or failure of "sacrifice," or at least military sacrifice. 

Are military sacrifices by definition successful?  Is there any real advantage to thinking they are?

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 11:34 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you judge the success or failure of "sacrifice," or at least military sacrifice. 

Are military sacrifices by definition successful?  Is there any real advantage to thinking they are?

A coward dies 1,000 time, a brave man only once. That's how I define the success or failure of sacrifice. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 11:29 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sure, that must be what I think.

It's what you said.

Quote:Anyway, I don't see where any significant "delay" occurred. A blocking action failed. Possibly the Spartans, with a few hundred unremembered Thebans and Thespians were able to delay pursuit of the bulk of retreating Greek land forces for a day.  Whatever. Land resistance was shattered and ineffective for he remainder of that year. The Persians controlled Boeotia, the Attic peninsula and Phocis. Athens, Thespiae, and Plataea were burned. It wasn't until the next year, 479 BCE, that the Poleis combined enough allied strength to defeat the Persians at Plataea. (Not before the Persians burned Athens a second time.)

Not sure what naval action you are referring to. The battle of Artemisium was occurring at the same time as Thermopylae to protect the land army's flank, but that was pointless once the Greeks abandoned the pass, and ended in a Greek naval retreat when they couldn't sustain any more losses. 

The Persian naval defeat was at Salamis a month later, but that was a rather ad hoc affair won by same forces that had been engaged at Artemsium. I don't see how a "delay" at Thermopylae a month earlier helped the Greeks win that.

Excellent job of Monday morning QB'ing.  I guess with perfect military intelligence Leonidas might have done things differently.  He sacrificed himself to buy time.  Whether you think he succeeded or not the end result was a Greek victory.  I suppose if you view every action in a complete vacuum, which you seem to be doing, then yeah, what a waste.  Or maybe, just maybe the delay affected logistic lines, prevented a more aggressive campaign and bought the Greeks the time needed to win a naval victory that saved their people.  Bottom line is the Greeks won, hence Leonidas did not fail, as his objective was to save the Greek people.

Again, it's rather telling that our far left leaning posters view this self sacrifice as a "failure".  Maybe you're just mad the Persian's lost? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 11:34 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you judge the success or failure of "sacrifice," or at least military sacrifice.

Did it enable your ultimate goal?  If so then success. 

Quote:Are military sacrifices by definition successful? 

Kamikaze pilot says no.

Quote:Is there any real advantage to thinking they are?

When they are, yeah.

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 11:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A coward dies 1,000 time, a brave man only once. That's how I define the success or failure of sacrifice. 

LOL Custer salutes you.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Custer salutes you.

....and I salute him and his men back; along with those from the Light Brigade and others. But I hear Bowe Bergdahl is still being successful. 

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 11:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent job of Monday morning QB'ing.  I guess with perfect military intelligence Leonidas might have done things differently.  He sacrificed himself to buy time.  Whether you think he succeeded or not the end result was a Greek victory.  I suppose if you view every action in a complete vacuum, which you seem to be doing, then yeah, what a waste.  Or maybe, just maybe the delay affected logistic lines, prevented a more aggressive campaign and bought the Greeks the time needed to win a naval victory that saved their people.  Bottom line is the Greeks won, hence Leonidas did not fail, as his objective was to save the Greek people.

Again, it's rather telling that our far left leaning posters view this self sacrifice as a "failure".  Maybe you're just mad the Persian's lost? 

"Smirk" is all you've got here. And you won't provoke me into substanceless and needlessly provocative asides like "telling that our far right leaning posters conflate sacrifice and winning."

Whatever you're doing is certainly not quarterbacking. You've got a story about Leonidas and you're sticking with it. Your complaint seems to be that others aren't falling in line with a political/ideological reading of the story.

The Greek goal was to stop the Persians at Thermopylae.  They and Leonidas did not. But he didn't fail because the Greeks won later?? 

So then you speak of "delay" and time "bought" for a needed victory, like this was Horatius at the bridge, no explanation of how any delay contributed to that. Greek land forces were scattered and, as I said above, never effective again that year. Was the plundering and razing of every Greek city from Boeotia through Attica "delayed" three days?   Less aggressive?

Sure, Greeks eventually won. A year later. That doesn't create a retroactive "win" for Leonidas. Salamis and Plataea saved the Greeks, and Mycale put the nail in the Persian coffin.

This possibility I will grant: The sacrifice of the Spartans and Thespians could have had an effect on Greek morale over the next year, as the former had died so far from home and in service of common defense.  Hard to measure though.  No reason at all, though, to suppose that Greek victory somehow hinged upon Leonidas' stand, on some "delay" he effected.

[Bengalzona]

(10-03-2019, 10:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can tell you definitively that advertising your gun ownership is a sure fire way to get your house burglarized.  Criminals look for things like "Forget the dog, beware of owner" signs, American flags flying outside (the logic being that those are right leaning people who are more likely to own guns), or basically anything to would lead one to conclude the homeowner owns a gun. Also in areas with a high Asian population they look for shoes on the porch.  Asians are more likely to keep cash in their home and not trust banks.

Criminals breaking into your home are looking for 1a: money, 1b: firearms, 2. jewelry, and a distant 3. easily portable electronics.  They will carry them out of your house in your pillowcases so if you see a person/persons toting an apparently full pillowcase outside a neighbor's home, call the police.  Unless it's Halloween and they're kids, in which case don't. 

Yeah, I wasn't really being serious about that. But the information is useful anyway. I had heard that before about people looking for guns when they broke in, but didn't realize it was that high of a priority for them on the checklist.

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and I salute him and his men back; along with those from the Light Brigade and others. But I hear Bowe Bergdahl is still being successful. 

The light brigade now too?  Military error=honor?

Throw Bergdahl in there for some point or other.   Trump too.  And Hillary.

[Bengalzona]

(10-03-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Custer salutes you.

Good ole Custer.

A lot of historians have been revisiting him and Little Bighorn recently.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2019, 12:20 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, I wasn't really being serious about that. But the information is useful anyway. I had heard that before about people looking for guns when they broke in, but didn't realize it was that high of a priority for them on the checklist.

Consider it this way.  Cash is obviously usable for anything, hence it being a slight favorite.  Guns are not only easily traded for cash, they can be used in criminal activity to either acquire more money or to take kill people in a way that, ostensibly, can't be traced back to you.  Hence, for criminals, guns are almost equally on par with money.

Also, I knew you weren't being completely serious.

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 12:26 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Good ole Custer.

A lot of historians have been revisiting him and Little Bighorn recently.

I used to live there, at the Crow Agency.  Went back for my HS reunion last month.

When I was in HS kids used to drive up there and park.

Now you have to pay to get onto the battlefield and it's closed at night.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2019, 12:22 AM)Dill Wrote: The light brigade now too?  Military error=honor?

Throw Bergdahl in there for some point or other.   Trump too.  And Hillary.

Nah, you asked what makes a sacrifice successful or a failure. A true sacrifice is always successful. So yeah.. true sacrifice=honor. As to "throwing Bergdahl in there" I leave it to you to figure out.