Views on gun rights?

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, i have this personal difficulty trying to rationalize either banning/restricting guns or letting them be free for everyone to have.
personally, i believe that a person/community has the right to defend itself. but it is taken out of context and mostly just helps right-wingers. and in the 2nd amendment of the [U.S.]constitution, whatever it may i say, the right to do so allows us protection from the state. On the other hand, without guns, things may be safer, and society as a whole may be less belligerent.

what im going to ask, is how people (from Stalinists to Anrarchists) how they feel about firearms in society.

Thankyou.

[GPDP]

The first thing to understand is that guns are not the cause of violence in society. They may be facilitators, but behind the gun is a person. And people are products of their environment. So if the person is desperate and cannot make ends meet as a result of his material conditions, chances are that person will turn to crime. And crime rises proportionally to social inequality. Thus why the most unequal societies are the most violent and crime-ridden.

So taking guns away from people merely sidesteps the real issue at hand, AND it gives the state a monopoly on violence, which, as we have seen, they do not hesitate to use, even in regards to peaceful protesters. So if they can hurt and kill us, it makes sense that they do not want us to be able to fight back. Thus why gun control is a reactionary and statist policy.

To summarize, gun control is not the answer. The end of capitalism and the inequalities it aggravates, as well as the state and its monopoly on violence, is.

[Rusty Shackleford]

"it gives the state a monopoly on violence" is one hell of an answer! thanks!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Guns should be removed from society. They have no place in an Anarchist Communist society. To say you are for peace but allow guns to exist is incompatible.

[Rusty Shackleford]

yet another good argument. i guess the argument that it give the state a monopoly on violence means that we ourselves also have a right be violent is quite counter productive. but nevertheless a good argument.

[GracchusBabeuf]

My view:
O0B_UZNtEk4

[StalinFanboy]

Guns should be removed from society. They have no place in an Anarchist Communist society. To say you are for peace but allow guns to exist is incompatible.
This is incredibly silly. Guns are not inherently violent. They are inanimate objects. It is the context and intent in which the person with the gun uses it.

[STJ]

I think anyone should own a gun if they want one i own several. And if you hippes ever show up at my door and tell me i need to turn them in i will be giving you the bullets first.

[Red Rebel]

You need guns to have a Revolution.

It would be nice to think that the capitalist class would just roll over and die; however, they tend to fight back when radicals are more or less eliminating their means of existence.

[Rjevan]

Well, I guess every criminal who tries hard enough has already a nice arsenal and wouldn't profit that much from legal gun owning so I'm for this option because I think we should have the right to defend ourselves. As I said, the criminals and the police (or should I have said "the criminals, including the police) are armed anyway, so I want to be armed, too.
And as Red Rebel said, no guns = not very successful revolution. ;)

[Pirate Utopian]

Guns should be removed from society. They have no place in an Anarchist Communist society. To say you are for peace but allow guns to exist is incompatible.
First of all who are you to decide if people shouldnt have guns?

Second of all we are not there yet.
Do you really want the police and the army to be the only ones packing?

[STJ]

Well, I guess every criminal who tries hard enough has already a nice arsenal and wouldn't profit that much from legal gun owning so I'm for this option because I think we should have the right to defend ourselves. As I said, the criminals and the police (or should I have said "the criminals, including the police) are armed anyway, so I want to be armed, too.
And as Red Rebel said, no guns = not very successful revolution. ;)

Its a little hard to pull off a revolution when the only people who have weapons are cops and the military.

[Rusty Shackleford]

heres a problem though, most liberals or even people that are moderately left are anti-gun... and all the right-wingers and neo-nazi fuckheads and arsenals that could supply a decent revolutionary army :/
im for defense, and counter-fascism/totalitarianism but when the ones who are in bed with the rulers see a revolution from the left coming *hypothetically* theyd side with them as if they were the an American Mujaheddin.
but this strays form the point about leftist veiws and a bit too far towards hypothetical revolution lol.

please continue talking about this, im glad to see that at least the left isnt a pansy force :D and also, its nice to read about the roles of firearms in a socialistic/anarchistic society

[Bitter Ashes]

The intention of owning a firearm is to facilitating killing. A post revolutionary society, with no external threats, should have no reason for them to continue to exist. Unless of course the Stalinists feel that they have some purging to do... which I think further goes to show that the ultimate goal should be to remove these weapons.

[STJ]

The intention of owning a firearm is to facilitating killing. A post revolutionary society, with no external threats, should have no reason for them to continue to exist. Unless of course the Stalinists feel that they have some purging to do... which I think further goes to show that the ultimate goal should be to remove these weapons.
But even in a post revolutionary society there will still be rapes and murders and a need to stop them which my Colt 45 does very well.

[Bitter Ashes]

But even in a post revolutionary society there will still be rapes and murders and a need to stop them which my Colt 45 does very well.
A group of unarmed citizens would do it even better and would not involve allowing the murderers and rapists Colt .45's in the first place.

[STJ]

A group of unarmed citizens would do it even better and would not involve allowing the murderers and rapists Colt .45's in the first place.
What if the nutter rapist has a machette he is going to hack apart your group of unarmed citizens.

[Bitter Ashes]

Why would he have a machette? Is there a jungle nearby that needs clearing? If so, wouldnt everyone have them? If not, why are workers producing them? And also, if not, whatever tools the local workers use I'm sure would be just as effective. The thing is though, these things are primarily tools and not of the sole intent to kill.

[Pirate Utopian]

A group of unarmed citizens would do it even better and would not involve allowing the murderers and rapists Colt .45's in the first place.
Yeah well that's just shit. How are you gonna make sure they dont get them?

[commyrebel]

You out law guns and the only people with guns are criminals that illegal have them and the government. So think about do you want the criminals and the dam right wing government the only ones that have guns. Heres my answer hell no I going to have a gun. In a anarchistic communist country everyone should have a gun because the are the police so they need to protect themselves from psychos and crazy right wingers

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, it'd be the point when people no longer want firearms either in thier own personal possession, or in thier community. When people accept that they're not cool, they're not sexy and they dont serve any practical purpose for a worker.

[STJ]

Why would he have a machette? Is there a jungle nearby that needs clearing? If so, wouldnt everyone have them? If not, why are workers producing them? And also, if not, whatever tools the local workers use I'm sure would be just as effective. The thing is though, these things are primarily tools and not of the sole intent to kill.


Cuz they tend to carry knives or guns and use threats of violence againist people when doing these crimes.

My primary intent is to kill the worthless piece of shit rapist.

[Bitter Ashes]

You out law guns and the only people with guns are criminals that illegal have them and the government. So think about do you want the criminals and the dam right wing government the only ones that have guns. Heres my answer hell no I going to have a gun. In a anarchistic communist country everyone should have a gun because the are the police so they need to protect themselves from psychos and crazy right wingers
So, your best protection against a "pyscho or crazy right winger"... is to arm them?!?

[Bitter Ashes]

Cuz they tend to carry knives or guns and use threats of violence againist people when doing these crimes.

My primary intent is to kill the worthless piece of shit rapist.
You missed the point....
Remove firearms from these people and all they're left with is workers' tools, which if they're acting in a way that is unpopular with the community, they can always be stopped by a community of greater number who also have workers' tools...

[Rusty Shackleford]

everyone should have a gun because the are the police so they need to protect themselves

kind of sounds like a militia which, if all the people are part of it atleast would not allow for a certain group to gain power because everyone has a chance to defend themselves.

but i think, it sort of makes us all mutually paranoid in that aspect (my argument)

as long as i have a good ol' Kalashnikov ill be fine ^_^

plus, guns may also serve another aspect of society, hunting. i dont want to offend animal rights people or vegetarians but some of us like meat

[STJ]

You missed the point....
Remove firearms from these people and all they're left with is workers' tools, which if they're acting in a way that is unpopular with the community, they can always be stopped by a community of greater number who also have workers' tools...


You keep throwing your flowers at the worlds scumbags and i will keep droping slugs out my Colt 45 at the scumbags.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm not talking about throwing flowers at them. I'm talking about disarming them, especially anyone who deciedes that they should be judge, jury and executionar.
And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

[Pirate Utopian]

You missed the point....
Remove firearms from these people and all they're left with is workers' tools, which if they're acting in a way that is unpopular with the community, they can always be stopped by a community of greater number who also have workers' tools...
It's utopian to think you can totally remove guns from society.

[Bitter Ashes]

Isnt that what some misguided folk say about socialism in general?

[Rusty Shackleford]

anyone who deciedes that they should be judge, jury and executionar.
And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

vigilante action is pretty much out of the question for me, and imo should be out of the question for a community as a whole. but say there is a true threat to a community, if they are not able to defend them selves, they could either end up dead, or exploited for their weakness.

as for hunting, that is true to an extent. because now days there are humane but also very inhumane ways to raise and process livestock.

[Pirate Utopian]

Isnt that what some misguided folk say about socialism in general?
Socialism isnt something you can hide under your matress.

[STJ]

I'm not talking about throwing flowers at them. I'm talking about disarming them, especially anyone who deciedes that they should be judge, jury and executionar.
And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

There fucking scumbags filling up our prisons you can never reform a rapist i say we shoot them all. They are a cancer on this planet.

[Bitter Ashes]

That's for a Judge and a Jury to deciede on in each indivudal case STJ

[STJ]

It's utopian to think you can totally remove guns from society.
In America there are 100 million firearms you will never find them all hippy.

[Bitter Ashes]

It'd be up to communities to root them out themselves. As I said before, when communities deciede that they no longer want weapons in thier community they will get rid of them. And why on earth are you calling me a hippy?

[STJ]

That's for a Judge and a Jury to deciede on in each indiv
udal case STJ
I am the Judge and Jury and do you know why? All the firearms i own which your hippy fingers will never pry out of my hands.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There fucking scumbags filling up our prisons you can never reform a rapist i say we shoot them all. They are a cancer on this planet.

It's always worth a try to reform criminals. The ones that are mentally insane can get help for their mental illness. The ones who commit crimes with a sound mind can be put into labour camps(not Gulag style, don't worry!). If they don't want to work then i'm sure it may deter some people from committing crimes.

[commyrebel]

So, your best protection against a "pyscho or crazy right winger"... is to arm them?!? did you even read my post its said that criminals would still have guns. they would still have guns regardless so why don't we make sure we have guns too.

[LOLseph Stalin]

did you even read my post its said that criminals would still have guns. they would still have guns regardless so why don't we make sure we have guns too.

Of course criminals would still get guns. That's why they're criminals. They break laws to do whatever it is they want. With that in mind, there would be no way to eliminate guns 100%.

[STJ]

It'd be up to communities to root them out themselves. As I said before, when communities deciede that they no longer want weapons in thier community they will get rid of them. And why on earth are you calling me a hippy?
Peace and love = hippy. Keep hitting them with your flowers and hope that changes them.

[STJ]

It's always worth a try to reform criminals. The ones that are mentally insane can get help for their mental illness. The ones who commit crimes with a sound mind can be put into labour camps(not Gulag style, don't worry!). If they don't want to work then i'm sure it may deter some people from committing crimes.


Do you guys want to show me any proof that a rapist can be reformed cuz everything i have read says they cant.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I hate guns but way I see it is this: whatever the government makes available for itself should be available for the public. They dont want us having full automatics then they shouldnt have them either.

[dez]

disarm the bourgeoise
arm the proletariat
destroy the bourgeoise class cohesion
????
Communism

[STJ]

How about we chop the scumbag rapist dicks off and then shoot in the head?

[Vahanian]

Guns are necessary in the struggle against the state because they will never give up power freely.


I hate guns but way I see it is this: whatever the government makes available for itself should be available for the public. They dont want us having full automatics then they shouldnt have them either.

That's a good point but it would never happen because that would mean that they would have an advantage over us.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Guns are necessary in the struggle against the state because they will never give up power freely.


Sure we may need guns to overthrow the Bourgeois oppressors, but there would be no reason to have them afterwards.

[STJ]

But there fun to shoot and a women carrying a AK-47 is sexy.

[Unregistered]

Sure we may need guns to overthrow the Bourgeois oppressors, but there would be no reason to have them afterwards.

“Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary”

[dez]

Sure we may need guns to overthrow the Bourgeois oppressors, but there would be no reason to have them afterwards.


“Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/anyone_who_makes_plans_for_after_the_revolution/164080.html)”
M Bakunin

[Vahanian]

Sure we may need guns to overthrow the Bourgeois oppressors, but there would be no reason to have them afterwards.


To hunt and in case the (insert you views on post revolution "goverment")decides to become opressive

[STJ]

Or to overthrow the opressive goverment.

[Dimentio]

I believe that people should have the right to wear firearms, but that regulation should be decentralised. For example one community could want to conceal firearms.

[LOLseph Stalin]

To hunt and in case the (insert you views on post revolution "goverment")decides to become opressive

I guess you have a point, but if the workers are in control I doubt there would be an oppressive government. They would be acting in the interests of everybody.

[Nils T.]

Why do some people lose all their ability to logic and reason when this topic comes back ? Emotive thinking leads nowhere.

During the last decades, the judicial and political elites of most advanced capitalist countries constructed among their audience the fear of sex criminals. Originating as a conservative opposition to the sexual "revolutions", the movement was then diffused in all the political scene as a way to make people accept easily that they were in danger, needed protectors and that prisons and needles were the solution. Not only against sex crimes, of course. The increased violence of the legal system against the criminals was not discriminating. At least not more than before, the poor were still the main target. The scarecrow was hiding in the back, and only appearing when someone was trying to remember that the original target of the justice was to be the crime and not the criminals, yes, but what about worthless piece of shit rapists? Goldwin should have thought of this one too. It culminated with the zero tolerance politics in the 90 in america and more recently in europe. The evident financial drawbacks and inefficiency of these politics slowed down the evolution, but the unofficial goals were achieved : accustoming the middle class the the sight of the police officers backs, introducing prisons in the everyday life of the poorest class, separating a little more the two, preventing the people to have an objective thinking on penal systems, and more specifically, make sex a threat again now that god is dead.

The topic raised by vacant was about guns regulations, not about who's the worst worthless piece of shit around.



My view is that rights are to be replaced by freedom. Guns are needed for a revolution. But as some said, guns don't kill people. Capitalists are people.
A population that is not revolutionnary won't use guns for revolutionnary purposes. They will use them for the usual survival routine under a capitalist rule. Passion-related crimes and need-related crimes will be more violent, because they can. The common violence of the society will have one more symbolic recourse; the common people will believe that the governement trust them and that the other people threaten them (it's always more difficult to fraternize with the poor when the law recognize you the right to kill to protect your wealth from their need). And gun will be sold and bought. It's absurd to pretend that there's no link between the legal commerce of guns and the illegal one.
Gun control in the USA is needed to decrease the exceptionnal rate of violent acts in this country. But the right to gun ownership won't be suppressed until the population begin to turn revolutionnary; and at this point, it will be suppressed no matter what, as it has been in european countries. That's the reality of a capitalist state : rights are here to serve it, not to endanger it.

After the revolution, I just trust the lazyness of the humanity to end the weapons industries and solve the problem. No one would exchange a good nap for a gun, or this is not anarchy.

[STJ]

I will just say one name for a reason to keep firearms Stalin.

[Nils T.]

Do you guys want to show me any proof that a rapists can be reformed cuz everything i have read says they cant.Any publication treating rapists as an homogeneous group is wrong. And humans change because they can.

[Nils T.]

I will just say one name for a reason to keep firearms Stalin.Stalin died from a stroke. Where were your firearms then ?

[STJ]

Banned by those dicks.

[STJ]

Any publication treating rapists as an homogeneous group is wrong. And humans change because they can.
Show me the proof?

[Nils T.]

Anarchists in kronstadt and ukraine had guns, stalin survived. His guards had guns. His soldiers had guns.
Guns couldn't kill stalin. Your argument is invalid.

[Nils T.]

Show me the proof?
Soldiers rape when at war, not when they're back home with their wives.

[STJ]

Anarchists in kronstadt and ukraine had guns, stalin survived. His guards had guns. His soldiers had guns.
Guns couldn't kill stalin. Your argument is invalid.
Private Citizens couldn't own them you fool.

[PCommie]

My mom has a saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." This is damn true. Guns will always be produced for various purposes. Taking them out of the hands of the people will create class divisions: Gun class and non-gun class. The gun class will also have an advantage over the non-gun class. I'm sorry, but a guy with a shovel is not going to beat a guy with any gun.


And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

Is that a fact? Show me a store where you can obtain deer meat, possum meat, that type thing? Maybe I don't want some turkey that was raised on a disease-filled farm, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and then killed with some poison that's undoubtedly making it into my meat. Maybe I want a wild bird, that I can observe, see it's healthy, shoot it myself, handle it myself, in short, I know it's clean. I've never hunted, but I will probably start (I live in a redneck town and won't have much to do over the summer break).

Those who believe guns should be outlawed are three things:

1. Reactionary - They are generalizing the use of guns.

2. Anti-proletarian - They are saying that only people like the military should have guns.

3. Counter-revolutionary - You need guns to destroy the bourgeoisie, my pascifist comrade.

H&S forever,
-PC

[STJ]

Soldiers rape when at war, not when they're back home with their wives.
So you have no proof to backup your claims.

[Nils T.]

Private Citizens couldn't own them you fool.At first they could. Then it was banned. Then they were used for oppression. What don't you understand in "guns couldn't kill stalin" ?


So you have no proof to backup your claims. That was a perfect proof. Different environments, different behaviours. What's yours, by the way ?

[Nils T.]

Taking them out of the hands of the people will create class divisions: Gun class and non-gun class.Sure that common gun ownership betweens rednecks and minorities in the ghettos will help common class consciousness. Sure that there's cops and gangs members ready to fraternize at every corner.


Maybe I want a wild bird, that I can observe, see it's healthy, shoot it myself, handle it myself, in short, I know it's clean.Hunters never eat sick animals, because they always observe it for 40 days before shooting it and have followed years of studies in veterinary medecine. They recognize easily toxins in the bloodstream, before even killing it. And never would they use toxic metals like, for example, lead, to hunt. Sure.

[STJ]

At first they could. Then it was banned. Then they were used for oppression. What don't you understand in "guns couldn't kill stalin" ?

That was a perfect proof. Different environments, different behaviours.
Had private citzens been able to keep those firearms they would have shot that piece of crap.

Ok you dont have any proof at all try to find a reason and post it.

[Nils T.]

Had private citzens been able to keep those firearms they would have shot that piece of crap.Yeah, but they didn't try. Revolutions are not made with imaginative hindsight, and political assassinations neither.


Ok you dont have any proof at all try to find a reason and post it. You already said that. I'm not sure about you, but I can read.
I found an exception to a rule you made up, and that proves you made it up.

[PCommie]

Sure that common gun ownership betweens rednecks and minorities in the ghettos will help common class consciousness. Sure that there's cops and gangs members ready to fraternize at every corner.

Okay, that just makes no sense whatsoever.


Hunters never eat sick animals, because they always observe it for 40 days before shooting it and have followed years of studies in veterinary medecine. They recognize easily toxins in the bloodstream, before even killing it. And never would they use toxic metals like, for example, lead, to hunt. Sure.

And people that work in chicken farms never pack chickens together so tight they can't move. They never inject them with poisonous chemicals to make them taste better, they never have to mass-execute farms due to diseases brought in by one bird. Sure.

-PC

[Pirate Utopian]

Sure that common gun ownership betweens rednecks and minorities in the ghettos will help common class consciousness.
Grrr... damn evil coons with their hippity hops and their guns... grrr....

Seriously wtf?

[Nils T.]

Okay, that just makes no sense whatsoever.Guns are used for conflicts between classes, not against them.

And people that work in chicken farms never pack chickens together so tight they can't move. They never inject them with poisonous chemicals to make them taste better, they never have to mass-execute farms due to diseases brought in by one bird. Sure.Exactly. If you really care about health, stop eating meat.

[Nils T.]

Grrr... damn evil coons with their hippity hops and their guns... grrr....Seriously wtf?I'm talking about american ghettos, where people are usually from a minority. Has that changed since the last time I was on the continent ?

[Pirate Utopian]

Why do you make it such a special thing that they are minorities though?
As if that means they are more prone to comitting violent acts.

[Invincible Summer]

My view on guns is this:

- They are necessary for revolution
- There must be equal access to firearms, lest we decide to create a weapons hierarchy as PCommie outlined.
- Although they are created for the purpose of harm, its ultimate use is up to the person holding it
- Post-revolution, even if communism has been established worldwide, firearms should still be available to everyone, as there is always the chance of uprisings

[Nils T.]

I wanted to say that a ban on firearms would not add a new separation, because first gun ownership don't create solidarity between populations like rednecks and the excluded minorities (the first two examples of populations with a high rate of guns per individual that came to my mind), secondly because the would-be gun-owning class is the cops, and that the right to own guns don't make them anything less than cops.

Statistically, minorities in the US are more prone to violent acts, for the simple reason that they are excluded from the capitalist system, and that violence is often needed when you're poor. The origin of their exclusion as minorities is partly racism, and partly the need for the system to create and maintain a "dangerous" underclass that justify police surveillance : it takes the more alienated group and alienates it some more. It's always a minority.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, first I'd like to say that while some people may laugh at Heston's claims that the only way guns will be taken away is by prying them off their "cold, dead fingers," that really is the truth. People who are pro-gun tend to be extremely pro-gun and are well versed in their use. Plus, aside from the zombie apocalypse, the subconscious of every gun nut craves nothing more than a Orwellian Govt to try and come get 'em. Don't laugh.

With that said, I do think there is need for some reform. First of all, I wouldn't have any problem if every handgun/assault rifle manufactured had a ballistics test done which was stored in a database. While the ballistics from an individual gun can be changed without about 5 minutes worth of work done (as in, if you were to shoot someone you could make your gun cold again), it would mean that many crimes done out of anger without pre-meditation would be solved immediately.

[Pogue]

Arm the people!

Seriously if the police and army get them why shouldn't we? I'd say we need them. People having access to weapons is vital and I think what happened in Spain in 1936 proves this.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

When they kick at your front door , how you going to come ,with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?

[STJ]

Yeah, but they didn't try. Revolutions are not made with imaginative hindsight, and political assassinations neither.

You already said that. I'm not sure about you, but I can read.
I found an exception to a rule you made up, and that proves you made it up.
Men only rape when in the army not at home with there wives shows your brilliance on this topic:rolleyes:.

When a man rapes a women its not for the sex its to control read some books.

[Nils T.]

Seriously if the police and army get them why shouldn't we?Because ordinary people can also be stupidly violent.
In 1936, most of the insurgents got their arms after the putsch.


Men only rape when in the army not at home with there wives shows your brilliance on this topic:rolleyes:.Well, at least now i'm sure that you can't read. There is a difference between "Soldiers rape when at war" and "Men only rape when in the army". Look closely : that's not the same words.

When a man rapes a women its not for the sex its to control read some books. That simplist view doesn't mean anything about the possibility of a "reform".

[STJ]

Get out of this thread. Your clueless.

[Nils T.]

I'd no doubt like to obey your orders, but I'm still too curious about an explanation for your claims...

[Rusty Shackleford]

i guess its pretty much unanimously agreed upon that since the state has firearms that the people under the state should be allowed equal access to them as well.

They are necessary for a revolution... but! even if weapons were illegal, doesn't mean a revolution cant take place. IRA?
-This bring up another point, if they are outlawed then criminals and the state would have them, leaving the common human being defenseless and caught up between clashes between the state and the criminal element.

The two MAJOR points ive gotten so far. along with other good but minor ones.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Quite simply, an armed population can defend itself. While I am an advocate of armed forces with a cellular structure (which provides the benefits of a unified armed force without the political drawbacks) for the defence of a classless society's interests outside it's territory proper, having the support of an armed insurgency once/if aggressors have forces on a classless society's territory would be invaluable. As Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, an insurgency can significantly bog down a conventional army. Of course, this means that responsible individuals should be allowed possession of more than just handguns and shotguns. As well as manufacturing standard military equipment for the cellular army, research should focus on mass-producing cheap, easy-to-use yet powerful and reliable anti-tank missile launchers, man-portable air defences (MANPADs) and similar weapons.


My mom has a saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." This is damn true.

Indeed it is, as events on our own fair isle demonstrate.

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, I think the IRA is a good example of what happens when individuals who think that they're judge, jury and executioner have access to firearms. Yes, there was controls in place, but they were ineffective. There should never have been a situation where people want access to firearms in the first place when proper democracy reigns and justice is determined by guilt, not by bank accounts. It's also an example of how ineffective even modern firearms can be in bringing any sort of change with only a minority support.

The state and the people should have equal access though. I just happen to believe that zero access for all parties should be a long term goal for a post revolutany society.

[STJ]

Well, I think the IRA is a good example of what happens when individuals who think that they're judge, jury and executioner have access to firearms. Yes, there was controls in place, but they were ineffective. There should never have been a situation where people want access to firearms in the first place when proper democracy reigns and justice is determined by guilt, not by bank accounts. It's also an example of how ineffective even modern firearms can be in bringing any sort of change with only a minority support.

The state and the people should have equal access though. I just happen to believe that zero access for all parties should be a long term goal for a post revolutany society.

Nice to see you back here flower power. Whenever you hippies show up at my front door and tell me i need to turn in my guns i will shoot your asses.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You missed the point....
Remove firearms from these people and all they're left with is workers' tools, which if they're acting in a way that is unpopular with the community, they can always be stopped by a community of greater number who also have workers' tools...


Apart from some wanker always gets hold of a gun and starts shooting people. Thats gonna happen whatever law you pass as the ****s with guns in the UK demonstrate.


I'm not talking about throwing flowers at them. I'm talking about disarming them, especially anyone who deciedes that they should be judge, jury and executionar.

Good luck disarming someone when they are very likely to paint the wall with your brains and you have no way to defend yourself.



And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

Yup buts its the life of a non human and since non humans aint part of my species - I dont really care about them.





There fucking scumbags filling up our prisons you can never reform a rapist i say we shoot them all. They are a cancer on this planet.

Agreed. Especially when racecourses are scarce I see no reason why we should waste them on pieces of shit.


It'd be up to communities to root them out themselves. As I said before, when communities deciede that they no longer want weapons in thier community they will get rid of them. And why on earth are you calling me a hippy?

Yes but the community will fail when someone starts shoot them in the face. Your being called a hippy because your anti gun stance is from some kind of moralistic anti violence thing (admitidly your not as bad as some people here *cough* green apostal *cough*)




Well, I think the IRA is a good example of what happens when individuals who think that they're judge, jury and executioner have access to firearms. Yes, there was controls in place, but they were ineffective. There should never have been a situation where people want access to firearms in the first place when proper democracy reigns and justice is determined by guilt, not by bank accounts. It's also an example of how ineffective even modern firearms can be in bringing any sort of change with only a minority support.

Yes we need majority support , no the revolution will not be pretty and yes there will be some rather brutal killings in such a chaotic situations , theres no point fetishizing them and theres no point loseing sleep over them either.



The state and the people should have equal access though. I just happen to believe that zero access for all parties should be a long term goal for a post revolutionary society.


Yes but thats not realistic unless your planning on using the melted down guns to build crematoriums.

[Nils T.]

Not so unanimously.


since the state has firearms that the people under the state should be allowed equal access to them as wellWhy ? Would anyone pretend that the US people, since they are allowed to buy firearms, are somehow on an equal footing with their states ? I hope not. Are they less alienated by their states than the europeans or japanese ? No. It reminds me this argument I read sometimes, "a government that bans firearms doesn't trust its people". That's exact. But what do the trust of an oppressive government means ?
Only that the population bought the lie that rights are equal to freedom. That possessing guns equates using them.
That them and the state can have an equal access to firearms - oblivious of the awfully twisted reasonning behind that idea. Equality between individuals and a modern state...
The "equal access to firearms" is a fantasm that grows on a rotting lie.

I don't think we can have a non-violent revolution. I don't think either that in our wealthy countries we can have a violent revolution. But the gun rights issue has nothing to do with the revolution. Rights are one of the structures that uphold the liberal states, they serve to control and deceive. States that can't trust their population to be satisfied with the property of firearms will drop this right to preserve the right to property of less politically-versatile means of constraint. Before a revolution, guns are outlawed, and we'll have to take them from the army or use less lethal tools for our violence. We can't anyway hope to fight modern armies with handguns, we'll inevitably have to turn parts of them to our side.


if they are outlawed then criminals and the state would have them, leaving the common human being defenseless and caught up between clashes between the state and the criminal element.In a politically attarded population, that's only wrong. Statistics. Violent deaths in advanced capitalist countries where guns are outlawed are far less frequent than where they're allowed (except switzerland, but there's no comparison with the US). In the US, the part of the population owning guns is more in danger of being shot than the rest. Clashes between police and criminals are less dangerous than armed robberies or other initially non-violent crimes that degenerates because people think that their guns stop bullets. And personally I care also for the lives of the criminals : giving people the right to kill to protect their possessions is not really a progressive thing to do.
In a politicallly advanced population, being an outlaw and being a criminal are two clearly separated things.

And I love this quote : while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

[Rusty Shackleford]

@ Nils T.
ok i see i have been refuted rather easily haha. this is a tough process understanding input from the community. what i meant by equality between the state and the people and what i understand of it is on a 1on1 scale. all people are equal, its when tools are used to leverage power against others that creates inequality
i.e. MONEY (i guess im equating guns to money here, but what i mean, is that money can be amassed and used simultaneously, whereas say you have 50 Kalashnikovs, unless youre really creative, you could only fire 2)

also, touche on the part of crime. guns do make it easy for people to just pull the trigger.

[STJ]

Not so unanimously.

Why ? Would anyone pretend that the US people, since they are allowed to buy firearms, are somehow on an equal footing with their states ? I hope not. Are they less alienated by their states than the europeans or japanese ? No. It reminds me this argument I read sometimes, "a government that bans firearms doesn't trust its people". That's exact. But what do the trust of an oppressive government means ?
Only that the population bought the lie that rights are equal to freedom. That possessing guns equates using them.
That them and the state can have an equal access to firearms - oblivious of the awfully twisted reasonning behind that idea. Equality between individuals and a modern state...
The "equal access to firearms" is a fantasm that grows on a rotting lie.

I don't think we can have a non-violent revolution. I don't think either that in our wealthy countries we can have a violent revolution. But the gun rights issue has nothing to do with the revolution. Rights are one of the structures that uphold the liberal states, they serve to control and deceive. States that can't trust their population to be satisfied with the property of firearms will drop this right to preserve the right to property of less politically-versatile means of constraint. Before a revolution, guns are outlawed, and we'll have to take them from the army or use less lethal tools for our violence. We can't anyway hope to fight modern armies with handguns, we'll inevitably have to turn parts of them to our side.

In a politically attarded population, that's only wrong. Statistics. Violent deaths in advanced capitalist countries where guns are outlawed are far less frequent than where they're allowed (except switzerland, but there's no comparison with the US). In the US, the part of the population owning guns is more in danger of being shot than the rest. Clashes between police and criminals are less dangerous than armed robberies or other initially non-violent crimes that degenerates because people think that their guns stop bullets. And personally I care also for the lives of the criminals : giving people the right to kill to protect their possessions is not really a progressive thing to do.
In a politicallly advanced population, being an outlaw and being a criminal are two clearly separated things.

And I love this quote : while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
My god more hippy nonsense i just feel so bad for those poor criminals boohoo :crying::crying::crying:. I dont give a fuck about some piece of craps sad life story. I am 100% behind the Death Penalty i say we shoot every piece of shit criminal is this country.

[Nils T.]

what i meant by equality between the state and the people and what i understand of it is on a 1on1 scale. all people are equal, its when tools are used to leverage power against others that creates inequality But relations between the state and the individuals are not on a 1 on 1 scale. Tools are already in use to oppress people. Guns are almost never used to fight oppression in the US by the individuals who buy them - but the tools that are used to build guns are used daily to oppress the individuals who work for the capitalists that owns them.


My god more hippy nonsense i just feel so bad for those poor criminalsTolerating criminality is hipppy nonsense ? Haha. I wish all hippies were like that.

Edit: now that I think about it, I just can't believe that you weren't trolling. Well played.

[Hoxhaist]

Lenin said "every cook must know how to run the state"
I think he would oppose gun control saying every person must know how to defend the state
an armed and vigilant populace is key in defending the revolution instead of relying on mercenary armies like the capitalists

[STJ]

You keep beating those scumbags with your flowers and hope that it changes them hippy. And i will keep shooting those worthless pieces of shit scumbags with my Colt 45.

[Nils T.]

Can a flower be a phallic symbol too ?

[Vahanian]

Can a flower be a phallic symbol too ?


I think it can but I dont know for sure

[Nils T.]

I'll try it then. Sunflowers should do.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not a gun nut like some people here, but I do understand that firearms have value in the revolutionary stage, and that even when a classless, stateless world has been created, we will still need guns in case some reactionaries somehow got a hold of some and decide to launch a coup d'etat.

They are a necessary evil. Destroying all firearms post-revolution is not realistic nor desirable.

I support equal access to firearms, although I'm not sure if I'm capable of shooting anyone myself. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - you can support the equal access of guns but you don't have to own them nor shoot anyone with them. Equal access is about access, not ownership. If you don't like guns, don't own them, but don't stop other people from owning them.

[STJ]

Great post comrade. If you hippys dont want to own a firearm stay away from them but dont try to stop me from owning them.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Great post comrade. If you hippys dont want to own a firearm stay away from them but dont try to stop me from owning them.

Did you provide evidence for your claim that rapists can't be reformed? Just curious.

I suppose I am a 'hippie' as I believe in peace post revolution. Isn't this desirable for a leftist?

Obviously, weapons are of enourmous value to us due to the resistance we face from the capitalist state. Attempting to undermine their significance is foolish. However, humans have a tendency to misuse what we produce. Arms should continue to exist for defensive purposes only.

[STJ]

Did you provide evidence for your claim that rapists can't be reformed? Just curious.

I suppose I am a 'hippie' as I believe in peace post revolution. Isn't this desirable for a leftist?

Obviously, weapons are of enourmous value to us due to the resistance we face from the capitalist state. Attempting to undermine their significance is foolish. However, humans have a tendency to misuse what we produce. Arms should continue to exist for defensive purposes only.



Keep hitting them with your flowers and hope they change hippy.


What do you losers in this thread not understand about freedom? We leftist are supposed to stand for freedom. We are supposed to stand for people todo what they want when ever they want to. Not hippy lib bullshit.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Keep hitting them with your flowers and hope they change hippy.


What do you losers in this thread not understand about freedom? We leftist are supposed to stand for freedom. We are supposed to stand for people todo what they want when ever they want to. Not hippy lib bullshit.

:laugh:

You gun slingin redneck. OMG my fuckin sides hurt.

[Hoxhaist]

At Tianenmen Square the protesters confronted the Chinese army with flowers and they were run down by tanks and all shot by the army. that is the fate of any movement that does not have the means of self-defense or is willing to accept tremendous loss and many deaths of its members

[OneNamedNameLess]

Nice to see you back here flower power. Whenever you hippies show up at my front door and tell me i need to turn in my guns i will shoot your asses.

Is this what leftists want?

Mindless violence is wrong and we should oppose it. Once again, armed struggle is necessary when it comes to tackling the bourgeois state. I didn't say I wanted to hit them with flowers did I?

[Vahanian]

:laugh:

You gun slingin redneck. OMG my fuckin sides hurt.


I thought i was the only one who enjoyed that wonderful post there:lol:

[OneNamedNameLess]

At Tianenmen Square the protesters confronted the Chinese army with flowers and they were run down by tanks and all shot by the army. that is the fate of any movement that does not have the means of self-defense or is willing to accept tremendous loss and many deaths of its members

Fuck. Read my initial post.

Why shouldn't we struggle to maintain peace in a post revolutionary society though?

It's great witnessing STJ out of chit chat :lol: oh Jesus.

[STJ]

Is this what leftists want?

Mindless violence is wrong and we should oppose it. Once again, armed struggle is necessary when it comes to tackling the bourgeois state. I didn't say I wanted to hit them with flowers did I?
Its what i want todo if i ever see your hippy ass over here.

[STJ]

Fuck. Read my initial post.

Why shouldn't we struggle to maintain peace in a post revolutionary society though?

It's great witnessing STJ out of chit chat :lol: oh Jesus.
Your peace is hippy lib bullshit.

[OneNamedNameLess]

So you promote the use of violence against those who disagree with your perceptions eg pacifists?

As a leftist you should desire a society in which peace prevails. Greed, exploitation, human suffering and so on is supposed to be what you are opposing.

[Vahanian]

Your peace is hippy lib bullshit.


why don't you answer the question instead of just calling him a tree hugger?

[STJ]

:laugh:

You gun slingin redneck. OMG my fuckin sides hurt.
Yes i am and proud of it.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Your peace is hippy lib bullshit.

You sound like some sort of social darwinist.

[STJ]

So you promote the use of violence against those who disagree with your perceptions eg pacifists?

As a leftist you should desire a society in which peace prevails. Greed, exploitation, human suffering and so on is supposed to be what you are opposing.
Go hug a tree you loser.
The problem is you losers in this tread who hate guns.

[OneNamedNameLess]

I don't think there is any conceivable way I can debate with you. I have tried but you have responded with childish outbursts and insults. Good luck in life with that approach.

You have made just over 100 posts in two years on this forum. I believe the chit chat dwelling has had a negative effect on you.

[STJ]

I don't think there is any conceivable way I can debate with you. I have tried but you have responded with childish outbursts and insults. Good luck in life with that approach.

You have made just over 100 posts in two years on this forum. I believe the chit chat dwelling has had a negative effect on you.

I am done wasteing my time talking your hippy lib butt.

I had over 2000 posts that disappered when i got banned from chat RA got rid of everysingle post i ever made.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You know, one thing keeps popping up and I think it's a little bit of overly-romantic, revolutionary thinking.

People armed with guns alone stand 0% chance of overthrowing the ruling establishment of the US. If you think that by arming yourselves an armed militia of workers has what it takes to win open confrontation you are delusional. This isn't 1917 or 1936. Sorry.

I mean, just to demonstrate my point (but only just a little bit), see what happens to this militia:

_OkoWEMCnLQ

-Note, all that you see was done by a dude sitting on his ass in front of a PC. He wasn't aiming a turret, a computer does that.

Kind of like Windows: Point and Click.

The only way I see violent revolution in America as being anything more than a wet dream is if the military is on our side.

[Nils T.]

Violent revolution does not necessarily means civil war. We can't afford to fight the US army, but we'll have to resist the police.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Violent revolution does not necessarily means civil war. We can't afford to fight the US army, but we'll have to resist the police.

Educations is the key to that battle. All that 'engaging the police' is going to do is bring on the SWAT, then the National Guard.

[Hoxhaist]

the army would be reluctant to kill fellow americans and some may be sympathetic if they joined up cause they couldnt pay for college

[STJ]

A guerrilla war maybe possible.

[Nils T.]

And what if the police don't let us educate, given that we want to be teachers ?

Because that seems to be already the case.

[PCommie]

You want reasons for guns? So we can drag the bourgeoisie bastards out back and shoot them. And for Ranma and her friends, we'll add the rapists too. ;)

-PC

[Nils T.]

Sorry, but we can't do that. Capitalists are to be hanged with the guts of eviscerated bureaucrats. No exception.

[STJ]

You want reasons for guns? So we can drag the bourgeoisie bastards out back and shoot them. And for Ranma and her friends, we'll add the rapists too. ;)

-PC
I am down for the shooters job comrade.

[Invincible Summer]

As a leftist you should desire a society in which peace prevails. Greed, exploitation, human suffering and so on is supposed to be what you are opposing.

Yes, this is true. However, guns in themselves are not violent. Sport shooting seems like a great hobby and it's not violent. Shooting other people and random animals is.

Again, it's not the object, it's the user.

[Plagueround]

I'm not talking about throwing flowers at them. I'm talking about disarming them, especially anyone who deciedes that they should be judge, jury and executionar.
And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.

You live in a city, don't you?

[Invincible Summer]

You live in a city, don't you?
I think hunting for sustenance is fine, but then the line has to be distinctly drawn as to what "sustenance" is; is it when a market is more than 1.5 hours' drive away? 2.5 hours?

I think in most cases though, hunting is just a display of human technological dominance over animals.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Educations is the key to that battle. All that 'engaging the police' is going to do is bring on the SWAT, then the National Guard.

a violent revolution seems nearly impossible. free, credible, open education for the masses is whats needed. maybe in a generation or 2 this county would think radically different.

over throw the bourgeois from under them, inundate their politics, their corporations. and so on. think of Cancer, but in a good way.
but this is off the point. this type of discussion belongs in the Action sub.

[Rebel_Serigan]

Education is the key to the revelution but my comrade the door that key fits into is a violent revolution. I wish it didn't have to come to that but in the words of Marx "Nothing in this world changes without violent action" it is a true statement through and through. No matter how educated the people get they will not use any knowledge against someone with a gun. Unless we get so smart we learn telekenisis the stupid people with guns will win, what we need are educated armed rebels, like me. I feel we need weapons in a country seeing as how socialism relys on the people to deffend the country should i9t be attacked. We start with education but end in a haze of muzzel smoke, it will be a hard road, but it is inevitable.

Look up some stuff on Conflict Theory if you want to know more about how Marx viewed armed revelution.

[Plagueround]

I think hunting for sustenance is fine, but then the line has to be distinctly drawn as to what "sustenance" is; is it when a market is more than 1.5 hours' drive away? 2.5 hours?

I think in most cases though, hunting is just a display of human technological dominance over animals.

I'm not understanding why those who's families save money and time by hunting or fishing for their own food should be forced to subject themselves to a market.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And what if the police don't let us educate, given that we want to be teachers ?

Because that seems to be already the case.

Then that is our faulting, not the police. We shouldn't need their means of indoctrination to gather a following. We have to remember that we are supposedly correct about the general way of things, we have that for an advantage. There must be something else that is keeping the numbers of leftists down, and it certainly isn't that everyone is stupid, either.

The police were much more brutal towards supposed Reds back in the day. The schools were much more biased against it, too.

Yet the message seems to have gathered a much more robust following. And now we have means of communication and organization our forefathers could only dream of.

Also, I had many socialist teachers. Like, 75% of them at least. You make it sound like there's a big plot against the Left. I think the Left overestimates itself greatly, that the big plot against it is very much out in the open.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

a violent revolution seems nearly impossible. free, credible, open education for the masses is whats needed. maybe in a generation or 2 this county would think radically different.

over throw the bourgeois from under them, inundate their politics, their corporations. and so on. think of Cancer, but in a good way.
but this is off the point. this type of discussion belongs in the Action sub.

I agree with you. Shit, opening up a community-run soup kitchen for the ever increasing numbers of penny-pinchers (or worse) seems like a much more progressive, useful, and, simply, correct method of gaining popularity than gunning down some cops. Which I simply don't believe accomplishes anything at all.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Well, it'd be the point when people no longer want firearms either in thier own personal possession, or in thier community. When people accept that they're not cool, they're not sexy and they dont serve any practical purpose for a worker.
Obviously you don't own any firearms. I own several and every single one is damn sexy. They are also very cool and super fun to go to the range with some friends. The smell of gun powder and the warm gun is amazing. Like the Beatles said "happiness is a warm gun".

Seriously though I don't understand why you liberals :P are so anti-gun. What do you think they use in revolutions? Also post revolution you will still have knives and bats etc... Honestly I would rather be shot in the head then bludgeoned to death.

Gun laws in the here and now don't work. Everything should be available. We should be allowed to carry concealed. The only people that follow gun laws are the ones that aren't going to start shit. The drug dealers and gangsters don't give a shit about gun laws and the regular person suffers for it.

Check this out I live in a city where there are a lot of gangsters that walk around packing heat. The words I hope to god I never hear are "What set are you from" my reply would be the usual "I don't bang" and then that's when they pull out the guns and start blasting. This isn't make believe it happens all the time here and has happened to friends of mine.

Now it is too bad that I can't carry a pistol with me legally because it could end up saving my life. I follow the rules and I'm a chump for doing it. Others don't and they get the edge on me.

Guns are not only for killing. They are also great fun to go to the range with and make a day of it.

[Chicano Shamrock]

:laugh:

You gun slingin redneck. OMG my fuckin sides hurt.
There's nothing redneck about it... that is just a racist stereotype. Being this anti-gun is just hippie liberal bullshit. As an anarchist I couldn't think of preventing someone from owning a rifle. Who is anyone to tell me that I can't hunt because they think rabbits have feelings. I am not a rabbit I don't give a shit what they feel honestly. I eat meat and as long as someone is not being overtly cruel hunting is great.

I support someones ability to be vegan but fuck anyone if they are taking my guns and preventing me from hunting.



As a leftist you should desire a society in which peace prevails. Greed, exploitation, human suffering and so on is supposed to be what you are opposing.
Since he got fed up with your hippie bullshit I'll take this one. :D

I dearly desire a peaceful society but to think that all violence will be done away with just because we are in a utopian society is nutty. Also having guns does not stop us from having a peaceful society. If the society is going to be peaceful what is the difference of having a peaceful society with guns and having a peaceful society with knives? Both can be used as weapons and neither cancels out peace.

I really don't want to get into a debate about a post revolutionary society because that always leads nowhere but getting rid of firearms sets yourself up for exploitation and genocide. Throughout history what has happened when a group of people that had new weapon technology fought a group of people with sticks? There will always be a need to protect yourself from the random wacko or the ego maniac that convinced a group of people to go bat shit. Charles Manson family anyone?

[Nils T.]

Education is always an indoctrination. In schools or in trade unions.
The something else that is keeping the number of leftists down is that consciousness can't be teached. At most it can be demonstrated.
Ever wondered why the "spontaneous" youth movements in the 60's were more efficient to shake the capitalist society than the militants of the old communist parties with their hours of evening class ?

Marx didn't assign the revolution to the proletariat because it was educated, but because their lives in 1860 did not let any place to the dominant ideology, the reality of their alienation was obvious. The key was organization.
Now the reality of the alienation is concealed, behind house mortgages and other rights to improve the standards of living of the gun industries shareholders.
We don't need to teach what is oppression, we need to bring back (trough not authoritarian means of course) the reality of the class struggle in the everyday life.

Honestly, I'm surprised by your estimation of the number of your socialist teachers. But I was talking about teachers as a general category, not as a profession. People that tell others what to do. Because teachers in schools can be socialists, communists, even anarchists, that doesn't mean much as they are still enclosed in a structure dedicated to ensure the continuity of the state's power. Cellphones and internet may be easily accessible, their communications are still limited by the usual outdated frame.
Notable progress in the state of consciousness of a population are only possible when these limits are transgressed : during a strike led by the workers and not by the unions officials, or a community-run soup open to everyone, for example. And that's why at one point we always have to resist the police. No need to go gun them down, they'll come to us. If not, well, that means we can start building communism now.

[Nils T.]

Who is anyone to tell me that I can't hunt because they think babies have feelings. I am not a baby I don't give a shit what they feel honestly. I eat baby meat and as long as someone is not being overtly cruel hunting them is great.And you should thank me for not pointing out the absurdity of your egocentric reasoning with a more obvious "not like me so don't care" category of individuals.

[Chicano Shamrock]

And you should thank me for not pointing out the absurdity of your egocentric reasoning with a more obvious "not like me so don't care" category of individuals.
If you can't tell the difference between a baby and a rabbit you are daft. I don't eat babies. By the way great way to avoid every point I had. Just wondering though where do you live?

By the way that leads into a joke I like.

What is the difference between bowling balls and babies?



















You can't pickup a bowling ball with a pitchfork!

[ellipsis]

The intention of owning a firearm is to facilitating killing.

Whoa, who told you my intentions. I own guns which I use for sport shooting, not even hunting. However should I ever need to use them in any other way, I would like to have the option of hunting for my own food or fighting fascism.

I recommend comrade's check out the zine Politicians Love Gun Control, a .pdf (http://therevolutionscript.googlepages.com/guncontrol.pdf)of which I host.

I wasn't going to but what the hey I'll post some gun porn. I took this about two years ago.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0xCx5PWyccM/RuxRVoJHuWI/AAAAAAAAAAs/8J4RwtrCuy8/s720/DSC02573.JPG

[Chicano Shamrock]

I wasn't going to but what the hey I'll post some gun porn. I took this about two years ago.


Cool soviet family you got there. Here are a couple of mine.


SAIGA 7.62x39mm - AK style rifle
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a5/BlenderWizard/guns/saigagalil.jpg

MINI 14
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/LBCDEMON/P5200021.jpg


I am going to get this furniture for my Saiga soon.

http://www.saigastock.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=31&products_id=198

[ellipsis]

of the sole intent to kill.
I beg to differ, there are guns are are meant for target shooting, guns that are meant to deter but not wound or kill (doesn't mean they do wound and kill). As somebody once said to me "a gun is simply a tool used to touch things from very far distances."


And there's no excuse for hunting. It serves no practical purpose and any pleasure gained from it comes at the cost of another life. Meat can be obtained humanly in abatoirs. Hunting is only for the pleasure of taking lives.
Tell that to working class family who could really use the dozens of pounds of healthier-than-beef venison, or a free thanksgiving turkey. The best hunters are the ones that kill their game as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Hunting is a means of survival for many poor people. Would you deny anybody, especially the working class and proletariat food to feed their families with? Or perhaps you want them to work a job, i.e. be oppressed to by food from corporations, lining the pockets of the bourgeoisie?

It is clear that you are from the UK, where strict gun control laws have eliminated all street crime and there is no such thing as "knife crime" either and certainly no talk of banning "long pointy knives." Oh and no "IRA" gunmen shooting cops in the streets with illegal guns. Or terrorists (allegedly) blowing up trains. Or driving shitty car bombs into airports. I will not go as far as to call you a hippie with flowers, mostly because I am a hippy with flowers AND guns, but I think you would do well to rethink your position.


And never would they use toxic metals like, for example, lead, to hunt. Sure. The could opt for non-toxic steel, tungten or bismuth rounds as many do when hunting water foul. (Ducks accidentally eat little lead pellets in water, get sick, hunters don't want this) I have actually written a short guide (http://www.leadfreewheels.org/problem.shtml) to "ecological revolutionary preparedness" for what it is worth.

[ellipsis]

Cool soviet family you got there.
SAIGA 7.62x39mm - AK style rifle
I am going to get this furniture for my Saiga soon.

To that soviet-inspired family add a WASR.
The Saiga is essentially a sporterized 100 series Russian AK, more or less one of the nicest current production Kalashnikov made.
How do you like the Galil-style hand guard? Apparently not enough to keep it.

[Bitter Ashes]

You live in a city, don't you?
No actualy. I live in a small town in the middle of the mountains. I cant stand cities. Sorry, but very innacurate assumption.


Obviously you don't own any firearms. I own several and every single one is damn sexy. They are also very cool and super fun to go to the range with some friends. The smell of gun powder and the warm gun is amazing. Like the Beatles said "happiness is a warm gun".

Seriously though I don't understand why you liberals :P are so anti-gun. What do you think they use in revolutions? Also post revolution you will still have knives and bats etc... Honestly I would rather be shot in the head then bludgeoned to death.

Guns are not only for killing. They are also great fun to go to the range with and make a day of it.
I'm ex-military actualy. Believe me, you get mighty bored of weapons after you've been sleeping with one for a while. So, the question has to be asked, why do you have several? That's more than you can ever hope to practically use. I can even understand having two, so you have a backup while you clean the other, but why several? It's not for a practical purpose at all is it? You really do just think that it's cool and that killing people is cool. Well, listen up, I've had it just up to here with this teenage testosterone. It's not cool, it's not fun. You're just a thug.

But as I said before, people have a legitimate reason to have knives and bats and stuff. They're functional tools first and foremost. They dont encourage violence like having a carefully designed tool of death in your possession. I mean, just look at you and STJ. You're both itching to kill people. Would you be so excited about it if you didnt have those weapons?

[ComradeR]

It's been stated before but gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals don't go into gun shops to get guns, they buy them off the black market. An example of how these laws don't work one needs only to look at Australia, the ban on guns has done nothing to deter violent crime (including crimes committed with firearms).
But even ignoring everything else, no revolutionary should support gun control for the sole fact that these laws are aimed at and only effect the working class.

[Bitter Ashes]

On the subjet of taking on a technolgically superior army during a revolution, read Sun Tzu. It can be achieved, but not if you fight in the way that they want you to fight. Plenty of examples of the weaknesses of "superior" forces have been demonstrated with everything from Vietnam, to Stalingrad (check out Pavlov's House in particular). I did quite a long post somewhere else in this learning forum in a topic called "How to repress a resurance of Capitalism" I think it was called.

[scarletghoul]

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Political power should belong to the people, so the people should have guns.

[STJ]

No actualy. I live in a small town in the middle of the mountains. I cant stand cities. Sorry, but very innacurate assumption.


I'm ex-military actualy. Believe me, you get mighty bored of weapons after you've been sleeping with one for a while. So, the question has to be asked, why do you have several? That's more than you can ever hope to practically use. I can even understand having two, so you have a backup while you clean the other, but why several? It's not for a practical purpose at all is it? You really do just think that it's cool and that killing people is cool. Well, listen up, I've had it just up to here with this teenage testosterone. It's not cool, it's not fun. You're just a thug.

But as I said before, people have a legitimate reason to have knives and bats and stuff. They're functional tools first and foremost. They dont encourage violence like having a carefully designed tool of death in your possession. I mean, just look at you and STJ. You're both itching to kill people. Would you be so excited about it if you didnt have those weapons?

You live in a contry where firearms are banned cuz of all you bleeding heart libs out there. The idea of you pulling of a revolution is a joke cuv the only people who have weapons are cops and milliary and they are gonna shoot your asses to pieces. Thank god i live in a country where i can buy firearms and have a chance of pulling off a revolution.

[Bitter Ashes]

Go back to Chit Chat STJ, you clearly dont have a clue

[Communist Theory]

Go back to Chit Chat STJ, you clearly dont have a clue
Don't derail the thread.

[STJ]

Go back to Chit Chat STJ, you clearly dont have a clue
Another clueless hippy i am done wasteing my time talking to.

[Nils T.]

I beg to differ, there are guns are are meant for target shooting, guns that are meant to deter but not wound or kill (doesn't mean they do wound and kill). As somebody once said to me "a gun is simply a tool used to touch things from very far distances."I'm not radically anti-gun, but this kind of hypocrisy is boring. Guns are weapons.


The could opt for non-toxic steel, tungten or bismuth rounds as many do when hunting water foul. (Ducks accidentally eat little lead pellets in water, get sick, hunters don't want this) I have actually written a short guide (http://www.leadfreewheels.org/problem.shtml) to "ecological revolutionary preparedness" for what it is worth.I know that, and most hunters don't care.


It's been stated before but gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals don't go into gun shops to get guns, they buy them off the black market. An example of how these laws don't work one needs only to look at Australia, the ban on guns has done nothing to deter violent crime (including crimes committed with firearms).And as we all know, there's absolutely no link between the legal market and the black market... And criminals are also easily recognisable as such by guns sellers even before they commited their first crime...
By the way, in Australia, guns were used in 16% of the total number of homicides, which makes a global rate of homicide by firearms of 0,31 per 100000 pop. In the US, that's 65% and 2,97 per 100000 pop. The working class don't use guns to defend itself. The middle class use them to protect their possessions. That's makes two positive effects for the ban.


Don't derail the thread. I lol'd.

[Nils T.]

If you can't tell the difference between a baby and a rabbit you are daft. I don't eat babies. By the way great way to avoid every point I had.I didn't see no points that you had. But if you can't tell the difference between yourself and a baby you are daft.

Good joke, but I already knew it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Communism and guns - geting fucked up with no guns.

Choose one.
)

Im not bashing one off to the idea of shooting some women's kid in the face just because he joined the opposing army, I hope i never have to see that happen let alone do that (or be that kid for that matter) but its a sad fact of life that violence overrides chants , speeches and documents sad but its true. If the working class are going to hold onto there power they will need to have guns and to stand up to an external invasion we will need lots of them scattered everywhere not just in depots because the first action of any invading army will be to secure them.

We want a situation where we do not have to worry about how much ammo and weopens we have.

[Nils T.]

On the subjet of taking on a technolgically superior army during a revolution, read Sun Tzu. It can be achieved, but not if you fight in the way that they want you to fight. Plenty of examples of the weaknesses of "superior" forces have been demonstrated with everything from Vietnam, to Stalingrad (check out Pavlov's House in particular).The wehrmacht was not so superior during stalingrad, and the loss rate of the viet cong in comparison to the loss rate of the us army is not really heartening if we have to bring this war home, where there's no jungle and far more soldiers.
Plus, both wars were opposing armies submitted to an authoritarian power. That sure didn't make them able to finish their revolutions.

[Some Red Guy]

Have I posted in this thread or just a similar one? I honestly can't remember but yeah, the hell with gun control. The people needs monopoly on such an important source of power. Guns are not the sourcce of violence and in communism the reasons for crime will be pretty much gone anyways.

[Old Man Diogenes]

My god more hippy nonsense i just feel so bad for those poor criminals boohoo :crying::crying::crying:. I dont give a fuck about some piece of craps sad life story. I am 100% behind the Death Penalty i say we shoot every piece of shit criminal is this country.

You sound like some kind of fucking thug.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Is this what leftists want?

Mindless violence is wrong and we should oppose it. Once again, armed struggle is necessary when it comes to tackling the bourgeois state. I didn't say I wanted to hit them with flowers did I?

Thank you, I have been waiting for someone to set the fucking thug straight.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I'm not a gun nut like some people here, but I do understand that firearms have value in the revolutionary stage, and that even when a classless, stateless world has been created, we will still need guns in case some reactionaries somehow got a hold of some and decide to launch a coup d'etat.

They are a necessary evil. Destroying all firearms post-revolution is not realistic nor desirable.

I support equal access to firearms, although I'm not sure if I'm capable of shooting anyone myself. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - you can support the equal access of guns but you don't have to own them nor shoot anyone with them. Equal access is about access, not ownership. If you don't like guns, don't own them, but don't stop other people from owning them.

I think you've found an excellent compromise, while I don't agree with the thuggish approach of STJ, I agree people should have the right to defend themselves.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Your peace is hippy lib bullshit.

My God I've met less militant Fascists. Peace is not "hippy lib bullshit". Hopefully you'll get caught in the crossfire while your in a gunfight with some 'rapists' or something. I agree with Green Socialist, arms are needed for revolution, but things like equality, freedom, justice and PEACE are goals revolutionaries are striving to promote, not oppose as you are.

[Bitter Ashes]

The wehrmacht was not so superior during stalingrad, and the loss rate of the viet cong in comparison to the loss rate of the us army is not really heartening if we have to bring this war home, where there's no jungle and far more soldiers.
Plus, both wars were opposing armies submitted to an authoritarian power. That sure didn't make them able to finish their revolutions.
Nazi Germany was very much technolgically superior to the Russians where it came to Stalingrad. The Russian armed forces had two things on thier side, overwhelming numbers and the T-34 neither of which was even used that much in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Against that was the Sixth Army. They were quite possibly the best trained and equiped army in the world at the that particular time and the Luftwaffe maintained air supremacy for most of the battle. Despite all this, the Russians won it by bieng bloody clever. Armoured vehicles dont work without fuel. Soldiers do not fight as well when they're hungry, or tired. An enemy that stands still is easier to target than one always on the move. These things were recognised by the Russians and they exploited those weaknesses and won.

Compare that to The Kursk. Roughly similar numbers involved, morale was on the Russians' side after winning at Stalingrad, the 6th army had been reinforced so heavily that it was now mainly conscripts. The battle was won by the Russians, but take a look at the casulty figures and you'll realise how close they came to bieng overrun. So, even tackling a severely wounded force head on came at a collosal cost. Imagine if they'd tried to take them on like that, before Stalingrad. The whole war could have gone very differently if Stalin had challenged the Germans head on in 1942.

As for the Viet Cong, the casulty figures are very difficult to examine. Bear in mind that, unlike the NVA, the Viet Cong were not a uniformed convential army. The leadership was largely decentralised and the sitaution is pretty much left to the United States to declare how many of the civilians they attacked were armed.

[Hoxhaist]

Partisans with guns have been the mainstay of the initial revolutionary armies of peasants and workers like the Red Army

[Sam_b]

Sorry, i've skipped a few pages so this might already be covered, but:



The intention of owning a firearm is to facilitating killing. A post revolutionary society, with no external threats, should have no reason for them to continue to exist. Unless of course the Stalinists feel that they have some purging to do... which I think further goes to show that the ultimate goal should be to remove these weapons.


I disagree on this. The point is that the working class or, in a post revolutionary society, a classless society, should always have access to arms. I would argue most simply that it would be almost impossible to find every firearm in the world and destroy it, but more importantly how would we defend ourselves from the threat of counter-revolution, how would we defend ourselves against certain individuals trying to monopolise power, without weaponry?

Yes, a world without guns sounds nice, but what sounds nicer to me is a sustainable and equipped classless society with the ability to defend itself and its interests in exeptional circumstances. The idea of a classless system is not a utopian ideal and not one that we can regard as smashing the state and everything will be fine. There will be hurdles to overcome and people will work together to resolve them. Be that providing resources for a certain area hit by flooding, or protecting itself against a counter-revolution.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Sorry, i've skipped a few pages so this might already be covered, but:



I disagree on this. The point is that the working class or, in a post revolutionary society, a classless society, should always have access to arms. I would argue most simply that it would be almost impossible to find every firearm in the world and destroy it, but more importantly how would we defend ourselves from the threat of counter-revolution, how would we defend ourselves against certain individuals trying to monopolise power, without weaponry?

Yes, a world without guns sounds nice, but what sounds nicer to me is a sustainable and equipped classless society with the ability to defend itself and its interests in exeptional circumstances. The idea of a classless system is not a utopian ideal and not one that we can regard as smashing the state and everything will be fine. There will be hurdles to overcome and people will work together to resolve them. Be that providing resources for a certain area hit by flooding, or protecting itself against a counter-revolution.

So after we have overcome such hurdles and we have truly established Communism and Capitalism is well and truly dead then why is there any need whatsoever for the gun?

[Invincible Summer]

So after we have overcome such hurdles and we have truly established Communism and Capitalism is well and truly dead then why is there any need whatsoever for the gun?


Realistically, I think it's a bit utopian to totally discount the possibility of counter-revolution.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Realistically, I think it's a bit utopian to totally discount the possibility of counter-revolution.

No i'm not discounting it I am saying after counter-revolution is fought and defeated and we have what we would call our end product.

[STJ]

No i'm not discounting it I am saying after counter-revolution is fought and defeated and we have what we would call our end product.
And whos is gonna turn in there guns because you say to? Cuz i know i wont be.

[ellipsis]

I'm not radically anti-gun, but this kind of hypocrisy is boring. Guns are weapons.

My apologies comrade that my humor bores you, I will try to do better. What did one strawberry say to the other strawberry? "If we weren't so fresh we wouldn't be in this jam." I hope that you find such humor more entertaining

Yes MOST guns are meant to kill are at the very least tools of aggression, i.e. weapons. But MANY are not. Whatever they are "designed" to do, what is more important is what they actually do. My guns do not kill, save for the occasional varmit encroaching on my garden. My guns shoot paper, metal and glass target.


I know that, and most hunters don't care.

Most? Really? what are you basing that on? I don't know either way so I am curious as to your evidence, if you have any.

[Sam_b]

So after we have overcome such hurdles and we have truly established Communism and Capitalism is well and truly dead then why is there any need whatsoever for the gun?

It is exceptionally simplistic to think that there will only be one counter-revolution, there may be more.

Who are you to say when the people overcome such hurdles anyway? An armed populace, if anything, keeps representatives etc in check, and maintains the clear distribution of power.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Ever wondered why the "spontaneous" youth movements in the 60's were more efficient to shake the capitalist society than the militants of the old communist parties with their hours of evening class ?

Compared to the Old Cadre of labor, the New Left accomplished very, very little.

On the one hand, we have minimum wage, a ban on child labor, a 40-hour work week, the weekend, the conception and eventual legalization of labor unions, Social Security, and workers compensation just to name a few of the accomplishments. Also, the old labor block was a staunch force for decades, while the 1960s radicals flamed out within a few years.

The 1960s radicals gave us...what, exactly? An end to the Vietnam War via Richard Nixon?

What I want to see is a movement with a backbone of workers, not students. But that's just me.


Marx didn't assign the revolution to the proletariat because it was educated, but because their lives in 1860 did not let any place to the dominant ideology, the reality of their alienation was obvious. The key was organization.
Now the reality of the alienation is concealed, behind house mortgages and other rights to improve the standards of living of the gun industries shareholders.
We don't need to teach what is oppression, we need to bring back (trough not authoritarian means of course) the reality of the class struggle in the everyday life.Yes, I agree completely. I find it is always much more prudent to focus on the everyday struggle in the face of so much than to try and educate the masses about how their slaves.


Honestly, I'm surprised by your estimation of the number of your socialist teachers. But I was talking about teachers as a general category, not as a profession. People that tell others what to do. Because teachers in schools can be socialists, communists, even anarchists, that doesn't mean much as they are still enclosed in a structure dedicated to ensure the continuity of the state's power. Cellphones and internet may be easily accessible, their communications are still limited by the usual outdated frame.
Notable progress in the state of consciousness of a population are only possible when these limits are transgressed : during a strike led by the workers and not by the unions officials, or a community-run soup open to everyone, for example. And that's why at one point we always have to resist the police. No need to go gun them down, they'll come to us. If not, well, that means we can start building communism now.Point taken, and I agree. The part where the police begin interfering is when one gets people to believe they can take what is their right, as opposed to begging for it like they do today.

[an apple]

I personally could not give a flying fuck about arguing the dangers of a small metal projectile thrusted through the air at thousands of metres per second, let's face it, guns will always be used for purposes other than blowing apart clay poultry.

I think it is in the weapons that are being sold. What need is there for a civilian to own an assault rifle or shotgun? If people are so intent on protecting themselves then isn't it possible to do so with a 9mm handgun rather than an anti-aircraft gun. I don't see the need to blow someone's face off when you can incapacitate them.

As for sport, well that's acceptable, but there needs to be greater control. I don't see much point for people to have a 12 bore shotgun sitting in their apartmetn. If you're in the country and need to protect yourself from nature, then that is fine, but for these suburbian hicks to sleep on sub-machine guns is ridiculous.

Just ask any of the family members of the dozens of schools shootings each year. Kids can walk into their local department store and pick up enough ammo to start World War III.

If there were a revolution, then what is to stop the masses of legal weapons being used for a counter-revolution. Once the revolution has taken place there should be a wide disarmament of specific weaponry (i.e. AK's, shotguns, T-72 tanks) in order to maintain stability.

[Nils T.]

Nazi Germany was very much technolgically superior to the Russians where it came to Stalingrad. The Russian armed forces had two things on thier side, overwhelming numbers and the T-34 neither of which was even used that much in the Battle of Stalingrad.The battle of stalingrad was not won by the resistance of the russians in the ruins, but by the counter attack, notably on the foreign units whose equipment was inferior to the rest of the german army, which stopped reinforcements and allowed the russians to get back the city by simple algebric logic, with a more or less equal number of casualties for both sides.
Urbans areas are always advantaging the defenders, and make tanks and planes less useful. But the technologic advances have provided modern armies with equipments adapted to these situations.
Compare that to The Kursk. Roughly similar numbers involved, morale was on the Russians' side after winning at Stalingrad, the 6th army had been reinforced so heavily that it was now mainly conscripts. The battle was won by the Russians, but take a look at the casulty figures and you'll realise how close they came to bieng overrun.600.000/1.300.000 for the russians, 500.000/800.000 for the germans. That doesn't tell me much, except that the wehrmacht couldn't sustain a ratio killed/losses that was rapidly decreasing towards 1/1.

As for the Viet Cong, the casulty figures are very difficult to examine. Bear in mind that, unlike the NVA, the Viet Cong were not a uniformed convential army. The leadership was largely decentralised and the sitaution is pretty much left to the United States to declare how many of the civilians they attacked were armed.Maybe. But the casualties are still clearly more important one their side than on the side of the south vietman army and far more than on the american side.

[STJ]

I personally could not give a flying fuck about arguing the dangers of a small metal projectile thrusted through the air at thousands of metres per second, let's face it, guns will always be used for purposes other than blowing apart clay poultry.

I think it is in the weapons that are being sold. What need is there for a civilian to own an assault rifle or shotgun? If people are so intent on protecting themselves then isn't it possible to do so with a 9mm handgun rather than an anti-aircraft gun. I don't see the need to blow someone's face off when you can incapacitate them.

As for sport, well that's acceptable, but there needs to be greater control. I don't see much point for people to have a 12 bore shotgun sitting in their apartmetn. If you're in the country and need to protect yourself from nature, then that is fine, but for these suburbian hicks to sleep on sub-machine guns is ridiculous.

Just ask any of the family members of the dozens of schools shootings each year. Kids can walk into their local department store and pick up enough ammo to start World War III.

If there were a revolution, then what is to stop the masses of legal weapons being used for a counter-revolution. Once the revolution has taken place there should be a wide disarmament of specific weaponry (i.e. AK's, shotguns, T-72 tanks) in order to maintain stability.
I own both a 12 gauge shotgun and a AK-47 and the reason why is they are fun to shoot.

[Nils T.]

Most? Really? what are you basing that on? I don't know either way so I am curious as to your evidence, if you have any.Because there is reglementations against it. In france, during the 90s, 250 millions rounds of lead pellets were shot per year.


But MANY are not. Whatever they are "designed" to do, what is more important is what they actually do.Yes. I read somewhere that during the first world war, only 40% (or something like this) of the soldiers actually used their guns to kill. Does that means that guns have nothing to do with war ? No. What is important is what (important things) they do, not what they don't do.

And I prefered the joke about babies.


Compared to the Old Cadre of labor, the New Left accomplished very, very little.I wasn't comparing the youth movements of the 60's with the workers movements of the 20's-30's, that had very little to do with education, but with the "old left" of the 60's-70's, that institutionnalized teaching structures for its militants.

The 60's radicals brought some reforms, mainly in europe where they associated more easily with workers. But it's true that their main realization was not those. They just were the closest we've been of a revolution since the 30's in europe. In north america, they almost achieved to replace the usual conservative slogan "communism is a great idea that doesn't work" with a progressive discourse about desires. And they had fun, too, which is one of the main objectives of the liberation from the capitalist system.

They failed, of course. But the consciousness expansion stuff was not only talks.

[Forward Union]

Militantly support gun ownership and personally feel that people who oppose it should be restricted.

Support for gun restriction is really just pathetic moralism. In practice what you are really supporting is exclusive gun ownership for two select groups, Organized Criminals and the State.

[STJ]

Off to the OI with you damn hippys in this thread.

[PCommie]

Sorry, but we can't do that. Capitalists are to be hanged with the guts of eviscerated bureaucrats. No exception.

No, afraid not. Shooting them will be more fun, and I'm going to stand next to STJ when the time comes, and I'm going to enjoy pulling the trigger, rather than watch a rope do the work for me.


Obviously you don't own any firearms. I own several and every single one is damn sexy.

I'm with you, comrade. Guns are sexy AND cool. I don't know when I feel better than holding a rifle. Unfortunately my mom is so anti-hunting that I've never been.

Bottom line: You come for our guns, you'll want the ammunition too. Well, you'll get the ammunition. You'll get it very fast. About 1100-2000 feet per second. :D

BEUTIFUL goddamn guns in those pics!

H&S (and guns) forever,
-PC

[Nils T.]

Support for gun restriction is really just pathetic moralism. In practice what you are really supporting is exclusive gun ownership for two select groups, Organized Criminals and the State. No. In practice there's always possibilities for people like you to buy firearms. But at least that won't be systematic, and violent deaths rate will decrease.
Of course, there's always the possibility to explain the positive value we give to human life by morals, but in my case that's just because most of the victims would be more useful alive. That's pragmatism.


Shooting them will be more fun, and I'm going to stand next to STJ when the time comes, and I'm going to enjoy pulling the trigger, rather than watch a rope to the work for me.You get to eviscerate and strangle people with the first ones intestines and you'd still prefer to use firearms ? You've got poor tastes when it comes to have fun, you know.

[PCommie]

You get to eviscerate and strangle people with the first ones intestines and you'd still prefer to use firearms ? You've got poor tastes when it comes to have fun, you know.

I imagine we can divide them into two halves, divide one half into two more halves, eviscerate one of the sub-halves, strangle the other sub-half, and shoot the other full half, if that makes sense. ;)

We'll give Ranma42 a ringside seat for the festivities. ;)

-PC

[STJ]

That lib hippy should really enjoy it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i guess i did a damn good job of unintentionally polarizing some of our members haha. although i guess im going to have to agree that firearms are a necessary part of struggle, keeping those in power in check, and so on.

thank you all for posting and debating and so on. feel free to continue comrades

i would like to stress that i did NOT mean to cause any trouble. not all debates can go without casualties, and me being new to the community, i was just very curious about the role of guns. and honestly i was surprised in a good way (that most see guns as necessary, though there are still other means to other ends)

[STJ]

Yes you did comrade.

[an apple]

When will people notice that these are two opposing sides and that there will just be endless fighting with no meaningful outcome...

FUCK GUN OWNERSHIP!

[Chicano Shamrock]

i guess i did a damn good job of unintentionally polarizing some of our members haha. although i guess im going to have to agree that firearms are a necessary part of struggle, keeping those in power in check, and so on.

thank you all for posting and debating and so on. feel free to continue comrades

i would like to stress that i did NOT mean to cause any trouble. not all debates can go without casualties, and me being new to the community, i was just very curious about the role of guns. and honestly i was surprised in a good way (that most see guns as necessary, though there are still other means to other ends)
I would say most of us on this board support bearing arms. The minority that doesn't has underdeveloped politics. They are either truly liberal at heart or they just haven't thought enough about these kind of political theories and practices.

It's silly to think that a "free" society which is what we want would force me to give up my guns because of some douche bags narrow moral outlook on weapons and humanity.


So after we have overcome such hurdles and we have truly established Communism and Capitalism is well and truly dead then why is there any need whatsoever for the gun?

No i'm not discounting it I am saying after counter-revolution is fought and defeated and we have what we would call our end product.
Here is my point of underdeveloped political thought. BK I don't mean it as name calling we are all ever learning but thinking that there will be an "end product" and everything after that will be sunshine and rainbows is unrealistic. Being in an anarchist society does not make mental illness disappear. Have you ever heard of Charles Manson? Some people are just fucking nuts and they like to kill. We will always need to protect ourselves from people that want to harm us.

There is always the chance too that someone could rally troops to try to overthrow our society. Unarming ourselves puts us at a huge disadvantage. Like I said earlier though it does us no good talking about this subject and "after the revolution" at the same time. BK just think more realistically about a future society and less dream worldy.


I personally could not give a flying fuck about arguing the dangers of a small metal projectile thrusted through the air at thousands of metres per second, let's face it, guns will always be used for purposes other than blowing apart clay poultry.

I think it is in the weapons that are being sold. What need is there for a civilian to own an assault rifle or shotgun? If people are so intent on protecting themselves then isn't it possible to do so with a 9mm handgun rather than an anti-aircraft gun. I don't see the need to blow someone's face off when you can incapacitate them.

As for sport, well that's acceptable, but there needs to be greater control. I don't see much point for people to have a 12 bore shotgun sitting in their apartmetn. If you're in the country and need to protect yourself from nature, then that is fine, but for these suburbian hicks to sleep on sub-machine guns is ridiculous.

Just ask any of the family members of the dozens of schools shootings each year. Kids can walk into their local department store and pick up enough ammo to start World War III.

If there were a revolution, then what is to stop the masses of legal weapons being used for a counter-revolution. Once the revolution has taken place there should be a wide disarmament of specific weaponry (i.e. AK's, shotguns, T-72 tanks) in order to maintain stability.
Congrats you win the award for biggest bunch of liberal bullshit in the thread!!! The prize is a 20 round case of .223 ammo. Where should i send it?

The need for a shotgun is foul hunting and home defense. A bullet can go through walls and if you live in a city it might go into your neighbors house. If you use buckshot in your shotgun the buckshot will not penetrate into someone elses house. It is a safer option for home defense.

You talk about banning "assault rifles" but can you tell me the difference between them and a regular rifle. By the way "Assault Rifle" is just term used to scare people. How about you tell me the difference between the 9mm handgun you say is ok and an "assault rifle" like the AR-15(M16) that is chambered for 9mm. Can you? Or are you just filled with capitalist propaganda?

Yeah lets talk about school shootings. Think about the one at Virginia tech a few years ago were some nut killed 30 people at different parts of the campus. Now if the students were allowed to carry on campus they would have been able to stop that fucker way before he was able to get to 30. You are a fucking dipshit for even trying to bring up school shootings. By the way about a year after that the people of Virginia voted that their citizens should be able to carry concealed handguns.

What would stop legal weapons being used for counter revolution? Nothing at all. In the same breathe nothing would stop illegal weapons from being used in a counter revolution. In the meantime why make it that only criminals and the state can bear arms?

Hey I like your random list of specific weaponry that should be banned. It's nice that you can have no knowledge of weapons and still tell people what they shouldn't have. The reason you are even afraid of the things you listed are because of liberal anti-gun anti-working class propaganda. The liberals gun laws don't affect anyone but law abiding working people. Watch these vids please please please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8wpI5_e9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbIIjIFKYYg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZfNOlAvXg

[ComradeR]

The working class don't use guns to defend itself. The middle class use them to protect their possessions.
The middle class? And just what exactly are you referring to as the middle class here? Because from everything I've seen, read and heard says the vast majority of privately owned firearms are in the hands of working class people. You know, the people who don't own any means of production and have to sell their labor for a living. Many of them may be called "middle class" here in the States by confused individuals such as yourself but that does not change the fact that they are working class.

By the way, in Australia, guns were used in 16% of the total number of homicides, which makes a global rate of homicide by firearms of 0,31 per 100000 pop. In the US, that's 65% and 2,97 per 100000 pop.
And yet oddly enough in Australia the number of violent criminal acts (mugging, robbery, assaults, etc.) has steadily increased since the firearm ban.

But at least that won't be systematic, and violent deaths rate will decrease.
This idea that the banning of guns will make a society safer has been proven wrong time and time again. It does nothing to deter violent crime. It only succeeds in disarming the working class.
It's simply shocking to me to see leftists calling for workers to be striped of their weapons. Because like I said in the end thats what it really comes down to. These gun control laws are aimed at the working class and succeed only in striping them of their ability to defend themselves from criminals and the state.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it is in the weapons that are being sold. What need is there for a civilian to own an assault rifle or shotgun?

Defence, and not just against common criminals either. I suspect that any revolutionary or post-revolutionary territory is under the risk of an invasion by external borgeouis forces, and it may not be possible to get any "official" armed revolutionary force into the invaded area in sufficient numbers and/or in sufficient time.


If people are so intent on protecting themselves then isn't it possible to do so with a 9mm handgun rather than an anti-aircraft gun. I don't see the need to blow someone's face off when you can incapacitate them.Pistols are useless against aircraft. A MANPAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MANPAD), on the other hand...


As for sport, well that's acceptable, but there needs to be greater control. I don't see much point for people to have a 12 bore shotgun sitting in their apartmetn.Actually, shotguns are ideal for home defence as lead pellets don't overpenetrate through human targets and are far less likely to penetrate your neighbour's walls.


If you're in the country and need to protect yourself from nature, then that is fine, but for these suburbian hicks to sleep on sub-machine guns is ridiculous.That's funny, when I use words like "hick" I get called classist.


Just ask any of the family members of the dozens of schools shootings each year. Kids can walk into their local department store and pick up enough ammo to start World War III.Actually, I'm pretty sure they can't. What your emotionalist hyperbole fails to recognise is that more people are killed in car accidents than in school shootings, yet nobody is clamouring for cars to be banned for that reason.


If there were a revolution, then what is to stop the masses of legal weapons being used for a counter-revolution. Once the revolution has taken place there should be a wide disarmament of specific weaponry (i.e. AK's, shotguns, T-72 tanks) in order to maintain stability.Do you know what happens to those who beat their swords into ploughshares? They get killed and/or enslaved by those who kept their swords.

No thanks!

[Chicano Shamrock]

To that soviet-inspired family add a WASR.
The Saiga is essentially a sporterized 100 series Russian AK, more or less one of the nicest current production Kalashnikov made.
How do you like the Galil-style hand guard? Apparently not enough to keep it.
Not to mention that the Saiga is Russian made. I actually like the Galil hand guard. I have heard people complain that it isn't long enough for their hands but I don't have big hands so it's fine for me.

The thing about it is that it's not the most visually appealing handguard ever. Plus I like wood furniture over plastic. For the meantime it is fantastic.

[an apple]

Chicano Shamrock my dear friend, when all goes wrong accuse someone of being capitalist!:

"The need for a shotgun is foul hunting and home defense. A bullet can go through walls and if you live in a city it might go into your neighbors house. If you use buckshot in your shotgun the buckshot will not penetrate into someone elses house. It is a safer option for home defense."

Please don't try and use ballistics to try and prove a point in politics.

"You talk about banning "assault rifles" but can you tell me the difference between them and a regular rifle. By the way "Assault Rifle" is just term used to scare people. How about you tell me the difference between the 9mm handgun you say is ok and an "assault rifle" like the AR-15(M16) that is chambered for 9mm. Can you? Or are you just filled with capitalist propaganda?""

I quote the American Heritage Dictionary:

Assault Rifle
n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

Rifle
n. A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

The difference seems pretty clear to me.

"Yeah lets talk about school shootings. Think about the one at Virginia tech a few years ago were some nut killed 30 people at different parts of the campus. Now if the students were allowed to carry on campus they would have been able to stop that fucker way before he was able to get to 30. You are a fucking dipshit for even trying to bring up school shootings. By the way about a year after that the people of Virginia voted that their citizens should be able to carry concealed handguns."

Alright, great idea! Bring in guns onto school campuses. That's bloody fantastic. Minor dispute, out comes a shooter. People lying dead because they insulted the wrong guy.

And I'm sorry I didn't watch your videos, but when I saw the channel's profile picture was an eagle with the American flag on it I knew it was wank.

I know that I'm swimming against the tide here and that any debate I attempt will be fought off with more insults, but it's my view and if you don't like it then tough luck.

[STJ]

I hope all you lib hippys in this thread get your gunless asses robbed. That will change your minds.

[Bitter Ashes]

I hope all you lib hippys in this thread get your gunless asses robbed. That will change your minds.
I think this speaks for itself doesnt it? :thumbdown:

[ZeroNowhere]

I hope all you lib hippys in this thread get your gunless asses robbed. That will change your minds.
This would be an unfortunate direction for this thread to proceed in, and therefore I request that you kindly restrict yourself to adding something substantial or waiting until it is possible to do so.

[Forward Union]

No. In practice there's always possibilities for people like you to buy firearms. But at least that won't be systematic, and violent deaths rate will decrease.

Irrelevant. Even if you could prove that gun ownership increased fatalities I don't care. I do not support a state monopoly on firearm ownership.

Furthermore, it's a statistical folly, and completely divisive and artificial to separate "murder" and "gun-murder". The tool is really irrelevant. Murder may well increase in the absence of firearms, but there will be less shootings, which looks *good* if that's all you are concerned with.

In Australia, homicides have risen dramatically since gun ownership has been restricted/banned.


Of course, there's always the possibility to explain the positive value we give to human life by morals, but in my case that's just because most of the victims would be more useful alive. That's pragmatism.

Must gun victims are dead because they weren't armed. And would have been killed by another weapon if Guns didn't exist.

But all this is irrelevant. The police and military have arms, and that is a big problem. One of the first things Hitler, Mao, and other rulers sought to do was to ban peoples ownership on firearms and monopolise strength. We must oppose these measures whatever the consequences.

[gorillafuck]

That lib hippy should really enjoy it.
STJ, please stop calling them liberal hippies. It makes the rest of us who advocate equal access to gun ownership look bad.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Chicano Shamrock my dear friend, when all goes wrong accuse someone of being capitalist!:

Please don't try and use ballistics to try and prove a point in politics.
You asked what good they were for. They are probably the best option for home defense. Would you rather me use a hunting rifle for home defense that might kill my neighbor?



I quote the American Heritage Dictionary:

Assault Rifle
n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

Rifle
n. A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

The difference seems pretty clear to me.
LOL pretty clear to you? Where is your summary of what that means? There is no difference an assault rifle is ... a rifle. If you had watched my videos you would have seen that the ATF(the body that regulates firearms here) acknowledged that it is near impossible to distinguish an assault rifle from any other rifle.



Alright, great idea! Bring in guns onto school campuses. That's bloody fantastic. Minor dispute, out comes a shooter. People lying dead because they insulted the wrong guy.

And I'm sorry I didn't watch your videos, but when I saw the channel's profile picture was an eagle with the American flag on it I knew it was wank.

I know that I'm swimming against the tide here and that any debate I attempt will be fought off with more insults, but it's my view and if you don't like it then tough luck.
Virginia Tech is a college and it was filled with adults. It was not a playground where children are insulting each other. Furthermore, do you think people are going to try to lead someone on who has a gun on them?

So you bypassed the truth because you saw a countries flag? You know the next video has a cop telling the truth to. I may not like cops but everything he is saying is truthful.

I don't remember insulting you. I said that you were filled with capitalist propaganda. It is true because you have an irrational fear of "assault rifles". These are the guns that the libs attack. The funny thing is they are not super powerful and they shoot less lethal ammo than other weapons that people think are perfectly ok.

[Nils T.]

Gopher, you really don't need to worry. You make yourselves look bad very well. STJ at least is fun, but you all with your crazy blood lust and the stupid "arguments" you throw again and again to try to justify yourselves against reality... I got the impression i'm talking about Irak war with full blown right wingers conservatives.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You talk about banning "assault rifles" but can you tell me the difference between them and a regular rifle. By the way "Assault Rifle" is just term used to scare people. How about you tell me the difference between the 9mm handgun you say is ok and an "assault rifle" like the AR-15(M16) that is chambered for 9mm. Can you? Or are you just filled with capitalist propaganda?Aren't assault rifles banned in Cali?

I've heard that you can't buy a pistol-gripped AK, but one with the conventional grip and stock is perfectly legal. Is that true?


Yeah lets talk about school shootings. Think about the one at Virginia tech a few years ago were some nut killed 30 people at different parts of the campus. Now if the students were allowed to carry on campus they would have been able to stop that fucker way before he was able to get to 30. You are a fucking dipshit for even trying to bring up school shootings. By the way about a year after that the people of Virginia voted that their citizens should be able to carry concealed handguns.Amen.

If Guns are illegal on campus, then only people willing to break the law are going to bring them.

Therefore, you're average gun-owner will not.

Your psycopath colombine kid will not give a fuck what the gun law is, as he's planning on going down anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aren't assault rifles banned in Cali?

I've heard that you can't buy a pistol-gripped AK, but one with the conventional grip and stock is perfectly legal. Is that true?

Knowing the stupidity of the "Assault Weapons Ban", it probably is. A lot of American firearms enthusiasts tell me it is a droolingly stupid law, focusing mainly on cosmetic or secondary features of weapons.

[an apple]

I don't remember insulting you. I said that you were filled with capitalist propaganda. It is true because you have an irrational fear of "assault rifles".

It doesn't matter how 'true' you want it to be, either way you insulted me:

"Congrats you win the award for biggest bunch of liberal bullshit in the thread!!!"
Chicano Shamrock

"You are a fucking dipshit for even trying to bring up school shootings." Chicano Shamrock

It saddens me that in this thread there are people that turn to slander when someone doesn't agree with them.

[PCommie]

I'm really done with this debate. People who support guns for the proletariat are correct. People who call for ridiculous restrictions or oppose them entirely are wrong. I hope you enjoy fighting the revolution with a pitchfork. Maybe if you wrap the tips in flaming, oily rags, you'll live a couple seconds longer than you would without. I am now going to just wait for stuff to happen, and throw in a funny comment when available.

-PC

P.S. (STJ, for Ranma's birthday, we're getting him a Savage model 111F .30-06 Bolt. You with me? ;))

[ellipsis]

Aren't assault rifles banned in Cali?

I've heard that you can't buy a pistol-gripped AK, but one with the conventional grip and stock is perfectly legal. Is that true?


EXACTLY, "assault rifles" are banned in california, but if you look at the pictures posted by chicano shamrock you will notice that the top one a saiga, as I pointed out is a Kalashnikov rifle. to get around the AWB and other import laws, the russians started reconfiguring AKs as "hunting" or "sporting rifles." So while all of the mechanical parts are of an "assault rifle" it does not have a BAYONNETE lug or a pistol grip it is not technically an assault rifle. You heard right if you can put a knife on the end of your gun, it is an assault rifle.

The American hertitage definition provided above is flawed as Assault weapon/rifle is a relative, LEGAL distinction and varies from place to place. from wikipedia "The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban), which expired on September 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_13), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004), defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29), and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock, Conspicuous pistol grip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip), Bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) mount, Flash suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor), or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_launcher), Barrel shroud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud)"

This definition could be used to ban this weapon
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/M1_Carbine.jpg
or this
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j1/rhsikes/2-1.jpg

now do either of those look like "assault rifles" to anybody?

[ellipsis]

I couldn't resist posting this intel of a potential counter-revolutionary.;)
http://taddelay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ar15-21.jpg

[STJ]

Knowing the stupidity of the "Assault Weapons Ban", it probably is. A lot of American firearms enthusiasts tell me it is a droolingly stupid law, focusing mainly on cosmetic or secondary features of weapons.

What a dumbass law it is you cant own pistol gripped assault weapons but you can own finger holed assault weapons. Does this make sense to anyone?

[STJ]

I'm really done with this debate. People who support guns for the proletariat are correct. People who call for ridiculous restrictions or oppose them entirely are wrong. I hope you enjoy fighting the revolution with a pitchfork. Maybe if you wrap the tips in flaming, oily rags, you'll live a couple seconds longer than you would without. I am now going to just wait for stuff to happen, and throw in a funny comment when available.

-PC

P.S. (STJ, for Ranma's birthday, we're getting him a Savage model 111F .30-06 Bolt. You with me? ;))

Yes i am perfect gift comrade.;)

[STJ]

I couldn't resist posting this intel of a potential counter-revolutionary.;)
http://taddelay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ar15-21.jpg
Dear god what the fuck is that!!!

[Rusty Shackleford]

the above picture is that of a battle ready son of a CEO

[STJ]

Yes it is.:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I couldn't resist posting this intel of a potential counter-revolutionary.;)
http://taddelay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ar15-21.jpg

man the harpoons

[JRPS-12]

Well, it'd be the point when people no longer want firearms either in thier own personal possession, or in thier community. When people accept that they're not cool, they're not sexy and they dont serve any practical purpose for a worker.

If you have a firearm, not only are you defending yourself against forces of repression who are using these types of weapons, but you are also ensuring the availability of wild game within your household and community. And fresh meat are excellent items for trade.

[scarletghoul]

I couldn't resist posting this intel of a potential counter-revolutionary.;)
http://taddelay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ar15-21.jpg
We need all the guns we can get

[ellipsis]

Please stop reshowing that picture, its making me sick.

[MarxSchmarx]

Let this be out of what in america is called "left field", but this is a debate that is poisoned by rhetoric.

On the one hand, people say "If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had the right to bear arms, then they would have quashed the opposition". OK maybe.

On the other hand, people say "So every Tom Dick and Harry should have his own nuclear arsenal?"

The solution, it seems, isn't what ordinary people do, but the focus should be on what governments can do. As long as we accept the right of governments to impose their will, there will have to be limits on the arms people can bear. How much limits there should be is an open question, but it seems to me this is more of a technical question rather than a legal/philosophical question.

The discussion, therefore, is only meaningful in the context of a truly stateless society. And in a stateless society of communism, it is not clear to me what reasons there would be to possess a WMD except the occasional hunting rifle or historical artifact.

Indeed, under "perfect communism", I would not trust the sanity of a person who wants to keep Taepdong missiles equipped with functioning nuclear warheads in his garage.

[an apple]

I think this topic is degenerating into aimlessness. People can go on as long as they want but at the end of the day, somebody will disagree.

We can argue for hundreds of posts about the ins and outs of gun control and post up hundreds of pictures of morbidly obese gunmen, but it's clearly not going anywhere.

I think its safe to say that this thread is dying. :(

[JRPS-12]

The whole 'right to bear arms' in the U.S was for the purpose of defending yourself and yours from those that threaten your life. Militias are also justified for this purpose as well and I don't see how people think that there is no need for this in a post revolution society. The inability to defend yourself from an aggressor because someone tells you that you aren't allowed to isn't progressive in any way, as said before it creates a gun possessing class and a non possessing class and only invites misplaced power and oppression.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Aren't assault rifles banned in Cali?

I've heard that you can't buy a pistol-gripped AK, but one with the conventional grip and stock is perfectly legal. Is that true?
It's even more drollingly(as Noxion put it) stupid than that.

According to the law in California "Assault Weapons" are still banned. All AK styled guns are illegal....ish. Although I legally own an ak style gun that is Russian made that I did not own before the ban. If you owned assault rifles before the ban you could have registered them with the state and grandfathered them in when the ban came about.

The law makers here have to put every model and brand of assault rifle that is banned into a list. FORTUNATELY they are lazy swine and have not updated the list in a few years. Since then new brands and models of "assault weapons" have come out which aren't on the list yet. This is where my Saiga AK style rifle comes in to play.

Here you can buy AK's, AR-15's(M16) and a bunch of other assault rifles if you follow the law to a T.

You can't have pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, and other EVIL features... unless you have a fixed magazine. Meaning your magazine can not be removed without a separate tool. A bullet tip counts as a tool under the law. I have no idea how they come to these moronic conclusions but they do.

So you can have stuff you want as long as you jump through many hoops for the state. It's rediculous.



If Guns are illegal on campus, then only people willing to break the law are going to bring them.

Therefore, you're average gun-owner will not.

Your psycopath colombine kid will not give a fuck what the gun law is, as he's planning on going down anyway.Exactly only people who are not willing to lose their life are put into a defensless situation.


It doesn't matter how 'true' you want it to be, either way you insulted me:

"Congrats you win the award for biggest bunch of liberal bullshit in the thread!!!"
Chicano Shamrock

"You are a fucking dipshit for even trying to bring up school shootings." Chicano Shamrock

It saddens me that in this thread there are people that turn to slander when someone doesn't agree with them.
The award I granted upon you was not an insult. You are regurgitating liberal bullshit. I'm not saying you are dumb for it their propaganda outlets are many and they are powerful.

The dipshit one is kind of an insult. It's more of a disgust that you would talk about those that defenselessly lost their lives in the shootings for your political justification. If the people at these schools could have had pistols on them they could have been on a somewhat level playing field and they could have stopped him before he did what he did.

I hope to god that next time something like that happens someone in the class is illegally packing heat and when the shit hits the fan they stop that mother fucker.

[JRPS-12]

People kill other people for trivial reasons, that's right. It's a fact of life. If just one or two of those people in columbine had been packing heat, legally or not, those two dipshits wouldn't have been able to toss pipe bombs on defensless, un-armed students.

[an apple]

But if there were students packing heat at school then who knows what could happen, especially accidentally; I quote Joseph Gutheinz, who is both a criminal justice college instructor and a retired Senior Special Agent:

"Anyone who has ever gone to an indoor pistol range will see ... bullet holes in the ceilings, floor, walls and support beams. The bullet holes were not the target the shooters intended but were due to accidental discharges. Even the best trained with pistols have an off day, and off days can be fatal." (On Wikipedia from the Vernon Daily Record)

In addition to this, some of you are recommending guns in high schools. Kids will be kids. May they be 15 or 18, their minds are similiar. The slightest altercation such as a fist fight or insult could end up with dead students.

I suggest that higher security in schools is neccesary and in the case of universities, their guards should be better armed and ready to respond to an incident.

[Bitter Ashes]

Most "off days" are usualy caused by poorly cleaned automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons. Revolvers and bolt action weapons do not have the issue of runaways, which is the most likely reason for there bieng a grouping that erratic.

[STJ]

Let this be out of what in america is called "left field", but this is a debate that is poisoned by rhetoric.

On the one hand, people say "If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had the right to bear arms, then they would have quashed the opposition". OK maybe.

On the other hand, people say "So every Tom Dick and Harry should have his own nuclear arsenal?"

The solution, it seems, isn't what ordinary people do, but the focus should be on what governments can do. As long as we accept the right of governments to impose their will, there will have to be limits on the arms people can bear. How much limits there should be is an open question, but it seems to me this is more of a technical question rather than a legal/philosophical question.

The discussion, therefore, is only meaningful in the context of a truly stateless society. And in a stateless society of communism, it is not clear to me what reasons there would be to possess a WMD except the occasional hunting rifle or historical artifact.

Indeed, under "perfect communism", I would not trust the sanity of a person who wants to keep Taepdong missiles equipped with functioning nuclear warheads in his garage.
Its about defending yourself againist crime, counter revolutionarys and a oppressive regime.

[Communist Theory]

People kill other people for trivial reasons, that's right. It's a fact of life. If just one or two of those people in columbine had been packing heat, legally or not, those two dipshits wouldn't have been able to toss pipe bombs on defensless, un-armed students.
Well considering the fact guns are not allowed on school premises I think it would have been considered illegally packing "heat".

[STJ]

People kill other people for trivial reasons, that's right. It's a fact of life. If just one or two of those people in columbine had been packing heat, legally or not, those two dipshits wouldn't have been able to toss pipe bombs on defensless, un-armed students.
Had the students had guns of there own they could have shot those pieces of shit. The answer is everyone should carry weapons into your highschool.

[Communist Theory]

Had the students had guns of there own they could have shot those pieces of shit. The answer is everyone should carry weapons into your highschool.
That's an idiotic idea.
What do you do when little Timmy gets too mad because the bully just pushed him a little too hard so he decides to shoot everyone he can before he gets shot by one of the other kids. Or what about in big cities where you have gangs big gang war going down in the cafeteria over who wanted the last cupcake. It would create more problems then it solves.

[STJ]

I couldn't resist posting this intel of a potential counter-revolutionary.;)
http://taddelay.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ar15-21.jpg
Well at least he give us a really big target to shoot at.

[STJ]

That's an idiotic idea.
What do you do when little Timmy gets too mad because the bully just pushed him a little too hard so he decides to shoot everyone he can before he gets shot by one of the other kids. Or what about in big cities where you have gangs big gang war going down in the cafeteria over who wanted the last cupcake. It would create more problems then it solves.
If everyone was armed in highscool there wouldn't be any bulling going on nobody wants to get his head shot off for being a bully. My idea would stop bulling forever.

[Communist Theory]

If everyone was armed in highscool there wouldn't be any bulling going on nobody wants to get his head shot off for being a bully. My idea would stop bulling forever.
I doubt it and while I'm not against the idea of arming the masses I believe children in a largely social setting should not be allowed to carry guns. Also what if you've got a misguided teen that is a neo nazi and decides to kill every minority in his school? I think a appropiate solution to stop school shootings would be to arm at least two teachers in a section of school like two math teachers having guns two social studies teachers having guns and so on and the teachers would have to undergo training so they wouldn't be easily disarmed and be proficiant with their firearm also they would have to undergo psycological screening to make sure they won't be the ones that do the shootings. I know that this wouldn't be a perfect solution but probally be alot better then arming every teen in the school.

[Bitter Ashes]

Had the students had guns of there own they could have shot those pieces of shit. The answer is everyone should carry weapons into your highschool.
Slippery slope until some popular kid shoots an unpopular kid and the kids all rally around in support.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If everyone was armed in highscool there wouldn't be any bulling going on nobody wants to get his head shot off for being a bully. My idea would stop bulling forever.

this may sound a bit odd, but maybe there should be test conditions to test this theory in.

The mututal paranoia in that situation is similar to that of armed civilians and the state. Since the state knows people can fight back with lethal force, they dont impose their will on them as toughly.

Also, what about the American Military-Industrial complex? is it not true that the government farms out contracts to produce all of its military might with the exception of nuclear weapons i assume. A company is by some retarded definition a "person," and in this case which is producing weapons far more dangerous than a 7.62x54 firing scoped rifle. And along that line, PMCs like Black Warter, or Private Security companies upholding laws with weapons but they are still civilians which have special permissions because they are upholding the law.

The hypocrisy there could justify that all epople should have equal access to firearms unless PMCs did not exist and the Gov't Nationalized the entire military industry. giving them a moopoly and gettign rid of that hypocritical argument.

slightly rantish i know but i gave that argument my best shot.

[STJ]

Slippery slope until some popular kid shoots an unpopular kid and the kids all rally around in support.

There wouldn't be any shootings if every single kid was armed no one wants to pull the trigger if the other guy has a gun to. An armed society is a polite society.

[Communist Theory]

There wouldn't be any shootings if every single kid was armed no one wants to pull the trigger if the other guy has a gun to. An armed society is a polite society.
No, actually they are not look what goes on in Somalia or Afghanistan.

[STJ]

I doubt it and while I'm not against the idea of arming the masses I believe children in a largely social setting should not be allowed to carry guns. Also what if you've got a misguided teen that is a neo nazi and decides to kill every minority in his school? I think a appropiate solution to stop school shootings would be to arm at least two teachers in a section of school like two math teachers having guns two social studies teachers having guns and so on and the teachers would have to undergo training so they wouldn't be easily disarmed and be proficiant with their firearm also they would have to undergo psycological screening to make sure they won't be the ones that do the shootings. I know that this wouldn't be a perfect solution but probally be alot better then arming every teen in the school.
That may work.

[skki]

For the most part I agree with the arguments against gun control. I think GPGP summed it up very well. But it's also worth noting that apart from owning guns in the sense of providing a counter-balance to state violence, or possibly overthrowing the state altogether, guns are inherently counter-productive. They are, and always have been instruments of oppression. Invented and manufactured by imperealists to gain an upper hand over less technologically evolved societies. And whilst they can, and should be used as a means to overthrow the imperealist state, they have little use outside of oppressive societies. And will only cause suffering.

[JRPS-12]

No, actually they are not look what goes on in Somalia or Afghanistan.

That's a completely different situation altogether. The somali and afgan people are repressed by brutal warlords and tribes, by people who are actually against arming the average person - unless you work for them. :rolleyes: If the people knew there was an alternative to their situation, and had the means available, there would be no Taliban, or no Mohammed Farrah Aidid.

[JRPS-12]

For the most part I agree with the arguments against gun control. I think GPGP summed it up very well. But it's also worth noting that apart from owning guns in the sense of providing a counter-balance to state violence, or possibly overthrowing the state altogether, guns are inherently counter-productive. They are, and always have been instruments of oppression. Invented and manufactured by imperealists to gain an upper hand over less technologically evolved societies. And whilst they can, and should be used as a means to overthrow the imperealist state, they have little use outside of oppressive societies. And will only cause suffering.

A hammer can be counter productive too, as it can be a tool for building death and labour camps, and thus an instrument of oppression - should hammers be banned too though?

[skki]

A hammer can be counter productive too, as it can be a tool for building death and labour camps, and thus an instrument of oppression - should hammers be banned too though?

Don't be absurd. Hammers were not created for the purpose of oppresion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Don't be absurd. Hammers were not created for the purpose of oppresion.

Neither were guns. In the hands of revolutionaries they are liberating tools.

[skki]

Neither were guns. In the hands of revolutionaries they are liberating tools.

That's pretty much the point of my original post in this thread. I'm just saying they have no purpose beyond that.

[Chicano Shamrock]

There wouldn't be any shootings if every single kid was armed no one wants to pull the trigger if the other guy has a gun to. An armed society is a polite society.
Now this is where I draw the line. I don't think I trust kids enough to carry weapons at school. They do not have the maturity to have the responsibility to carry weapons on them all day imo.

[RedAnarchist]

There wouldn't be any shootings if every single kid was armed no one wants to pull the trigger if the other guy has a gun to. An armed society is a polite society.

That's why you don't get school shootings in Israel.

[STJ]

Now this is where I draw the line. I don't think I trust kids enough to carry weapons at school. They do not have the maturity to have the responsibility to carry weapons on them all day imo.
Make every kid take gun safety classes as well as spending time at the shooting range.

[STJ]

That's why you don't get school shootings in Israel.
See it works over there.

[StalinFanboy]

Slippery slope until some popular kid shoots an unpopular kid and the kids all rally around in support.
Slippery slope is a fallacy.

[StalinFanboy]

That's pretty much the point of my original post in this thread. I'm just saying they have no purpose beyond that.
And hunting.

[Forward Union]

I think personal safety as well. Now that they exist we have two options. No one has them, or we all do. And I can't imagine it is possible to abolish all guns, and the state certainly wont give up it's arsenal.

Look up the statistics showing how few rapes there are in populations with armed women.

Imagine if the women of Afghanistan were all armed...or if all the Jews in Germany had owned assault rifles.

[STJ]

In America there are around a 100 million firearms how the hell are you gonna find them all?

[Bitter Ashes]

STJ. You have made a prime effort to ignore every detail of the posts given in response so far, so I'm probably mad for repeating myself AGAIN!

1) 100 million firearms? I dont plan on finding them, because it'd up to communities to deciede for themselves whether they want firearms in thier community. It's up to them to know who has them and up to them to democratically deciede how to dispose of them if they so deciede. In a communist society, I dont believe that many communities will be that eager to keep hold of thier weapons.

2) Okay, looks like I'm going to have to take the second point down to Ladybird Book level... Communism is a stateless society. Where am I leading with this? Well, your accusations that we'd leave a state armed... when the state wouldnt even exist!

3) At no point did I, or anyone else, suggest taking any of these measures BEFORE a revolution.

4) That bieng said, there are places with tight controls over firearms, like the UK. Are you suggesting for one moment that these places are totaly doomed to never have a revolution? For somebody who calls himself a Marxist, who wrote all this up in England might I add, that kinda contradicts the idea of the inevitable revolution.

[Bitter Ashes]

On a new point, teachers in these schools in deprieved areas cant even teach a significiant proportion of thier class basic literacy. You're suggesting that they'd be capable of teaching the same kids the responsibilities of owning a firearm?

[STJ]

STJ. You have made a prime effort to ignore every detail of the posts given in response so far, so I'm probably mad for repeating myself AGAIN!

1) 100 million firearms? I dont plan on finding them, because it'd up to communities to deciede for themselves whether they want firearms in thier community. It's up to them to know who has them and up to them to democratically deciede how to dispose of them if they so deciede. In a communist society, I dont believe that many communities will be that eager to keep hold of thier weapons.

2) Okay, looks like I'm going to have to take the second point down to Ladybird Book level... Communism is a stateless society. Where am I leading with this? Well, your accusations that we'd leave a state armed... when the state wouldnt even exist!

3) At no point did I, or anyone else, suggest taking any of these measures BEFORE a revolution.

4) That bieng said, there are places with tight controls over firearms, like the UK. Are you suggesting for one moment that these places are totaly doomed to never have a revolution? For somebody who calls himself a Marxist, who wrote all this up in England might I add, that kinda contradicts the idea of the inevitable revolution.

1) Look at the Americans who are posting in this thread they are overwhelming saying we are keeping are guns no matter what. So you dont know us very well.

2( I dont remember saying that refresh my memory?

4) Not unless you have overwhelming numbers on your side the police and the millitary which should be around the year 3,500.

[STJ]

On a new point, teachers in these schools in deprieved areas cant even teach a significiant proportion of thier class basic literacy. You're suggesting that they'd be capable of teaching the same kids the responsibilities of owning a firearm?
Not those retard teachers the NRA already does it over here. I am saying make it mandatory.

[Sean]

If I'm honest, I wouldn't trust myself with a gun, so I would opt out of owning one but that doesn't mean I don't support other people's right to bear arms.




http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

Had to do it. :)

Anyway, while the zero sum solution that STJ is referring to has certain merits, I don't think that the inevitable pedestrian arms race would anything other than madness. I could certainly benefit from proper firearms training (not just target practice) given that the draconian declawing of the Northern Irish people leaves all but paramilitaries and government unable to defend themselves through this means. Hell, we were only allowed firecrackers again in 1996! No joke, google it!

[HoChiMilo]

Guns should be removed from society. They have no place in an Anarchist Communist society. To say you are for peace but allow guns to exist is incompatible.
You know, I completely agree with this sentiment. I'm assuming you're against nationalism, too. See, anarchism and orthodox marxist(e.g. non-stalinist) communism are usually considered internationalist world movements. We have a permanent revolution to fight, my friend. History shows that whenever an egalitarian society springs up when the rest of the world embraces capitalism, the society needs to be defended to the last man or woman.
In the words of the great Boots Reilly "the uzis that were once used to kill each other could be used to serve and protect the brothers and the sisters and the cousins or whatever others". Let me give you a hypothetical situation:
The United States has a successful anarchist/communist revolution. Great Britian still embraces capitalism. The English then come here and try to be all imperialistic again and fight the movement. If someone had a gun to your head and was saying "Accept state capitalism or die" I would hope you'd rather take up arms than submit.
Also, regarding gun-control, how do we eliminate guns? By force, legislation and imprisonment? Not in an anarchist society! The fact of the matter is that guns and other weapons will only be done away with when the ENTIRE planet moves to social anarchism and a "horizontal" society -- one where we all stand side-by-side, as opposed to the "vertically" based government and economic systems in play today where the oppressors and oppressed are constantly in two camps and perpetually at odds with each other.

[STJ]

The one European country i respect is Switzerland where firearm ownership is mandatory and you get the same guns as the millitary.

Every other country over there seems to be full of gun hateing libs.

[Bitter Ashes]

The one European country i respect is Switzerland where firearm ownership is mandatory and you get the same guns as the millitary.

Every other country over there seems to be full of gun hateing libs.
... you mean where they draft everyone and then keep them on as a reserve army?

[STJ]

... you mean where they draft everyone and then keep them on as a reserve army?
When the hell was the last time they fought in a war so the chances of being drafted and then them going to war are zero.

[ellipsis]

Ranma: a little while back you gave thanks to me for this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1364650#post1364650)

"Where is the majority population of the country located? the means of production? the seats of power? What is the countryside like and would it be suitable for guerrilla warfare?

These are some of the questions you must answer before you make the decision to take to the hills or to the slums."

In light of the views expressed by you in this thread, i found this to be bit confusing. Perhaps you care to explain?