Is it true that Anarchists wish to abolish all laws?

[Rafiq]

If so, how will that work out?

Things like rape, pedophilia, ect. will not be against the "Law"?

I'm confused, and excuse my ignorance if I'm far off please, I was just curious to know.

[syndicat]

Brief answer: No. any viable society has to have a system of governance where people make basic rules for their society, and they have to have a way to enforce those laws.

a hierarchical, state apparatus, run by elements of the bureaucratic class, and beholden to elite classes, isn't the only possible form of governance.

[Rafiq]

Thanks for the clarification then.

Because it would be absurd to have no rules or laws in a society.

[Acostak3]

I thought Kropotkin spoke of abolishing "enacted law"?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If there is anything to learn from the concrete experience of laws, in the sense they exist in this society, it's that they are useless at best. For example, rape culture means that, contrary to the law, rape is practiced with relative impunity (certain types of rape are frowned upon and prosecuted of course, but only those that are outside the accepted framework of "She didn't fight back", those committed by "criminals", etc.). The reason most of us don't go on murder sprees isn't that we fear the legal consequences, but that we have no murderous desires: the exception, of course, is the will to class violence that ensures the rich murder with their militaries and police, whereas we will, of course, be punished if we act our rage against our rulers.
That of course is the essence of "the law" - who is in and outside of it. We cannot imprison anyone, unless we are the state. We can't beat the shit out of someone unless we are the police. We can't murder anyone unless they're terrorists and we are the military. Etc.
We don't need laws - we need real communities.

[OhYesIdid]

Still, problems remain.
Chief among which, one could argue, is defining what laws are legitimate and necessary and which are logical fallacies designed to protect private property and its state. Also, there is still the issue of who will enforce these supreme laws, and that way lie Animal Farm's fearful army of law-enforcing dogs: an essential part of the capitalist state that,when brought into a socialist society, grows to dominate and abuse it.

This, let me be clear is a question to anarchists, for I will confess to a great prejudice towards what I have always been taught of as a terrorist and bitter far-right pseudo-philosophy.
There must be more to it, I am sure, but most of what I read seems to revolve around the naïve primitivist belief that people will behave properly because they will see it is to their best interest, which is just silly.

[The Man]

Anarchists do not believe in the abolishment of laws, from what I understand Workers Councils would create laws for their workplace, and Governments that everyone can participate in through direct democracy, could hold law. But my only question is, what if some of these laws become oppressive and unjust against liberty and freedom, who will stop them?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anarchists do not believe in the abolishment of laws, from what I understand Workers Councils would create laws for their workplace, and Governments that everyone can participate in through direct democracy, could hold law. But my only question is, what if some of these laws become oppressive and unjust against liberty and freedom, who will stop them?

Uh, that's why anarchists believe in the abolition of law. Not "more democratic" governments.
Please consider the very real possibility that you are, in fact, not an anarchist.

[Rafiq]

So Virgin Molotov Cocktail, in the event of rape, society will just do nothing for rape is not "against the rules".

You cannot assume that there will be no murder or rape. That's absurd.

[Clark]

So Virgin Molotov Cocktail, in the event of rape, society will just do nothing for rape is not "against the rules".

You cannot assume that there will be no murder or rape. That's absurd.


How about the female/male actually having a gun/any kind of self defense and being able to help herself. And relatives or the community around her being able to deal with it based on what they believe is bad.

[The Man]

Uh, that's why anarchists believe in the abolition of law. Not "more democratic" governments.
Please consider the very real possibility that you are, in fact, not an anarchist.



Im pretty sure Workers Councils would be Direct Democracy Governments, in which EVERYONE can participate in.

[syndicat]

Uh, that's why anarchists believe in the abolition of law. Not "more democratic" governments.
Please consider the very real possibility that you are, in fact, not an anarchist.


you are mistaken. i know there are some individuals who talk like you do, and say they are for the "abolition of laws" and the "abolition of all government" but this is not a serious point of view, in my opinion. nor is this what libertarian socialism AKA social anarchism is all about.

what is the purpose of a communal libertarian structure of assemblies and elected delegates? what about all the talk of the "libertarian municipality"? A municipality is a local government. and how can the abolition of wage slavery be a reality if it can't be enforced? and what about the social ownership and control of the means of production? Obviously this entails rules. for example, it would be illegal to hire someone as a wage slave.

in Aragon when the anarchists persuaded their fellow villages to set up a libertarian municipality they outlawed hiring other people to work for you. so they alloweed individual peasant families to have only as much land as they could farm with their own labor. note here that when i say they "allowed them" I'm talking about governance over the community.

you seem to imagine that anarchism means there are no rules and "anything goes". there could never exist a society at all on that basis.

[Black Sheep]

No,it's an anarchism myth, perpetrated by ignoramuses or by particulalry mean marxists.
Same with
'the revolution will happen instantly'
'the revolution will happen everywhere at once'
'we don't need to plan out shit, everything will be taken care of the rebellious masses'
'all we need is a general strike'
'anarchy = total 100% freedom for all '

etc

[The Man]

'anarchy = total 100% freedom for all '

etc



It might not be 100%, but Anarchy is the largest amount of freedom we can get.

[Rafiq]

How about the female/male actually having a gun/any kind of self defense and being able to help herself. And relatives or the community around her being able to deal with it based on what they believe is bad.

Yeah, see, guns are something I would hope to be abolished.

[Magón]

Yeah, see, guns are something I would hope to be abolished.

Why? :confused:

[The Man]

I'm a huge Gun Rights supporter, the banning of guns would just increase crime. I am the ultimate Gun Rights debater, I WILL beat you. :D

[Diello]

I'm a huge Gun Rights supporter, the banning of guns would just increase crime. I am the ultimate Gun Rights debater, I WILL beat you. :D

Gun rights is an issue I've never had enough interest in to develop more than a very general opinion on. Can you give me a briefish rundown on your position?

[syndicat]

in the USA guns are a part of a certain part of working class culture. i'm personally a supporter of "gun rights." my family were from the plains, from a predominantly rural area. in rural areas of the USA guns are a part of the local working class culture. during the American revolution the creation of militia groups from below was part of the plebeian involvement in the struggle, and you have a wee remant of this in the 2nd amendment, which refers to the original idea of an armed people, a militia. but this was not useful for imperialist conquest, which needed a professional, standing army.

this conflict can be interpreted either for leftwing or right wing purposes. Rob Williams, with his Negros with guns group interpreted this in the '60s from a left point of view, as did the Panthers.

[Sir Comradical]

Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

[Widerstand]

Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

But rules don't create themselves in a vacuum.

[psgchisolm]

There must be more to it, I am sure, but most of what I read seems to revolve around the naïve primitivist belief that people will behave properly because they will see it is to their best interest, which is just silly.
I've had the same problems with Anarchy myself. I personally think anarchists give people too much credit. Given the options of Working to benefit society, or Not working and eating sleeping and having someone else do the work. Most people will choose the latter.

[Rafiq]

I'm a huge Gun Rights supporter, the banning of guns would just increase crime. I am the ultimate Gun Rights debater, I WILL beat you. :D

What do you have against destroying all guns on earth? (In the final stage of Communism).

Guns should be destroyed, every single oen.

[Rafiq]

in the USA guns are a part of a certain part of working class culture. i'm personally a supporter of "gun rights." my family were from the plains, from a predominantly rural area. in rural areas of the USA guns are a part of the local working class culture. during the American revolution the creation of militia groups from below was part of the plebeian involvement in the struggle, and you have a wee remant of this in the 2nd amendment, which refers to the original idea of an armed people, a militia. but this was not useful for imperialist conquest, which needed a professional, standing army.

this conflict can be interpreted either for leftwing or right wing purposes. Rob Williams, with his Negros with guns group interpreted this in the '60s from a left point of view, as did the Panthers.

I support gun rights in the stages of Capitalism and socialism, but not in Communism. Why would anyone need guns if the government is YOU?

[Rafiq]

But rules don't create themselves in a vacuum.

Well, rules can be things that if broken, the community will act in a certain way.

[Rafiq]

So yes, there will be rulers, the rulers will be the people themselves.

[Widerstand]

I support gun rights in the stages of Capitalism and socialism, but not in Communism. Why would anyone need guns if the government is YOU?

Because guns bypass differences in physical strength.

[Diello]

What do you have against destroying all guns on earth? (In the final stage of Communism).

What about guns for use in hunting? Or, if you don't buy that, what about guns to be used for protection against wild animals? For instance, a park ranger might carry a gun in case of bear attack.

[Rafiq]

Because guns bypass differences in physical strength.

That's true, however, that's why things like baseball bats exist.

[Rafiq]

What about guns for use in hunting? Or, if you don't buy that, what about guns to be used for protection against wild animals? For instance, a park ranger might carry a gun in case of bear attack.

Guns can probably be used for hunting, but under very very tight control.

Also if they exist no one person can have htem, they would not be owned privately but the community will own all of the guns.

[Widerstand]

That's true, however, that's why things like baseball bats exist.

But a baseball bat still considerably depends on the physical strength of those who swing it, no? They are also shithard to carry around.

[Rafiq]

But a baseball bat still considerably depends on the physical strength of those who swing it, no? They are also shithard to carry around.

Well jeez widerstand, why would so much fighting be going on in the first place?

[Widerstand]

Nobody's talking about "much fighting", but it's easier to defend oneself against rape with a gun than with a baseball bat, for example.

[Rafiq]

And then your rapist also has a gun too.

[x371322]

Guns can probably be used for hunting, but under very very tight control.

And who enforces this "very tight control" over the guns? And how would they enforce it? With more guns? So I wouldn't be permitted to keep my own gun in my home to protect myself and my family from crazy militant right wingers looking to retake their old society? Or you know... a bear attack? If I can borrow that example from Diello (seriously, there are a lot of bears around here).

Fuck that.

The "final stage of communism" doesn't mean a perfect world. People will still kill each other, and bears will still attack. Guns are here. And they're not going anywhere. In fact they're only going to get more advanced and more dangerous.

Plus, guns are pretty badass.

[Magón]

What do you have against destroying all guns on earth? (In the final stage of Communism).

Guns should be destroyed, every single oen.

That's fucking stupid to say. What if I want to go hunting with a rifle of mine? You're going to take my right away to do so, by taking the tool in which I use to hunt an animal? What if someone tries breaking into my home to kill me, or do something else? (There's still crime in Communism, just less of it, but it's still there.)

Fuck that idea man, you've probably never shot a gun in your life, and see them only as a means to kill another human being. Which isn't true, because guns, though are often used to kill things, aren't always used as such. I don't just use my guns for hunting, I also use them target practice and just to shoot for fun. Taking that away from me will cause problems.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

cmmntycntrlsrsly.

[The Man]

And then your rapist also has a gun too.


Your are truly nieve. If we banned guns then only criminals would have them, and if you 'destroyed' them, criminals would STILL have them. I have been raised with firearms all my life, and I can tell you right now that the Gun Community is not violent. I currently have a collection of firearms that I have bought with my own money because I enjoy them. Just cause I got a Romanian AK47, Mosin Nagant 91/30, 2 AR15s, Mauser M24/47, 2 Shotguns, a .22 rifle doesn't mean I want to kill or harm.

Think. Its Common sense that gun control DOES NOT work.
Anarchists support freedom, thats why were anarchists.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[Rafiq]

And who enforces this "very tight control" over the guns? And how would they enforce it? With more guns? So I wouldn't be permitted to keep my own gun in my home to protect myself and my family from crazy militant right wingers looking to retake their old society? Or you know... a bear attack? If I can borrow that example from Diello (seriously, there are a lot of bears around here).

Fuck that.

The "final stage of communism" doesn't mean a perfect world. People will still kill each other, and bears will still attack. Guns are here. And they're not going anywhere. In fact they're only going to get more advanced and more dangerous.

Plus, guns are pretty badass.


In short, the community itself.

The community will lock away all of the guns and when it's time they are needed you can grab them to fight Militant right wingers (Doubt they will exist, this isn't Fallout 3).

Maybe Anarchism and Communism are different in their final stages...

I am not looking to replace capitalism with the wild west.

In th final stage of communism all wars will cease to exist.

The Final stage of Communism, what your thinking, is probably on some prairie
near a farm.

No, it's going to be advanced as fuck, actually. Citys will exist, bigger than the ones now, more technology will be available, and people will be much smarter.

The Stage of Socialism lasts a long time, a long time to fix a lot of thing.s

It won't be perfect, but not everyone lives by bears, there will be natural disasters, probably some annoying insects, and, vicious animals.

Perhaps all guns will be disposed and everyone who lives near a dangerous area can have some kind of pistol, or better yet, a better weapon to protect themselves from the animals.

Just because you think Guns are badass doesn't mean they will exist.

Maybe you can strive to create the wild west and you can have all the guns you want in a world of chaos and war (Kind of like now) but I'm looking to advance Humanity, not bring it back two hundred years.

[Rafiq]

That's fucking stupid to say. What if I want to go hunting with a rifle of mine? You're going to take my right away to do so, by taking the tool in which I use to hunt an animal? What if someone tries breaking into my home to kill me, or do something else? (There's still crime in Communism, just less of it, but it's still there.)

Fuck that idea man, you've probably never shot a gun in your life, and see them only as a means to kill another human being. Which isn't true, because guns, though are often used to kill things, aren't always used as such. I don't just use my guns for hunting, I also use them target practice and just to shoot for fun. Taking that away from me will cause problems.

How about you shut the hell up right there.

Countless family members of mine are victims of guns.

I've shot guns several times, they are pretty stupid actually.

Have you ever been in a life threatening situation involving a gun? Has anyone every shot at you but missed? Have you ever been pulled a gun to your head?



This isn't the fucking wild west, I am not going to take away your right ot have a rifle because rifles won't exist.

Specialized weapons will exist to protect people from bears and will be hard to get if you don't live near the wilderness, so if someone attacks you (doubt it enless escaped from mental hospital, probably being chased by doctors).

Specialized weapons will exist for hunting animals for communitys.

And killings will be smaller than you can imagine.

People will reach the point where the only fighting is used with words.

We become less wild every thousand of years due to evolution. We will reach a point where we won't use our body's as weapons.

So you won't have a rifle to begin with. We aren't jumping from Capitalism to Communism, Socialism will reign for maybe hundreds of years.

So 1. Rifles will not exist. There will be better weapons for hunting.

2. Fuck your stupid ass assumptions.

[Rafiq]

Your are truly nieve. If we banned guns then only criminals would have them, and if you 'destroyed' them, criminals would STILL have them. I have been raised with firearms all my life, and I can tell you right now that the Gun Community is not violent. I currently have a collection of firearms that I have bought with my own money because I enjoy them. Just cause I got a Romanian AK47, Mosin Nagant 91/30, 2 AR15s, Mauser M24/47, 2 Shotguns, a .22 rifle doesn't mean I want to kill or harm.

Think. Its Common sense that gun control DOES NOT work.
Anarchists support freedom, thats why were anarchists.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

That's a load of shit.

Yeah, maybe in your oh so safe and sound hillbilly suburb in Pennsylvania, but fuck that, I live near Detroit, and I can tell you that the gun community is violent as fuck ..

Maybe they aren't around where you are because the authoritys are stricter, however, here in detroit, the police are bribed, people use guns all the time.

In fact, my cousins Uncle on his moms side just got shot sitting in the car with his wife, for no fucking reason. Some gy with a mask ran up to the car and shot him. They didn't take money, or steal anything. Just shot him. For no fucking reason.

In places in Africa, places in Asia even, let me use an example, Lebanon, everyone has an RPG and a fully automatic AK-47. We had a civil war that lasted a whole century. Over political disagreements.

The only power will be the people. Hopefully people will progress, and with a massive educational system, and a society of thought and wisdom, people will evolve under Socialism and do away with all guns. Nobody will take them away from people, there will be no big brother state police or any shit.

Those who refuse, well, if everyone votes that they should be destroyed and their is a minority that wants to keep them, the community can storm their places where they keep them and destroy them.

If you stop all production of ammo, eventually guns will be useless.
Right now, we are producing more guns than you can imagine. Maybe thats why it seems impossible for you.


Guns were made for war and will be destroyed to prevent war in the same way.

With ONE exception, if the society is smart, people who live near forrests ect. will keep specialized weapons to defend themselves against animal attacks. Which the community will agree on.


Don't give me your gun control shit, I fully 100% support gun rights as we speak here in this state where we have a regime we need to protect ourselves against and massive crime rates.

But I don't see a need for them in the future where that disappears.

Just like private control over the means of production will be abolished.

Wait....


"YOU WANT TO TAKE MY RIGHT TO OWN A FACTORY OR A BUSINESS? I THOUGHT ANARCHISTS SUPPORTED FREEDOM!"


......... It seems the only people here who want guns are either hillbillys or kids who are too attached to video games.

(Sigh).

[Magón]

Don't give me your gun control shit, I fully 100% support gun rights as we speak here in this state where we have a regime we need to protect ourselves against and massive crime rates.

But I don't see a need for them in the future where that disappears.

Just like private control over the means of production will be abolished.

Wait....


"YOU WANT TO TAKE MY RIGHT TO OWN A FACTORY OR A BUSINESS? I THOUGHT ANARCHISTS SUPPORTED FREEDOM!"


......... It seems the only people here who want guns are either hillbillys or kids who are too attached to video games.

(Sigh).

Well for one, all that you've complained about would be more likely to go away when various problems are given the right solution. And your want to take guns away is not one of the right solutions, in fact, it's been tried and failed miserably each time it's been tried to some degree or another. No matter how much you cry about it, it's non-negociable. Ceasing the production of guns and ammunition will not make it impossible for people to make and create guns of varying types. No matter how hard you or the community cracks down, the likely hood of someone or even just ten people within said community, will have a gun hidden away somewhere. Trust me, I've been around guns long enough to know that no matter where you are, even countries that have guns outlawed, still have guns in there whether for criminal or personal safety.

As for your idea that those who want private control over their firearms being kids who play to many video games, or hillbillys, you're wrong about that, and that's a very bad generalization, because for someone who doesn't like generalizations, you're doing it to people who aren't even in these little clicks you're trying to put them in. I own firearms, and I'm neither one who plays many video games, or is a hillbilly.


Maybe try learning about guns a bit more, rather than this bad Liberalist propaganda which says all guns are bad for X and Y reasons. Maybe read some stuff that actual gun owners (competent gun owners), have to say about the private ownership of having guns.

[HEAD ICE]

No socialist or anyone who pretends to be class conscious would derisively use the word "hillbilly."

[Manic Impressive]

I love guns they're great fun, they make loud noises and give you a brief surge of adrenalin. But when looking at guns in a post revolutionary society you have to consider what there actual use will be. The only use they should have is for entertainment. The entertainment value of a gun is disproportionate to the risk value of having a gun. For that reason I see no need for guns in a post revolutionary society. The risk is just too great, I suggest you take up archery:p.

[Magón]

I love guns they're great fun, they make loud noises and give you a brief surge of adrenalin. But when looking at guns in a post revolutionary society you have to consider what there actual use will be. The only use they should have is for entertainment. The entertainment value of a gun is disproportionate to the risk value of having a gun. For that reason I see no need for guns in a post revolutionary society. The risk is just too great, I suggest you take up archery:p.

I had a friend who was into Archery. Could have pierced his dog with one of the arrows. (Luckily it didn't come close to the animal.)







Just sayin' :tt2:

[Rafiq]

No socialist or anyone who pretends to be class conscious would derisively use the word "hillbilly."

Why? Is there a special meaning to the word?

[Rafiq]

Well for one, all that you've complained about would be more likely to go away when various problems are given the right solution. And your want to take guns away is not one of the right solutions, in fact, it's been tried and failed miserably each time it's been tried to some degree or another. No matter how much you cry about it, it's non-negociable. Ceasing the production of guns and ammunition will not make it impossible for people to make and create guns of varying types. No matter how hard you or the community cracks down, the likely hood of someone or even just ten people within said community, will have a gun hidden away somewhere. Trust me, I've been around guns long enough to know that no matter where you are, even countries that have guns outlawed, still have guns in there whether for criminal or personal safety.

As for your idea that those who want private control over their firearms being kids who play to many video games, or hillbillys, you're wrong about that, and that's a very bad generalization, because for someone who doesn't like generalizations, you're doing it to people who aren't even in these little clicks you're trying to put them in. I own firearms, and I'm neither one who plays many video games, or is a hillbilly.


Maybe try learning about guns a bit more, rather than this bad Liberalist propaganda which says all guns are bad for X and Y reasons. Maybe read some stuff that actual gun owners (competent gun owners), have to say about the private ownership of having guns.


Are you stupid? That's because we live in a fucking war filled world of nations and armys.

No body in the world has ever tried to get every single country to destroy them and disarm their armys.

Of course they will not do that!

But in Post Revolutionary Communism, why the fuck do you need them if armys and nations are gone?

People only like them because they seem to be "Cool" and like maniac said, entertaining.

But it's not worth having them, not the risk they put.

Maybe YOU should talk to victims of gun violence.

And I am not advocating the working class disarm right now, no, I have no intentions advocating guns be obliterated right now.

As long as the Bourgeois class exists, whether that be the state or the private bourgeoisie, the workers should have the right to have guns.

Both of those will not exist, under Communism.

[Rafiq]

They still are much less dangerous.

Like I said, specialized weapons will be created for hunting and hunting only. (Animal control also).

Remember, we don't want to bring humanity back, we want to take it forward.

[Magón]

Are you stupid? That's because we live in a fucking war filled world of nations and armys.

I wasn't even talking on a national level, I was talking about small communities who've tried to outlaw guns to it's people. Like cities and shit like that.


But in Post Revolutionary Communism, why the fuck do you need them if armys and nations are gone?

Problems will always arise where the need for a gun might be the only way to handle a situation, than with words or a simple shouting match.


People only like them because they seem to be "Cool" and like maniac said, entertaining.

Wow, you really don't know anything about guns do you? People (who are actually competent and understand a firearm,) don't think of them just as "cool" or for "entertainment", I for one, and know many others like me, see guns as an interesting mechanical machine. One with various sorts of devices and doo-dads to be tweaked and learned. We like to call these people "gear heads" to some degree. And I for one am a fan of how guns operate, not just how to pull the trigger and see what happens. (That's such an over generalization, it's insulting.)


But it's not worth having them, not the risk they put.

If you have a populous, a community who understands guns, then they're no risk at all. Understanding something is the first step to achieving an ultimate goal of being compatible with whatever it is you're trying to work with. Guns are no exception to this. Learn how to properly use a gun, don't make them out to be what they are on TV, or in video games, or how people handle them in those medias, and you'll have a populous with the actual knowledge of handling and operating a gun.

Doing what a gun does, and outlawing guns because they're "too risky", is bullshit. I could do as much damage with a standard kitchen steak knife, as I do with a gun. (In fact, I believe such weapons as knives and bladed weapons were used long before guns were even an idea.)


Maybe YOU should talk to victims of gun violence.

Not to get into my personal life or anything on a forum like this, but I am a victim of gun violence. Maybe not in the way you're thinking, but gun violence has hit pretty close to home from where I stand, and on more than just one or two occasions mind you. (And believe me, it's not some relative of a relative of a relative type scenario, it's like true flesh and blood of aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. sort of scenario, so don't try and pull that "you should talk to gun violence victims bullshit on me.)

[Manic Impressive]

Wow, you really don't know anything about guns do you? People (who are actually competent and understand a firearm,) don't think of them just as "cool" or for "entertainment", I for one, and know many others like me, see guns as an interesting mechanical machine. One with various sorts of devices and doo-dads to be tweaked and learned. We like to call these people "gear heads" to some degree. And I for one am a fan of how guns operate, not just how to pull the trigger and see what happens. (That's such an over generalization, it's insulting.)
I think how they operate is part of the entertainment value of a gun. Otherwise people wouldn't be interested.


If you have a populous, a community who understands guns, then they're no risk at all. Understanding something is the first step to achieving an ultimate goal of being compatible with whatever it is you're trying to work with. Guns are no exception to this. Learn how to properly use a gun, don't make them out to be what they are on TV, or in video games, or how people handle them in those medias, and you'll have a populous with the actual knowledge of handling and operating a gun.

Doing what a gun does, and outlawing guns because they're "too risky", is bullshit. I could do as much damage with a standard kitchen steak knife, as I do with a gun. (In fact, I believe such weapons as knives and bladed weapons were used long before guns were even an idea.)
Guns are the most sophisticated single person operated instruments of death created by people yet, you can't really compare them to a knife. Outlawing guns will not work either as was pointed out earlier a blanket ban or prohibition of guns drives them under ground if there is still a desire to posses them. In a post revolutionary society this could be catastrophic. I would advocate a gradual withdrawal and replacement of the firearm with something else for the gear heads. Guns will remain risky in every sense not only through accidents through improper use but also through the advantage a gun gives someone of another.

[Magón]

I think how they operate is part of the entertainment value of a gun. Otherwise people wouldn't be interested.

Sure, but understanding them is what gives them their value. If somehow, someday a person in the future where there are no guns, somehow gets ahold of a gun blueprint, through someway, shape, or form, and creates it over again, then they'd have very little understanding on how it works besides on how to build one. Understanding something is what gives it value, and in this case, guns are a serious value with understanding.



Guns are the most sophisticated single person operated instruments of death created by people yet, you can't really compare them to a knife. Outlawing guns will not work either as was pointed out earlier a blanket ban or prohibition of guns drives them under ground if there is still a desire to posses them. In a post revolutionary society this could be catastrophic. I would advocate a gradual withdrawal and replacement of the firearm with something else for the gear heads. Guns will remain risky in every sense not only through accidents through improper use but also through the advantage a gun gives someone of another.

1. You can't just replace someone's interest with another, doing so would be sort of hard, and is more a matter of science fiction than reality. No matter how hard you try, if guns were to be quickly or gradually taken out of my hands, I'd still have an interest in them, how they work and stuff like that. In fact, I might be inclined to create my own, just to satisfy my interest in how it works. Seeing something on paper, or reading it in a book is one thing, but actually holding it in your hand, moving the parts, toying with them, is something completely different.

2. I can tell you're not familiar with guns right away, because of how you ended that little piece. For one, guns do not give anyone the advantage, no matter how much it may seem, it's just propaganda. Just like to say if I was a body builder, and you weren't, and the two of us went up against each other, I would win because I have big muscle, blah, blah, blah. In fact guns are not an advantage, the are actually an equalizer. Once again, if I was a body builder, and you weren't, but then suddenly you had a gun, the likely chance of me doing as much damage to you with my own fists or whatever, and you shooting me with a gun, are on an even playing field.

The reason is because I could simply ring your neck and kill you, if you didn't have the gun. If you did have the gun, you could simply shoot me in the head, or shoot me somewhere else that would be vital and kill me. (equalizing the playing field don't you think?) Guns are an equalizer, not anything more or less. That's the reason you see soldiers going up against each other with them. They equalize the playing field for both sides, and it's just a matter of strength and will of the individuals.

Guns are a tool, just like swords and bows were all those years ago. They're simply equalizers on the field, that makes it so the battle is fought with whoever has more will and strength to continue on and fight.

Of course, this puts guns in a bad light where you'd think they're there for nothing but killing, which isn't true either. Some guns are simply made for target practice and tournaments on who can shoot the best, etc. But all guns can be like that, it just matters on how one is taught and understands the gun. (Whether that be rifle, pistol, whatever, it doesn't matter.)

Guns are not the problem here, it's the inability for people to learn properly on how to use/operate them. And the problem of people taking too much of what they see in video games and TV for absolute fact.

[syndicat]

in areas of the country where crime is a daily threat, people have knives and guns around for self-protection. sometimes just branishing one can prevent a crime being committed. guns are a problem due to their use by illegal gangs, runnding dope usually, who have them to fight to defend their turf. getting rid of this problem is connected with getting rid of the dope scourge, which isn't going to happen via the current police approach, the War on Drugs. It needs to be dealt with more as a public health problem. and there is also the problem of a lack of adequate jobs in legal activities, accessible to many working class people.

in a revolutionary situation there will need to be defection of personnel of the military and conversion to a democratic, militia-type body. in a militia type body, people may take their guns home with them. for example, in Switzerland males are required to have a rifle or machine gun at home, and all males go thru required military training. this is all related to their militia history, the idea of self-defense by an armed people.

they have the guns at home because then they can muster an army more quickly. for example, in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, Switzerland had 500,000 armed men on the German border in a matter of hours.

in the revolutionary period this is the concept we would need to have of a military force. a revolution is not going to happen simultaneously all over the planet by some miracle, and there will be need for regional self-defense.

[Manic Impressive]

Sure, but understanding them is what gives them their value. If somehow, someday a person in the future where there are no guns, somehow gets ahold of a gun blueprint, through someway, shape, or form, and creates it over again, then they'd have very little understanding on how it works besides on how to build one. Understanding something is what gives it value, and in this case, guns are a serious value with understanding.
Their primary value to the majority of owners is not purely mechanical. For some owners the mechanisms of the gun are part of the entertainment value. I would have thought that another aspect of their value to the owner is personal protection. Simply understanding something does not give it a use value. We understand the value of many technologies that have since become defunct, but we do not reproduce these technologies as they have insufficient use value or exchange value.


1. You can't just replace someone's interest with another, doing so would be sort of hard, and is more a matter of science fiction than reality. No matter how hard you try, if guns were to be quickly or gradually taken out of my hands, I'd still have an interest in them, how they work and stuff like that. In fact, I might be inclined to create my own, just to satisfy my interest in how it works. Seeing something on paper, or reading it in a book is one thing, but actually holding it in your hand, moving the parts, toying with them, is something completely different. So you are interested in how things work mechanically? That's a great interest and one I wish I had but does this interest only extend to guns? Would you not be interested in combustion engines or if we're talking about a post revolutionary society who knows what else there would be for you to take apart and put back together again.


2. I can tell you're not familiar with guns right away, because of how you ended that little piece. For one, guns do not give anyone the advantage, no matter how much it may seem, it's just propaganda. Just like to say if I was a body builder, and you weren't, and the two of us went up against each other, I would win because I have big muscle, blah, blah, blah. In fact guns are not an advantage, the are actually an equalizer. Once again, if I was a body builder, and you weren't, but then suddenly you had a gun, the likely chance of me doing as much damage to you with my own fists or whatever, and you shooting me with a gun, are on an even playing field.Actually I ended it that way because my dinner was ready :p. but no your right I live in England so I don't own any guns and have not spent much time with them I have however fired a few...and they are so cool :D.....anyway..... So your answer to stopping violence is to arm everyone in the world so that if a fight breaks out no one will have a physical advantage?


The reason is because I could simply ring your neck and kill you, if you didn't have the gun. If you did have the gun, you could simply shoot me in the head, or shoot me somewhere else that would be vital and kill me. (equalizing the playing field don't you think?) Guns are an equalizer, not anything more or less. That's the reason you see soldiers going up against each other with them. They equalize the playing field for both sides, and it's just a matter of strength and will of the individuals.The reason soldiers have guns is because they are the most effective and efficient killing machines which is their use value. They don't have them just because they want to have a fair fight.


Guns are a tool, just like swords and bows were all those years ago. They're simply equalizers on the field, that makes it so the battle is fought with whoever has more will and strength to continue on and fight. Exactly, but why will we need to fight in a post revolutionary society? We want to end wars.


Of course, this puts guns in a bad light where you'd think they're there for nothing but killing, which isn't true either. Some guns are simply made for target practice and tournaments on who can shoot the best, etc. But all guns can be like that, it just matters on how one is taught and understands the gun. (Whether that be rifle, pistol, whatever, it doesn't matter.)Which again is the entertainment part of their use value. The actual gun can be replaced with something virtual in competition, like the mega drive game duck hunt:p. Over here until a couple of years ago people did fox hunting here, but since it's ban they replaced the fox with an artificial scent thing which is dragged along at the front. They still complain that they can't see a fox ripped apart and smear it's blood all over their face but they still take part in their artificioal hunts.

[electro_fan]

i think that anarchists believe that people could manage the community themselves, and so while there wouldn't be laws, these people would be forced out of the community by the general public, and completely ostracised by everyone and forced to stay out

there would still be enforcement but just not by the state

i hope that's correct anyway, maybe other people can tell me if i have got this wrong

[Manic Impressive]

in areas of the country where crime is a daily threat, people have knives and guns around for self-protection. sometimes just branishing one can prevent a crime being committed. guns are a problem due to their use by illegal gangs, runnding dope usually, who have them to fight to defend their turf. getting rid of this problem is connected with getting rid of the dope scourge, which isn't going to happen via the current police approach, the War on Drugs. It needs to be dealt with more as a public health problem. and there is also the problem of a lack of adequate jobs in legal activities, accessible to many working class people. I'd say the use of guns by the state is a bigger problem.


in a revolutionary situation there will need to be defection of personnel of the military and conversion to a democratic, militia-type body. in a militia type body, people may take their guns home with them. for example, in Switzerland males are required to have a rifle or machine gun at home, and all males go thru required military training. this is all related to their militia history, the idea of self-defense by an armed people.

they have the guns at home because then they can muster an army more quickly. for example, in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, Switzerland had 500,000 armed men on the German border in a matter of hours.

in the revolutionary period this is the concept we would need to have of a military force. a revolution is not going to happen simultaneously all over the planet by some miracle, and there will be need for regional self-defense.
I'm glad you brought that up, as that is one of the good and bad things about guns. It makes the chances of an armed revolution taking place in the US much greater than it is here in the UK. I'd go so far as to say it's pretty much impossible here in the UK. Unfortunately I believe in the US most of the guns in private ownership are in the hands of the right who do not posses much revolutionary potential.

[The Man]

Countless family members of mine are victims of guns.

Yeah, those guns are the total killers since you know they are totally alive and killing people everyday. And your family members weren't killed by murderers at all, the guns did it! :rolleyes:

[The Man]

Maybe they aren't around where you are because the authoritys are stricter, however, here in detroit, the police are bribed, people use guns all the time.

Makes 0% sense. "Your authoritys are stricter".. Umm, if my Authorities were strict, i wouldn't have an AK-47. Detriot has one of the most restrictive gun control in the nation... THEY STILL HAVE A HIGHER CRIME RATE.



Unfortunately, It's pointless to argue further than this, because your 'we will need no more guns' Fanatics are nieve and will never think of common sense. But I will continue to argue, because it's funny to see these dumb arguments that you put forward. :)

[Manic Impressive]

Makes 0% sense. "Your authoritys are stricter".. Umm, if my Authorities were strict, i wouldn't have an AK-47. Detriot has one of the most restrictive gun control in the nation... THEY STILL HAVE A HIGHER CRIME RATE.



Unfortunately, It's pointless to argue further than this, because Gun-Control Fanatics are nieve and will never think of common sense. But I will continue to argue, because it's funny to see these dumb arguments that you put forward. :)
Would you agree that guns in a pre-revolutionary society are essential but in a post revolutionary society would become useless?

[syndicat]

I'd say the use of guns by the state is a bigger problem.


i was responding to the poster from Detroit who was talking about gun violence by individuals not part of the state apparatus.

of course the state has a virtual monopoly on legitimate (legal) use of violence, of force. that's part of the definiition of the state. and police brutality is a serious problem.


I'm glad you brought that up, as that is one of the good and bad things about guns. It makes the chances of an armed revolution taking place in the US much greater than it is here in the UK. I'd go so far as to say it's pretty much impossible here in the UK. Unfortunately I believe in the US most of the guns in private ownership are in the hands of the right who do not posses much revolutionary potential.

hmm. there are tens of millions of guns in private possession in the USA. many by working class people. not just right-wingers. but I don't anticipate a revolutionary situation where the armed people rise up against the state. that's not feasible in the USA either. the revolutionary process means that the mass of working class people have to reach a point of defiance where they take over the places where they work, and this includes the public sector, and this means defection by the rank and file in the military.

[The Man]

Don't give me your gun control shit, I fully 100% support gun rights as we speak here in this state where we have a regime we need to protect ourselves against and massive crime rates.

But I don't see a need for them in the future where that disappears.


Absolutely, because in Anarcho-Communism we will have no crime ever! :rolleyes:

[x371322]

No socialist or anyone who pretends to be class conscious would derisively use the word "hillbilly."

Why? Is there a special meaning to the word? Yes. I consider it a slur. It's a word used to demean someone, a HUMAN BEING just for their accent, or where they come from, or their culture. You come across as an elitist prick to me. An elitist prick completely removed from and oblivious to the working class he claims to fight for, as a significant portion of the working class is what you would refer to as "hillbillies." Where I come from, EVERYONE has a gun, and guess what? No one gets shot... ever. Hmm. Imagine that.

It's really a shame that us uncivilized hillbillies aren't as smart as you liberal city folk. What with your college edumacation and your hybrid autocars, maybe one day we too could restrict our guns and as a result have as much gun related violence as you do.

[The Man]

Would you agree that guns in a pre-revolutionary society are essential but in a post revolutionary society would become useless?

No, because there will also be crime, no matter what society we live in. We must be able to protect ourselves.

[Manic Impressive]

:lol:
No, because there will also be crime, no matter what society we live in. We must be able to protect ourselves.
Why would there be crime if everyone is employed and had their life needs provided for?

p.s. I find it highly Lulzy that your tendency is Anarcho-pacifism

[The Man]

:lol:
Why would there be crime if everyone is employed and had their life needs provided for?

p.s. I find it highly Lulzy that your tendency is Anarcho-pacifism

1. Elimination of crime is impossible, and will always exist, In Capitalism, In Communism, in Anarchism.

2. The reason it's Anarcho-Pacifist is because I don't support revolution through arms, but through education.

[Rafiq]

Yes. I consider it a slur. It's a word used to demean someone, a HUMAN BEING just for their accent, or where they come from, or their culture. You come across as an elitist prick to me. An elitist prick completely removed from and oblivious to the working class he claims to fight for, as a significant portion of the working class is what you would refer to as "hillbillies." Where I come from, EVERYONE has a gun, and guess what? No one gets shot... ever. Hmm. Imagine that.

It's really a shame that us uncivilized hillbillies aren't as smart as you liberal city folk. What with your college edumacation and your hybrid autocars, maybe one day we too could restrict our guns and as a result have as much gun related violence as you do.

well sorry, then.

When saying hillbilly, right wing tea partyers come to mind.


I thought it was political and not cultural, excuse my ignorqnce...

[Diello]

1. Elimination of crime is impossible, and will always exist, In Capitalism, In Communism, in Anarchism.

Even if one does theorize that crime will vanish under X circumstances, it seems unwise not to have a plan for if it doesn't.


well sorry, then.

When saying hillbilly, right wing tea partyers come to mind.


I thought it was political and not cultural, excuse my ignorqnce...

I've been searching for a term that does the job of "redneck" (that is, that evokes the stupid, screeching, selfish, reactionary, pious, proudly ignorant, aesthetically blind quality of the type of person that dominates certain parts of the American South) without carrying a classist connotation. I haven't found it yet.

[devoration1]

No socialist or anyone who pretends to be class conscious would derisively use the word "hillbilly."

It's not only possible but a fact of life that workers hold reactionary ideas and prejudices (because the dominant ideology of a society are those of its ruling class)- workers involved in revolutionary or militant actions do not change their opinions overnight. They are revolutionary because of their place in production- not because they've seen the light and turned into politically correct liberals. Homophobia and strong religious conviction were prominent among the most advanced Russian workers leading the February and October revolutions; the American workers who hurt the American war effort in Vietnam liked to beat up rich student radical anti-war protestors; some of the Kurdish workers in the TEKEL mass strikes and tent-city occupation in Turkey last year support the PKK and Kurdish nationalism. Every group of workers will be infected with bourgeois ideals and prejudices- that doesn't make them any less militant or revolutionary. (and being a bleeding heart liberal doesn't make one a revolutionary).

[Widerstand]

That's a load of shit.

Yeah, maybe in your oh so safe and sound hillbilly suburb in Pennsylvania, but fuck that, I live near Detroit, and I can tell you that the gun community is violent as fuck ..

Having a gun doesn't make you violent, though being violent may propel you to get a gun.

Would you be happier if they ran around with axes, baseball bats or knives instead?

[Diello]

Having a gun doesn't make you violent, though being violent may propel you to get a gun.

Would you be happier if they ran around with axes, baseball bats or knives instead?

Though I really don't have a well-formed opinion in this debate, I would like to say that I'd feel less threatened by someone with an axe, a baseball bat, or a knife than I would by someone with a gun.

And also that, ideally, everyone should arm themselves with hammers and sickles. And possibly throwing stars.

[devoration1]

Though I really don't have a well-formed opinion in this debate, I would like to say that I'd feel less threatened by someone with an axe, a baseball bat, or a knife than I would by someone with a gun.


I live in a pretty rural area where you often see men with gun racks on their cars and trucks headed to and from hunting trips- or taking their guns to be worked on at one of the numerous gunsmiths or gun shops. I'd be far more concerned if a guy holding an axe was near me.

[Diello]

I live in a pretty rural area where you often see men with gun racks on their cars and trucks headed to and from hunting trips- or taking their guns to be worked on at one of the numerous gunsmiths or gun shops. I'd be far more concerned if a guy holding an axe was near me.

To clarify: if someone apparently wanted to do violence to me, I'd prefer they be wielding an axe, a baseball bat, or a knife, than that they be wielding a gun.

[Sir Comradical]

But rules don't create themselves in a vacuum.

For anarchists, a ruler is someone who holds power over someone else as a result of the unequal property relations under capitalism. Get rid of unequal property relations and it will be impossible for any individual to rule over someone else. Instead humans will have to work together and organize society democratically.

[Rafiq]

Having a gun doesn't make you violent, though being violent may propel you to get a gun.

Would you be happier if they ran around with axes, baseball bats or knives instead?

At least those are things I can run away from.

[x371322]

well sorry, then.

When saying hillbilly, right wing tea partyers come to mind.


I thought it was political and not cultural, excuse my ignorqnce...

No harm done. Didn't mean to unleash just then... it's a trigger for me.

Interesting thing though, some say that the term "redneck" actually originated as a way to describe striking coal miners who wore red bandanas around their necks to showcase their loyalty to the union or something like that. I don't know if it's entirely true or not, but it's interesting.

[Magón]

Their primary value to the majority of owners is not purely mechanical. For some owners the mechanisms of the gun are part of the entertainment value. I would have thought that another aspect of their value to the owner is personal protection. Simply understanding something does not give it a use value. We understand the value of many technologies that have since become defunct, but we do not reproduce these technologies as they have insufficient use value or exchange value.

I would say that anyone who owns a gun, in someway, shape, or form has an interest (no matter if they know it or not,) in how a gun works. I mean, you can't just pick up a gun and expect to know how to operate it, that's how people like kids get shot with guns. The mechanical interest in guns is big, no matter who you talk to in the gun world, it's big. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have people working to make them, and having a populous buying them.

Just because you and other theorize there'd be no more crime in Communism, doesn't mean there wouldn't be. There's always bad people in a Communist Society. It might be caused less by their society, yes, but the mental aspect can be caused by problems with brain chemicals, etc. Having a gun just makes it so a person is less likely to become a victim of a possible rapist, murder, whatever. Guns will always have a use in the world, no matter what economic and political area it's in.


So you are interested in how things work mechanically? That's a great interest and one I wish I had but does this interest only extend to guns? Would you not be interested in combustion engines or if we're talking about a post revolutionary society who knows what else there would be for you to take apart and put back together again.

I am in fact, a mechanic who works on cars of all sorts. But you can't simply just replace one interest of mine over another, or others either. That's like trying to say I want to get rid of something you're really interested in, and replace it with something equally interested, yet you're doing it all day for work, so it becomes your whole life, with the lesser interests making their way around every so often. It doesn't work like that, my interest in guns will always be the hands on, getting to know the machine through my own handling of the gun, not some simulated one, or something fake.

It's like when you want the real thing, but someone gives you the fake version, and you're sorely disappointed because the real thing would have been so much better, and the fake one just doesn't have all that the real one does.


Actually I ended it that way because my dinner was ready :p. but no your right I live in England so I don't own any guns and have not spent much time with them I have however fired a few...and they are so cool :D.....anyway..... So your answer to stopping violence is to arm everyone in the world so that if a fight breaks out no one will have a physical advantage?

No, when it comes down to having neither a physical or gun advantage, it comes down to mental advantages. Who can use their gun more wisely in situations, than another can. For example, if my house was being broken into, and I got a gun and the burglar already had a gun, it would only be a matter of whether I got the jump on him first by being quiet and sneaky, or if he was quiet and sneaky enough to break in and kill me without m even opening an eye.

Guns are only equalizers, nothing more when the person you're up against has one or doesn't have one.


The reason soldiers have guns is because they are the most effective and efficient killing machines which is their use value. They don't have them just because they want to have a fair fight.

No, soldiers have guns because they're trained to fight on a field that it's 50/50. Because like I said, guns are an equalizer, and it's a matter of who's got the more brains, than who's got the bigger gun. A large group of soldiers with machine-guns and other weapons, can be pinned or forced to pull back by a smaller force, if that smaller force uses their brains on how to move, fight, etc. the larger enemy. If I had an army, and you had an army, and the two of us went to war together; but only one of our armies had guns, and the other didn't, then you or me would have to use our brains as skilled tacticians to maneuver our non-gun totting soldiers in a way that made it hard for the gun totting soldiers to fight.


Exactly, but why will we need to fight in a post revolutionary society? We want to end wars.

Doesn't mean crime will end, and just because Communism is reached through whatever means, doesn't mean people wouldn't come up and think of Capitalism or Feudalism again. I mean, do you really think Capitalists were so narrow minded to think that once the whole world, or at least what they wanted of it, was Capitalist, they'd just throw down what weapons they had, and say, "Everyone's Capitalist? Good! No more need for guns." No, they kept their guns, and plan to defend themselves from future people like ourselves. Whether it's peace time or war time, they don't care.

It's a very narrow way of thinking if you think that once Communism is reached, no wars or people will stand to oppose what's there for any reason that they see. If you think it'll be a no war, no people rising up against Communism outlook, that's pretty Utopian.

[Diello]

Interesting thing though, some say that the term "redneck" actually originated as a way to describe striking coal miners who wore red bandanas around their necks to showcase their loyalty to the union or something like that. I don't know if it's entirely true or not, but it's interesting.

According to Wikipedia, the 1893 edition of the Dictionary of American Regional English defines "rednecks" in part as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin burned red by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks."

I'm under the impression that the tying of red bandanas around necks was part of a later reclamation of the term.

[Widerstand]

For anarchists, a ruler is someone who holds power over someone else as a result of the unequal property relations under capitalism. Get rid of unequal property relations and it will be impossible for any individual to rule over someone else. Instead humans will have to work together and organize society democratically.

I'm afraid it won't be impossible for me to rule over you if I put a knife to your throat, in total spite of property relations.


At least those are things I can run away from.

hm... What about crossbows?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah, those guns are the total killers since you know they are totally alive and killing people everyday. And your family members weren't killed by murderers at all, the guns did it! :rolleyes:

Does this apply to nuclear bombs too? The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line of argument is stupid as shit and is generally used by right wing libertarians as a last resort. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against the destruction of guns, and if I offered my opinion on the matter people would accuse me of authoritarianism, I just think it's sad that people resort to such silly arguments.

:lol:
Why would there be crime if everyone is employed and had their life needs provided for?
Have you been reading utopian fiction or are you actually denying the existence of a type of crime which is not cause by capitalism?

[The Man]

Does this apply to nuclear bombs too? The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line of argument is stupid as shit and is generally used by right wing libertarians as a last resort.


I totally agree that people don't kill people. Because I heard that inanimate objects can get out of gun safes and start going on rampages killing people all by themselves. We should put the gun in jail and let the person off the hook. :laugh:

[Spawn of Stalin]

At least those are things I can run away from.
If you can run away from it, so can the bear which wants to eat your wife and kids alive. Oh wait, you want to melt down all guns and replace them with "specialised weapons for hunting and hunting only", I assume that given these "better weapons'" grant divine power "to protect themselves from the animals", they will also grant the equally divine power to kill anything that moves. You're a lunatic mate.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I totally agree that people don't kill people. Because I heard that inanimate objects can get out of gun safes and start going on rampages killing people all by themselves. We should put the gun in jail and let the person off the hook. :laugh:
So...does this apply to nuclear bombs too?

[The Man]

So...does this apply to nuclear bombs too?



We should definately throw nuclear bombs in jail. :laugh:

[Spawn of Stalin]

So you don't have a response? For what it's worth I wasn't disagreeing with you (though I do disagree with you in that I don't believe that just anyone should be allowed a gun), I was merely pointing out the redundancy of such an argument. Like I said before, it's generally a right wing defence of the oh so glorious constitutional right, and it makes little sense, decriminalising an inanimate object based on the fact that "it never did anything to hurt anyone".

[Rafiq]

hm... What about crossbows?

Still much less lethal.

(Guns can carry multiple amounts of ammo)

[Rafiq]

If you can run away from it, so can the bear which wants to eat your wife and kids alive. Oh wait, you want to melt down all guns and replace them with "specialised weapons for hunting and hunting only", I assume that given these "better weapons'" grant divine power "to protect themselves from the animals", they will also grant the equally divine power to kill anything that moves. You're a lunatic mate.

That's like some 1300's guy saying:

"Oh, and I suppose these specialized satalites will grant divine powers to spot anything on Earth at any time".

Seriously, you underestimate what the future can bring.

[Rafiq]

We should definately throw nuclear bombs in jail. :laugh:

That's not the point.


It's much easier for a psycho asshole to kill everyone with nukes, but it's a lot harder for him to kill with a spoon.

[The Man]

So you don't have a response? For what it's worth I wasn't disagreeing with you (though I do disagree with you in that I don't believe that just anyone should be allowed a gun), I was merely pointing out the redundancy of such an argument. Like I said before, it's generally a right wing defence of the oh so glorious constitutional right, and it makes little sense, decriminalising an inanimate object based on the fact that "it never did anything to hurt anyone".

A nuclear bomb is a device used by the state so they can kill innocent people in massive proportions. Thats why I am for dismantling them. But these gun arguments are just hilarious. :D

[The Man]

That's not the point.


It's much easier for a psycho asshole to kill everyone with nukes, but it's a lot harder for him to kill with a spoon.



Whats your point?

[Rafiq]

Whats your point?

Let me make this point clear.

We will always have mentally impaired people who want to kill, this is without doubt. (Or people in general killing).

So, although Nuclear Missiles do not attack on their own, the fact that they exist and the fact that it is possible for people to have that kind of option is absurd.

That's why lethal weapons, such as guns, will whither away, so those who wish to kill will simply have "A hard time" killing.

[The Man]

Let me make this point clear.

We will always have mentally impaired people who want to kill, this is without doubt. (Or people in general killing).

So, although Nuclear Missiles do not attack on their own, the fact that they exist and the fact that it is possible for people to have that kind of option is absurd.

That's why lethal weapons, such as guns, will whither away, so those who wish to kill will simply have "A hard time" killing.


How many criminals have nuclear missiles?
Even if there is no crime in an Anarcho-Communist society (There will be, like all societies). People will still want them for sport, hunting, collecting, and so on and so forth.

[Rafiq]

How many criminals have nuclear missiles?
Even if there is no crime in an Anarcho-Communist society (There will be, like all societies). People will still want them for sport, hunting, collecting, and so on and so forth.

Say, sadly, the risk simply isn't worth it.

I'm sure, however, that people will manage to....

Find other useful things to consume time.

[The Man]

Say, sadly, the risk simply isn't worth it.

I'm sure, however, that people will manage to....

Find other useful things to consume time.

Were going in circles...

[Magón]

Say, sadly, the risk simply isn't worth it.

I'm sure, however, that people will manage to....

Find other useful things to consume time.

What's the risk when you have a population of armed people, learned and trained enough, in how to operate a gun? This "the risk is simply not worth it" bullshit is just that, bullshit. You're making it out to be like guns kill people every time they pick one up or try and shoot it.

Just because you've had bad experiences with guns, doesn't mean you can damn the object itself. It was the man with the gun that did the crime, the gun was just the object of choice in which to go about it. And when you have a population in the majority, which sees weapons as an advantage, rather an equalizer, you get crimes that involve guns.

Maybe you should think about looking into gun safety as a more enlightening and proper route to take, rathe than say guns will go away for this and that bullshit reason. Guns are used for many things, not just killing someone else. Get over yourself, and quit with the "risk is simply not worth it" shit.

[DuracellBunny97]

anarchy means no hierarchy I think. There would be no really established laws passed by parlimet, I guess rules would be more de-facto, and might vary from region to region

[Rafiq]

What's the risk when you have a population of armed people, learned and trained enough, in how to operate a gun? This "the risk is simply not worth it" bullshit is just that, bullshit. You're making it out to be like guns kill people every time they pick one up or try and shoot it.

Just because you've had bad experiences with guns, doesn't mean you can damn the object itself. It was the man with the gun that did the crime, the gun was just the object of choice in which to go about it. And when you have a population in the majority, which sees weapons as an advantage, rather an equalizer, you get crimes that involve guns.

Maybe you should think about looking into gun safety as a more enlightening and proper route to take, rathe than say guns will go away for this and that bullshit reason. Guns are used for many things, not just killing someone else. Get over yourself, and quit with the "risk is simply not worth it" shit.


I don't think we should waste our recourses producing ammo and rifles, recourses we could use to, you know, make things like cars that automatically take you to your destination without you driving... Now THAT'S useful.

[The Man]

I don't think we should waste our recourses producing ammo and rifles, recourses we could use to, you know, make things like cars that automatically take you to your destination without you driving... Now THAT'S useful.

This isn't iRobot.. :glare:

[Widerstand]

cars that automatically take you to your destination without you driving

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/or2-lrt-tram-strres-curve-20040327c_n-z-adam.jpg

[Magón]

I don't think we should waste our recourses producing ammo and rifles, recourses we could use to, you know, make things like cars that automatically take you to your destination without you driving... Now THAT'S useful.

Well when you've got more than sufficient resources to supply and produce things for everyone, a gun is hardly a waste of resources. Like you continue to fail and see time and time again, a gun is not always a weapon for death. It takes SKILL to actually shoot one. You can't pick up most guns, whether pistol or rifle, or shotgun, etc. and shoot a target(s) that's flying (skeet shooting), or shoot a target 100+ yards away.

And in Communism, I'm pretty sure people, like now, would use them for the majority of the time as a sporting tool. In Communism, I wouldn't be going out with a gun to shoot up a liquor store, or rob someone/thing, I'd take it up to the range, shoot off a few boxes of ammo, take it home, clean it, and wait for another good day to go shoot. You're too hung up, like the majority of most American Libertarians, that guns are only for killing things, and have no other use. Which is sad, because they're not, they're a tool for fun and achieving certain things that you couldn't do otherwise.

Nobody's telling you to go get a gun Chapayev, just to let us keep the ones we've got, and maybe get more if we want through our own right to be happy and have a tool we enjoy. Go build your robot cars, I won't bother you with it, as long as you don't bother me and my guns.

[x371322]

This isn't iRobot.. :glare:
Automated cars aren't exactly science fiction. They may not be a viable mainstream option yet, but it's not out of sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car


Not to mention there are already cars on the market that parallel park themselves, as well as slow down on their own if the driver comes too close to another car ahead.

Just imagine the guns of the future!

[Princess Luna]

So...does this apply to nuclear bombs too?
nuclear bombs are very impractical for self defense , by the time you got it out of the silo the person who mugged you would be long gone

[Rafiq]

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/or2-lrt-tram-strres-curve-20040327c_n-z-adam.jpg

Yeah, we already have trains. So?

[Rafiq]

Well when you've got more than sufficient resources to supply and produce things for everyone, a gun is hardly a waste of resources. Like you continue to fail and see time and time again, a gun is not always a weapon for death. It takes SKILL to actually shoot one. You can't pick up most guns, whether pistol or rifle, or shotgun, etc. and shoot a target(s) that's flying (skeet shooting), or shoot a target 100+ yards away.

And in Communism, I'm pretty sure people, like now, would use them for the majority of the time as a sporting tool. In Communism, I wouldn't be going out with a gun to shoot up a liquor store, or rob someone/thing, I'd take it up to the range, shoot off a few boxes of ammo, take it home, clean it, and wait for another good day to go shoot. You're too hung up, like the majority of most American Libertarians, that guns are only for killing things, and have no other use. Which is sad, because they're not, they're a tool for fun and achieving certain things that you couldn't do otherwise.

Nobody's telling you to go get a gun Chapayev, just to let us keep the ones we've got, and maybe get more if we want through our own right to be happy and have a tool we enjoy. Go build your robot cars, I won't bother you with it, as long as you don't bother me and my guns.

:confused: American Libertarians are against Gun ownership? Or do you mean Liberals.. :rolleyes:


Anyway, I understand guns have other uses, so? Is it actually worth it though?

I don' see a reason for them, and nobody is going to take them away from people, we aren't Authoritarians.

But, at some point I can imagine people getting rid of them. Bottom line, it's easier for a serial killer to use a gun to kill a bunch of people.

Will guns be abolished right away? No.

But eventually, and we are talking final stage Communism, guns will cease to exist through human advancement.

The risk simply is not worth it. Guns were made to kill people, and will always be used for that same purpose.

Unless specialized alterations are made to them, we are inevitably doomed with violence if they exist.

Funny, you speak as if Communism will exist in the next one hundred years... I'm sorry, but we aren't going to see Communism for hundreds, maybe thousands of years from now.

[Rafiq]

nuclear bombs are very impractical for self defense , by the time you got it out of the silo the person who mugged you would be long gone

BUT NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE FUN TO WATCH!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[x371322]

BUT NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE FUN TO WATCH!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Strawman argument. No one uses nuclear bombs for fun and sport, as you well know, and no one here is claiming any such thing. It might come as little surprise that nuclear weapons of mass destruction have a few differences from typical guns.

Bottom line: There will always be crime. There will always be violence. There will always be a need for self defense. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

[Rafiq]

Bottom line: There will always be crime. There will always be violence. There will always be a need for self defense. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

And it would me much easier for crime to occur with guns.

[Magón]

:confused: American Libertarians are against Gun ownership? Or do you mean Liberals.. :rolleyes:

Yes, I meant liberals, I was in a rush when I wrote it, so mistakenly wrote Libertarian.


Anyway, I understand guns have other uses, so? Is it actually worth it though?

Yes, because guns are a great form of entertainment and thing to learn about for people. I bet if you were told properly (which is difficult to do on the net), how to operate, take apart, etc. a firearm, you'd realize that they're nothing to fear or get rid of. And I'm sure that if you fired a gun once or twice, at a target range, at paper targets, you'd see that it's not easy at first, but after taking a few shots and emptying a few boxes of ammo, you'd see how fun it is to shoot a target at 100+ yards.


I don' see a reason for them, and nobody is going to take them away from people, we aren't Authoritarians.

But, at some point I can imagine people getting rid of them. Bottom line, it's easier for a serial killer to use a gun to kill a bunch of people.

The majority of serial killers, including famous serial killers, don't use guns, they often use knives.


But eventually, and we are talking final stage Communism, guns will cease to exist through human advancement.

That's complete speculation right there.


The risk simply is not worth it. Guns were made to kill people, and will always be used for that same purpose.

You keep saying they're a risk, and that the risk of them being around, is just "not worth it". I've told you countless times, other reasons for owning a gun. And I've shown you ways in which guns are used to NOT kill people. You've only said they're to kill people, completely ignoring what I've said.


Unless specialized alterations are made to them, we are inevitably doomed with violence if they exist.

False, and a joke in which you've fallen into when it comes to anti-gun advocate propaganda.


Funny, you speak as if Communism will exist in the next one hundred years... I'm sorry, but we aren't going to see Communism for hundreds, maybe thousands of years from now.

How so? I never said when Communism was coming, or that it was ever coming in my life time. I was simply putting myself in the position of a Communist Society, by stating that I wouldn't be one to give up my right to own a firearm because a bunch of people think that the only reason I have a need for one, is to kill. Which is total bullshit, and shows how much people truly know about firearms and firearm safety.

Like I said, teaching and education properly on gun ownership is the key to making people know and learn that guns aren't for necessarily for kill others, or animals, but for sport like skeet shooting, and other sports that pertain to using a firearm. Besides, those who own a firearm probably have the firearm, but keep it out of sight and out of harms way, with no ammunition in the magazine, clip, whatever, for people to get to. Plus, the majority of people who own a firearm, have them for personal protection in case someone were to break into their home.

Communism doesn't promise complete and utter destruction of crime, that's Utopian to think. The use of a firearm as personal protection is what most people have a gun for, and if we're living in a Communist Society, it's likely the weapon would stay home since carrying around a gun on your hip all day can get kind of tiring and ware on you. So it's likely that people will use for personal protection out in public, a small little pocket knife or the like. (Like most people in todays society do.)

[x371322]

And it would me much easier for crime to occur with guns.

It will never be possible to abolish guns. EVER. The "bad guys" will always have guns, no matter what you do. They WILL find a way. That's a given. You make guns illegal, and the only people without them are the law abiding ones, now with no way whatsoever to defend themselves when crisis strikes.

Also, you didn't seem to really have an answer for what I would do if a bear attacked me? Lets say I'm walking out to my car one evening, and a bear comes down out of the woods and starts gnawing my leg off. I once had a dog (this is a true story), that we used to keep tied up outside. The next morning this poor dog had gotten ripped to shreds by... well by something. We never knew exactly. We've never kept a dog tied up since. Anyway, a person needs a little firepower around these parts. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna let anyone take that power away.

[Rafiq]

It will never be possible to abolish guns. EVER. The "bad guys" will always have guns, no matter what you do. They WILL find a way. That's a given. You make guns illegal, and the only people without them are the law abiding ones, now with no way whatsoever to defend themselves when crisis strikes.

Also, you didn't seem to really have an answer for what I would do if a bear attacked me? Lets say I'm walking out to my car one evening, and a bear comes down out of the woods and starts gnawing my leg off. I once had a dog (this is a true story), that we used to keep tied up outside. The next morning this poor dog had gotten ripped to shreds by... well by something. We never knew exactly. We've never kept a dog tied up since. Anyway, a person needs a little firepower around these parts. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna let anyone take that power away.


Whenever enemy's of humanity have guns, so shall the rest of the population.

However, it is possible that guns will cease to exist in the far future.

[Raightning]

It will never be possible to abolish guns. EVER. The "bad guys" will always have guns, no matter what you do. They WILL find a way. That's a given. You make guns illegal, and the only people without them are the law abiding ones, now with no way whatsoever to defend themselves when crisis strikes.
I don't think it's any more true than greed being natural or the entire field of evolutionary psychology or what-have-you.

Why do the 'bad guys' have guns now? Beause they're readily available and they're of use to the 'bad guys'. These are basically necessarily true under capitalism and under the current social structure, but why is that necessarily the case in a communist society, where the entire system that causes our current situation has been abolished and they have no role in
the new system?

We will never be able to abolish guns while they continue to be held in the hands of reactionaries, obviously. But to me, to hold that up as an universal constant is no better than holding up exploitation as thus.

[Magón]

Whenever enemy's of humanity have guns, so shall the rest of the population.

However, it is possible that guns will cease to exist in the far future.

No, see, you're missing the point. Weapons aren't meant to kill people when in the hands of most people. (Crime with guns is just a minority in the whole picture of gun usage. The majority of the time, (looking at Europe alone shows that guns aren't the main weapon to be used in basic crimes.) Guns are used as I said, for sport and protection or our own selves. Generalizing like you have, doesn't help your claim, and in fact, as I've said before, is rather insulting since you of all people, have been outspoken on those who would want to generalize other problems in our world/system. You can't generalize the actions a bad minority takes with a weapon, just as much as you can't generalize all Arabs or Muslims into being Al-Qaeda or a random Terrorist.

[x371322]

Whenever enemy's of humanity have guns, so shall the rest of the population.

However, it is possible that guns will cease to exist in the far future.

So are bears also going to "cease to exist in the far future?" You still haven't answered my question about the hypothetical bear attack.

(of course a bear is only one example. Any dangerous animal may be substituted here).

[x371322]

I don't think it's any more true than greed being natural or the entire field of evolutionary psychology or what-have-you.

Why do the 'bad guys' have guns now? Beause they're readily available and they're of use to the 'bad guys'. These are basically necessarily true under capitalism and under the current social structure, but why is that necessarily the case in a communist society, where the entire system that causes our current situation has been abolished and they have no role in
the new system?

We will never be able to abolish guns while they continue to be held in the hands of reactionaries, obviously. But to me, to hold that up as an universal constant is no better than holding up exploitation as thus.

If you really believe that we'll one day obtain a society where all people stop doing bad things... then I have nothing else to say. Communism is not a utopia. There will always be a need for self defense.

And besides the self defense argument, as NIN has pointed out quite well, guns are not just for "killing people." Guns are used for sport and hobby, and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. They're just plain fun.

[Rafiq]

No, see, you're missing the point. Weapons aren't meant to kill people when in the hands of most people. (Crime with guns is just a minority in the whole picture of gun usage. The majority of the time, (looking at Europe alone shows that guns aren't the main weapon to be used in basic crimes.) Guns are used as I said, for sport and protection or our own selves. Generalizing like you have, doesn't help your claim, and in fact, as I've said before, is rather insulting since you of all people, have been outspoken on those who would want to generalize other problems in our world/system. You can't generalize the actions a bad minority takes with a weapon, just as much as you can't generalize all Arabs or Muslims into being Al-Qaeda or a random Terrorist.

Perhaps I was wrong.

I don't know, I'd have to see how things would turn out.

At this point, for the most part, I support everyone being able to have a gun.

However, I am worried that we as humans aren't mature for them yet, for example, if people get into a very big argument, or if one being is offended by another, using guns against each other is a choice for them.

For example, in Lebanon, the police do not have any power, actually there really isn't a police.

Everyone has a gun. Everyone walks around with an Ak-47.

Surprisingly it's actually pretty safe, not much violence in the streets usually.

Everyone has a gun. If you kill someone, the family of that person will kill you before the police does.

But, people shoot at each other for, simple reasons, such as insulting another's mother or dating another's sister ect.

When we grow the intellectual capacity, when most of us are educated, I fully support gun rights for almost everyone.

But, I agree that guns are completely necessary for the working class today and under Socialism.

You see pictures of Russia around 1917, and almost all of the workers were carrying rifles, waving them in the air. This is somewhat symbolic, representing individualism, representing that the future, lies in the hands of the working people.

[Magón]

However, I am worried that we as humans aren't mature for them yet, for example, if people get into a very big argument, or if one being is offended by another, using guns against each other is a choice for them.

Straw man since the likelihood of such a thing happening would be, (and is), very low, and you're picking out a minority of people who are hardly there, yet get news coverage because it makes great news for those against gun rights, etc. You hardly ever hear about people doing such things for the most part, and when they do happen, they're few and far between one another, and when one or both parties decide the extreme is the only way it can go down. (In their minds, but choose to just avoid or ignore one another which is the better option to take.)


But, people shoot at each other for, simple reasons, such as insulting another's mother or dating another's sister ect.

Once again, you're picking out a minority of people in the gun world, (not a majority), that do things such as shoot each over meaningless bullshit like another insulting one's mother or dating someone's sister. It doesn't happen as much as others would like you to think, and education would like I've said time and time again, prevent people from being stupid and walking out to kill some guy down the street because he was eyeing his sister a little weird.

And like I said, you're likely to get stabbed or choked, or some other form of brutal attack, than be attacked with a gun in public. The reason people do use guns, is because they're ignorant to the fact that guns are as I've said before too, an equalizer, and only give a person with a gun, an equal chance in achieving victory over say a larger group of people who if he only had a knife or something, could be over powered fairly quickly by others. This is why we need good education, one that tells people the truth of guns and such, rather this anti-guns propaganda that's spewed so much.