DescentBB

Yes, taking the safe path grasshopper, lets you gracefully back away from a foolish statement.

woodchip wrote:Yes, taking the safe path grasshopper, lets you gracefully back away from a foolish statement.

I stand by it fully. Not backing down one bit. You are making up a 'what if' and it's a bogus one.

I just wanted to chime in and remind everyone that disarming local police forces, and even militaries was part of the original U.N. road-map. The only armed group would ultimately be an international policing force/military. It's insanity, and I would say it was almost blatantly idealist in nature, but there has been no official deviation from that plan that I know of, despite the fact that its adoption has no doubt been a much longer process than expected (which is part of the reason for my "idealist" label).

woodchip wrote:[removed]

[...]

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's insanity, and I would say it was almost blatantly idealist in nature, but there has been no official deviation from that plan that I know of, despite the fact that its adoption has no doubt been a much longer process than expected (which is part of the reason for my "idealist" label).

It's not insanity and there is nothing wrong with idealism. The road to a better future is long and takes time. We all work towards ideals even when they exceed our lifetimes. Personally, I think it's a great idea and very noble.

I don't care how you spin it. You can apply my qualifiers there to yourself as well. The point is that Woody's topic here cannot be the hyperbolic material that it's meant to be, because idealists in high places have already proffered it to the nth degree, and governments have accepted it as a goal. Nice try, Woody, but they're way ahead of you. I maintain that they're not in their right mind. Inasmuch as like-minded people agree with them... I rest my case.