Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Wertbag last won the day on July 28

Wertbag had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

862 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Wertbag

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/21/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Auckland, NZ
  • Interests
    MMA, gaming
  • More About Me
    Married father of 2 from New Zealand

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,441 profile views
  1. Certainly and that is one reason that I have trained in martial arts. The possibility of an unarmed confrontation does exist (I've been threatened by homeless people a couple of times, and I've stiff arm tackled a naked man fleeing from police (that was a weird day), but I've never actually ended up in a fight). Perhaps a handful of incidents in my 40 years, so I agree that it is a non-zero chance of confrontations occurring so I do take that into consideration. There is a big step up from unarmed confrontations to life and death confrontations, with such events being so rare as to not be w
  2. I hear this and it makes me sad that people live with such fear in their lives. Depending on where you live that fear may be quite justified. I'm very thankful I live somewhere where such fears are not a reality for life. I can walk the streets at night and feel safe. I can live without guns in my house and have no fear of being in a position where I need them. If I'm confronted by an angry person I can feel safe in the knowledge that they will not be carrying a gun. It is rare to ever be in a life or death situation, as the thing that usually makes situations life and death is the intro
  3. Debated by experts, but certainly that is a perfectly fine choice. Especially if you own a shotgun for any of the many tasks they can be used for (hunting, sports, pest control etc) then using the weapon you already have to defend your home makes sense. Whether it is better than a handgun is debatable. If you want a weapon to carry with you on a day to day basis, then have it available as home defense, then a handgun can do both roles. Having both weapons means higher cost and more training requirements. You also need to consider the less capable people, the unfit, single women, elderly et
  4. Right, its not a yes/no question, its a question of where you draw the line. So not a nuke, but a MOAB? Daisy cutter? Tomahawk? RPG? How much power is too much? You say "private militia" should have tanks, but does that mean any civilian should be allowed one if they can afford it? Should Joe Blogs be able to buy an artillery piece and have it pointed at the white house? With ranges of 70km it would be nigh on impossible to police. The call for complete parity takes you to some strange places with ridiculous power put in the hands of both the good and bad. Its not that c
  5. From the stats I could find there are between 20k-60k private militia members, people who may have received some basic level of training. How many of those would be willing to kill invaders or potentially other Americans if it came to that? So sure, the number is not zero, but the number is an insignificant force when compared to the military power the US already has. And really what is the argument here? That a foe will somehow overcome that worlds most powerful military force and therefore it will fall on civilians to take up arms and win where the professional soldiers could not?
  6. That's getting pretty fantastical... For an attack on America they would need to get passed the worlds most advanced and largest navy, passed the worlds largest and most advanced airforce, then handle the 1.3 million military personnel, before getting to the 450,000 National Guard troops... so sure, a conscription/resistance/gorilla force could be formed, but it seems pretty unnecessary at this point. In fact it could be quite negative, adding in hordes of civilians who have no squad training or tactics, no central command, limited weapon training and no body armour and then your military,
  7. What I'm saying is not to have no weapons, but to have the best weapon for the situation. In the case of riots you may want to defend yourself, your home or your business. In most cases the threat is enough without actually killing, so whether you had a shotgun, a handgun or an AR15 you have escalated the event to a life and death situation, with the hope the criminal will take flight. Defending yourself in an enclosed environment (house, shop etc) is better with a shorter weapon. If you then wish to exit the building and either conceal carry or safely holster when law enforcement arrive, a
  8. One way I look at it is the idea of the right tool for the job. If you are hunting large game then you will absolutely need a scoped rifle, whereas small, fast moving targets maybe better handled with a shotgun. For home defense or personal defense the best weapon is going to be a handgun. While for the zombie apocalypse you are likely to run out of ammo before you run out of targets, so a sword or spear would be a better choice. We have a hunting industry in NZ, with wild pigs, deer, rabbits and other introduced species destroying habitat and putting native species at risk. No
  9. As I said its certainly not zero, but the fact is we have no data on how often it helps verse making a situation worse. As far as an argument in favour of guns, its not a good one. We can say "In some circumstances a gun could stop a situation from escalating" but vague as that is its pretty weak sauce. Very true, but I don't think that was claimed here? I had thought the confusion was people thinking an AR15 literally stood for assault rifle? Certainly wrong. As for video games not being real life, that is obvious but it doesn't make the language used invalid
  10. Can I ask what country you live in? America is certainly unique in the size of its gun culture.
  11. But then you can't have a gun in your other hand, and we all know style points for slow motion dives is the most important thing.
  12. Well that's just great. God's command "have no gods before me" and yet he will punish people who have no idea he exists? Or the people who work on the Sabbath, having never heard what the Sabbath is, are guilty and will be punished for something that they had no way to know was sacred? Just and Merciful my ass.
  13. My thoughts have changed over the years. Growing up in a safe country like NZ I didn't see a need for guns so just saw it as a negative. I now see that as a very narrow view, and my thoughts on guns has changed to "it depends on where you live and the threat that you are under". Due to this I don't see any blanket rules working for everyone in such different circumstances. I don't think American's often get this right, in that many of the people who live in safe areas seem afraid of "what ifs" rather than actually needing such weapons for self defence. If you live in a drug ridden, ga
  14. It's definitely a one way respect thing. They expect you to respect their beliefs and yet you know they would never offer the same courtesy if a Muslim asked them to thank Allah out of respect for their beliefs. A respectful Christian won't ask, a respectful atheist won't interrupt.
  15. The argument that there are no good third party writings about Jesus, while true, is not conclusive of anything as it is rare for paperwork to survive 2000 years. I think we've seen enough cult leaders who can convince their followers that they are god/Jesus/supernatural that it is completely plausible that a physical Jesus did lead a cult at the time, in which case any reports or writings would be highly biased from his cult followers. It is surprising just how little information we have about Jesus. There is the whole missing early to middle of his life and the arguments a
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.