@Alessandro,

A while ago I asked you a question and you never tried to answer it, so, I will ask it again can you name just one example of a group not having weapons leading to an advanced society? I suggest you make an attempt to answer as the question is massively relevant to your idea that Asgardia not having weapons will lead to an advanced society and not answering it is you silently admitting that you can not and that it has never happened, will never happen, and the idea itself is incorrect. Also, I am of the opinion based on your arguments that, you are just trying to use the concepts of faith and trust just as a way to garner support for your arguments and that you have no intent to show any faith or trust to your fellow Asgardians. In which case that would make those words hollow when spoken or typed in this case by you. 

What humans need do to before they can build an advanced society is first break free from the grip of their Egos. Then they need to enlighten themselves intellectually and spiritually. The ego is the ultimate sign of ignorance and folks under the grip of ignorance. Are not able to see what truly matters because their connection to their higherself is being blocked. The key to building an advanced society will always be the people in said society!

Honestly you think they are letting idiots join, litteraly I have stated more than once. NON LETHAL, STRICT TEST, AND 2-3 CHECK UPS. did you get that? Hopefully. You seem to ignore the valid points, batons right aleo you have dodged his question. Scarbs your just scared someone will attack you and if you listen to what I say. If a citizen has a weapon they passed a test, a very strict one. Which involves seeing how a weapon would be used in certain areas. I've only had to bring my knife out on someone when they threaten to kill me or jump me, that's only been on 5 occasions in the last 8 years. Bradons is smart and so is Sean and mech, people like us would be trust worthy because we actually know what to do in many situations. So zip it.

And what would terrorist want with asgardia? Hmmm let's see show off their power by attacking or entirely destroying us, benefits of taking over and orbital bombing their enemies, showing that they can be anywhere, and killing as many to show no matter where we go they can go to. Which has been proven through out history, time, and life. I'd rather for fighting then die being useless. You guys won't even allow hand to hand combat training. You wanna be useless in a life or death situation then be so, but is 4 don't, we are willing to do what it takes. I won't let anyone threatened asgardia. All because you think we will be safe, stop dreaming. We won't. Now tell me what's a down side of not having weapons to defend our selves against a attacker, terrorist, or even another government? Brandon? Sean? Mech? I know you know, but does scarab and aleo know? All of you tell me.

@Boone,

Thanks for the compliment but, I still have much more to learn. Also, I want to ask you to exercise more civility when you respond to someone. You can easily and more effectively get your point across just by being civil. I can not speak to what others know because I am not them. Your question would be better directed at the person in question. I can only offer the truth to those who are mistaken for whatever reason

I will remember that. So scarab and aleo, what would we do if we were under attack, a terrorist got on board, or some is attacking people beating them ruthlessly? What would we do without weapons? When for a fact alot of people would run. What's the downside of not having a weapon to neatrilize or apprehend the threat? Simple, more people would like get hurt or killed trying to pin or take them on. So tell me what you relize of the downside of no weapons.

Interesting. Only one person wants to directly answer my hypothetical so far. Maybe it is too complex - allow me to simplify:

Would you knowingly and willingly violate a democratically established law in order to carry a weapon?

@BooneJohn: In the event that a hostile force entered the space station, my priority would be to evacuate my surroundings, ensuring as many people took shelter or escaped as possible, with orders to alert security ASAP (multiple people as messengers helps). If I am unable to call for security myself, I would ensure that the aggressors were contained to the best of my ability. This would, ironically, also mean arming myself as necessary (likely with a blunt object). If I am stuck in the contained part of the station, I would do my best to remain undetected, and only attack if I or someone nearby were in danger. (This boils down to active-shooter training, which prioritizes hiding and escaping) I will point out that circumstances could easily make it too dangerous to rush to the rescue of another, and escape or hiding might be the best option. Attacking the aggressors could also escalate the situation, to the point where they may be unwilling to take hostages.

Additionally, placement within the station, as well as layout, is important. On-board objects, materials, and in-place security measures are important to keep in mind. However, I will point out that without knowing these details, or what hostile forces are likely to show up, hypothetical situations are equivalent to book/show fiction, and hold almost no grounds in reality. As we determine what will be present, only then would it be feasible to entertain what-if scenarios.

@Scarbs: Please understand that lack of replying in a 'timely' manner may not indicate an unwillingness to reply, but the reality that many of us do have family plans, jobs, or other distractions. We are not being paid for our time here, thus are unlikely to spend all our waking moments on these forums.

Now, to answer your hypothetical. If I were to prepare for travel to Asgardia, only to discover that that recent policies have determined that any weapon-like objects will be confiscated, I would ensure that I not bring weapon-like objects with me. This is the same as going through American airport security (So much so that we can only bring small amounts of toothpaste, lest it be an explosive). If there are any objects I need but question the likelyhood of confiscation, I would seek to contact a Security helpdesk to confirm whether the object is permitted. If the object is cleared, then confiscated, I have a security employee I can cite (timestamp, name, and number) to explain the situation. In this instance, security agents will still likely confiscate the object, but not further detain me, or forfeit my citizenship.

Hi Sean,

I hear what you are saying about time. I have a job and family too and, like you, not getting paid for my time here.

I just found it interesting that when debating the issue, responses are usually posted in minutes. After 12 hours of posting my hypothetical, even though other posts in this thread were made, there was only one response. I may have jumped to a conclusion that no-one wanted to answer it or it was too complex. However, it is an interesting observation nonetheless.

Honestly you think they are letting idiots join

As evidenced by your presence, and consistent determination to prove that statement true least of all by continually failing to understand that a weapon is a tool of attack, not defense - regardless of the intended lethality, the precieved need to attack requires addressing. It's largely indicative of the precise reason why weaponry isn't a good idea - before you entertain something as natively hostile to survival as space. Just because you are too simple to see how it can be done, doesn't mean it's not possible. There's lots of examples of things you cannot understand but still they occur - like the sun rising in the morning.

Brandon isn't smart. If you think he's smart then you're a lot dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think highly of you previously. He can't even count to twenty reliably. Over time he has offered some rediculous arguments in the attempt to counter sense, proving that there's little worth to the words that are issued, including researching the topic he's currently demonstrating a monumental failure in understanding will not result in an ability to talk of it without making themselves look completely moronic.

People like you are not trustworthy - Brandon has several times claimed to of not done things they have clearly done, like following me around to be purposefully belligerant - which is a very trustable charactor trait. You can't even be trusted with an electrical tin opener. You don't know what to do in any situation, you can't even compose a coherent sentence.

The downside of no weapons is people like you get to live longer. Because realistically, the concept of someone displaying the level of stupidity you can being armed in space means you're dying first, as a preventive measure. For everyone else's safety.

Hello all,

You'll see above exactly why he was banned. Unfortunately, we have to take severe steps in this case and blocked his account from login. We don't like to do it as we would like members banned from the forum a chance to participate in other Asgardia activities but this community member has not left us any choice.

I am sorry but the ban remains for this community member and his recent actions just add to the list of rule infractions.

Regards,

Rebekah Berg, Lead Community Administratory, Asgardia

@Rebekah,

Thank you for making the belligerent behaviour that resulted in the ban he received clear

A pity. Having read some of his posts in other threads, he had some good ideas, as long as he remained polite and fair. Thank you for handling the situation, Rebekah.

Without looking at everyone's credentials, I doubt any of us can say for certain whether one another are an expert in what we are discussing. We all have ideas, and many of us are young adults without a great deal of workplace experience to pull from. (Though said experience can make some narrowly focused) I do believe that a benefit of the lack of experience can have its benefits, such as the ability to dream, and think outside the box on problems otherwise deemed impossible. So I promote my fellow posters to share their ideas (and yes, even hypotheticals ;P), but also to read broadly. Watching multiple sides of political debates/news, or business transactions, and reading technology and science magazines broadens the mind to empower our imagination. This way, we can better predict what could happen in the future, and understand what is likely, so we may prepare.

Additionally, I'd like to bump one of the previous comments, citing that polite conversation amongst all participants can lead to amazing teamwork, and actually produce far better ideas than individually developed ideas. This is the thought behind think-tanks as well. We have many years before the technologies and plans we discuss now are to be considered as viable decisions. With this time, I hope everyone makes the most of their lives, being happy and eager to learn, so that if and when we decide to reconvene, we can truly create plans that can move forward in business, engineering, and security circles. :)   [we have a lot to learn, and I am eager to see how things shape up]

@Scarbs,

Before answering I want to make it clear that, I had previously not read your hypothetical question. So, I was unable to answer it previously as I had no clue to what it referred. But now that I have I can answer and my answer is sure I would for multiple reasons. 1) I do not agree with the idea of having access to a way to defend myself from others, 2) I have a medical disorder a neurological one and I would be living amongst folks whom I have no personal knowledge of. Which means I would not know who could be trusted and who could not and in my circumstances that is a justifiable reason for me to wish to carry a weapon for defense, and 3) I would feel that my freedom to make my own choices were being taken away and would not like that

Off topic just had two funny captchas NAF AND JET

OK. But can you see the fundamental contradiction in your position? Something declared by a democratically assented law to be illegal cannot also be a right or something you are free to choose to do.

For example, I HATE parking tickets. I personally think that it is the lowest form of societal regulation, purely crafted to raise revenue. That doesn't change the fact that it is a democratically assented law and, as a citizen, I have a responsibility to obey the law.

Rather than a universal ban as the basic principle, leave it to the ship/habitat level.  Each separate habitat can decide for themselves which arms policy they prefer and implement it. Those who prefer an armed populace can choose those habitats. Those with other preferences can similarly choose. 

But what is a weapon? Most days I carry a large multitool that includes a locking blade. This tool is illegal in the UK for example because the blade locks. Other days, I'll carry a folding knife with a locking blade and small multitool. Sort of depends what I see myself doing during the day. I don't carry a knife as a weapon rather because it's just too darn useful in daily life. NASA has issued locking knives to astronauts for all the same reasons. 

http://rayspacestuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/nasa-iss-emerson-specwar-knife-very.html  The "gut hook" tip was for easy opening of MRE style meal packaging. 

http://knifenews.com/knives-in-space/

Are these weapons?

I disagree with you Scarbs because some laws refer to personal issues and no government has the right to make any laws that impose upon those. Which includes the right to defend one's self. Sure, the law might make weapons illegal aboard Asgardia but, what about here on Earth? See the problem with your hypothetical? I would only consider going weaponless in a world where the folks are of the mind to allow that to be done and Earth is not that world. But even then, I collect swords and I have a right to be able to do so, I would not give up that hobby just because someone decided I should have to in order to live in Asgardian borders. It should always be a choice one can make of their own free will. Requiring folks to have to do things in order to be able have have the right of stepping foot in a nation they are already citizens of is the first step towards the creation of a military state, could lead to a snowball effect, and is in contradiction with the Asgardian philosophy of citizens being free to legally do as they please without interference from anyone.

My swords?, Correct they are not ornamental they are functional and while your hypothetical may have offered three choices. I am not one who would violate a law and I have wanted to go into space since I was sixteen. But if my only option were to violate a law because I did not agree with it. I would simply choose to remain on Earth so I do not have to violate said law. I would also likely terminate my citizenship as a whole. In my eyes it would be too much of a risk regarding being subjected to more laws I would consider as unreasonable and would be unreasonable. I have never harmed anyone with a weapon and if I could not possess one even though I can guarantee that it would never be used excluding times when it becomes necessary. I would question those who made such a law, would not trust those who made such a law, and see the need to be able to carry a weapon even more so at that point.

Not to be rude but, satisfying the will of other Asgardians is not my responsibility. Some may not want me to bring weapons aboard but, that really is not my concern and they have no reason to put forth why I should be unable to. I already make it a point to stay out of situations that may make having to use one necessary. The only possible way that could happen is if someone bothers me and brings about such a situation. I said before, I do unto others as I want done to me and that means I cause no trouble with anyone. Besides, it occurs to me that the thing they should be concerned about is the people who cause problems, not those who do not but may possess weaponry.

Hey Scarbs, do you know if the forum allows the uploading of pics?

Got a captcha that spells two different words when written forwards and backwards RAW