Gun control

[Rightside]

I wanna hear your leftist veiws on gun control, I'm not gonna make a point, cause your gonna try to prove that wrong rather than explain yourself. So please, just explain to me your ideals.

[SonofRage]

Umm, what do you think we are? Liberals?

[synthesis]

Gun control is a non-issue to me.

[Sensitive]

Why would I want the capitalist state to have a monopoly on gun ownership?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I know I'm going to get attacked like a cat thrown into the wolf pack on this one, but this is the ONE issue that I preety much agree with conservatives and anarchists on. I think that all people should have access and training to full military weaponry. Rocket propelled grenade lauchers, anti tank/anti personal mines, automatic weapons, Surface to air missiles, the whole arsonal should be made available to the public. The people should form the backbone of the defence of the revolution. I feel that we should cut military spending almost completely, and have a "people's army". With only a handful of nuclear weapons, and a small air force and navy. I feel weapons training ought to be compulsatory in any educational program, regardless of race, sex, etc. Banning weapons ensures that the only people who have them are the people who aren't supposed to. I trust the general public with these weapons far more then I would anything that comes out of the capitalist military training program. However, an important issue is to ensure that we should strive to keep weapons out of the hands of counter-revolutionaries. But, I believe that reactionary words and actions are just as threatening (if not more so) to the revolution then weapons, and I believe we should take heed of those warning signs, to identify and deport/re-educate counter-revolutionaries before they are a threat, not when they are sabotaging the defence of the revolution, or even fighting against everything we fought altogether. To make the people's army possible, total support of the masses is needed. So therefore it is necessary to provide a Marxist education to all, and be vigilant in combating reactionary ideas at home.

[Rightside]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:26 AM
Why would I want the capitalist state to have a monopoly on gun ownership?
Explain, the government has no monopoly, there are tons of gun companies all working together

[Rightside]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:21 AM
Umm, what do you think we are? Liberals?
Yea the Che thing kinda gave tme the idea

[synthesis]

Explain, the government has no monopoly, there are tons of gun companies all working together

I think he meant that the government would have a monopoly on guns if there was gun control, as opposed to if there wasn't.


Yea the Che thing kinda gave tme the idea

Why would a liberal admire Che?

Che was a Stalinist. Stalinists believe in armed revolution. Where's the confusion?


I know I'm going to get attacked like a cat thrown into the wolf pack on this one

No, you aren't. Gun control has come up before, and most revolutionaries oppose it.

[RedCeltic]

Fuck gun control... it doesn't stop crime. Gun control is a typical liberal answer to social problems, like throwing a bandaid on a severed artery.

Want to reduce crime? Abolish the wage system... but... if you know your American labor history, we will need guns to defend ourselves!

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/billboard-hitler.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If a weapon/firearm can be maintained by one person, you should be able to own it (Or in communist society, have your use patterns respected (Or do firearms fall under personal property?))

This would mean that everything from pistols to shotguns to SMGs to assault rifles all the way up to heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers would be available.

Things that require more than one person to operate/maintain, should, for safety reasons, be in collective hands.
Stuff like SAM launchers, tanks, and scuds.

[The Feral Underclass]

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Where on earth did you get the idea that anarchists advocate no gun control.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2004, 09:27 PM
MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Where on earth did you get the idea that anarchists advocate no gun control.
Yes, I too am puzzled. There is no right or wrong on such an issue with anarchists. It is up to the individual anarchist whether they believe there should be gun control or none, or even some.

I, however, do not wish for gun control.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think in the case of america the evidence proves overwhelmingly that gun crime could, especially those concerning schools (columbine) could have been halfed or stopped had there been gun control.

In the UK after the dumblane incident where a man went into a school in scotland and shot about ten kids guns where banned.

The US has very limited gun control which means it is very easy to purchase a gun and you see parents giving their 7 year old kids shot guns to pose with in pictures. This isnt healthy.

Of course then you come to the question of the working class being restricted and unable to defend itself but I am not sure whether haveing freely available fire arms including automatic machine guns available to anyone is the answer.

being able to take out a bank account and be given a free gun seems odd to me.

The topic actually feels like a non-issue but I do think there should be some form of gun control.

[synthesis]

Of course then you come to the question of the working class being restricted and unable to defend itself but I am not sure whether haveing freely available fire arms including automatic machine guns available to anyone is the answer.

I think Chomsky presents the most rational view on this topic.


As for guns being the way to respond to [an overbearing government], that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.

In industrialized nations, the Leninist armed revolution loses its viability precisely because of the material conditions involved in a "real" Marxist revolution. Therefore, in my opinion, the concept of gun control is completely irrelevant to any revolutionary socialist, as the concept of "power flowing from the barrel of a gun" is no longer applicable.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think Chomsky presents the most rational view on this topic.

Please elaberate?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think in the case of america the evidence proves overwhelmingly that gun crime could, especially those concerning schools (columbine) could have been halfed or stopped had there been gun control.


Remember that school shootings are the exception rather than the rule, and the influence is capitalist non-culture.


In the UK after the dumblane incident where a man went into a school in scotland and shot about ten kids guns where banned.

I believe the man was clinically insane.
If a person was really determined about shooting up some passers-by, then he would acquire a gun illegally even if it was legal to own firearms- legal purchases of firearms are traceable (or they should be)
criminals don't care about the law- that's why they're criminals.

The banning of guns after Dunblane was a stupid knee-jerk reaction which now means law-abiding citizens can't own handguns. Stupid.


The US has very limited gun control which means it is very easy to purchase a gun and you see parents giving their 7 year old kids shot guns to pose with in pictures. This isnt healthy

Yes, I believe that there should be more traceability in the ownership of firearms- any criminal convictions must be 'spent' and you are to be certified mentally sound by at least 9 of your peers and a qualified doctor.
I see nothing wrong with young 'uns handling firearms- as long as they are taught safety and handling procedures, and that it is certain that they know how to use a weapon safely and properly.
I think one way to demonstrate to kids how dangerous firearms are is to show them recently shot hunted animals.
Treat every firearm as if it was loaded, one of the most important rules.


The topic actually feels like a non-issue but I do think there should be some form of gun control

The question is not why I should own a firearm, but why I shouldn't own a firearm.

[Rightside]

I think in the case of america the evidence proves overwhelmingly that gun crime could, especially those concerning schools (columbine) could have been halfed or stopped had there been gun control.

Actually I think it seems otherwise, many school shootings are stopped by armed students.


The US has very limited gun control which means it is very easy to purchase a gun and you see parents giving their 7 year old kids shot guns to pose with in pictures. This isnt healthy.

Are you kidding me? It takes monthes to buy a gun. There are 20,000 state gun control laws in this country, that's limited gun control?


being able to take out a bank account and be given a free gun seems odd to me.

It seems odd to me too but you have to fill out a lot of forms to do that.


The topic actually feels like a non-issue but I do think there should be some form of gun control.

Yea, on WMDs, SCUDs, and grenades and such.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Should a person have their own personal arsenal of nuclear weapons? Obviously not you megalomanic. Grenades are ok for an individual, and missles though are ok for a militia to have. If everyone had guns, Columbine would have never happened. The shooters did not buy their weapons legally anyways, so gun control wouldn't have made much difference. I think weapons training should be a part of any well-rounded education, and weapons should be provided by the state, and tanks, bombers/fighers, and battleships should remain in the hands of a traditional military because additional training is needed to operate them, esp. the ships. Working on an aircraft carrier is a full time job. It's just not practical for everyone to keep a MiG in their garage. Furthermore, I think people should be given their arsenals by the state, because they ARE the defence of the revolution.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2004, 04:27 AM
MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Where on earth did you get the idea that anarchists advocate no gun control.
Well I'm totally confused now... I thought anarchists believed that there shouldn't be restrictions of personal freedoms... but now I see that you believe in government control.

What part about "Gun-control" fits into the anarchism? If everyone in a society together decides not to have guns there... well that's one thing.. but it's not "Gun control" where you decide who will have guns and who will not have guns.

Are guns a problem in the United States? Sure, but Canada... which has less gun laws... also has less violent crime. So what is Canada doing right that the US isn't?

And.... banning guns isn't going to make them any less available. You can buy a handgun, or anyother type of firearm in New York City... even though the sale of firearms in New York City is TOTALLY ILLEGAL!

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I'm totally confused now... I thought anarchists believed that there shouldn't be restrictions of personal freedoms... but now I see that you believe in government control.

Authority can sometimes justify itself. When the workers need to be armed they will be armed. Unfortunatly we dont live ín an anarchist society right at the moment and there a few nuts on this board and in the world who would be happy to manipulate the lax gun laws to commit serious crimes. I think, living in a captialist society, banning guns isnt necessarily a bad thing,.

I dont really even have an oppinion about gun control....it is really a non issue...i wish i hadnt even joined in this thread....

[RedCeltic]

I dont really even have an oppinion about gun control....it is really a non issue...i wish i hadnt even joined in this thread....

Yeah... I suppose I'm pretty much the same way on the issue. I don't own guns or anything, and loath hunters... and at one time was very much in support of gun control...

Just so you know...I'm no NRA member... :lol:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Of course being the rival that you are Anarchist Tension, you have to disagree with me, because that is what rivals do. Even if that means being an anarchist who advocates gun control, by all means, you have to have to disagree so that you can try to convince everyone that I am a Stalinist, capitalist, revisionist, nut case who needs to be removed from the Commie Club and restricted. :<

[The Feral Underclass]

a stalinist, capitalist and revisionist all at the same time.....

your removel from commie club would be sufficient&#33;

[synthesis]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2004, 11:10 AM

I think Chomsky presents the most rational view on this topic.

Please elaberate?
It was in the quote I provided.


As for guns being the way to respond to [an overbearing government], that&#39;s outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There&#39;s no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that&#39;s morally legitimate.

[Edward Norton]

I would have to disagree with Anarchist Tension.

Being an anarcho-communist myself, I would make a big case FOR gun ownership, as I believe that an ARMED people is a FREE people and that self defense (guns inlcuded) is no offence&#33;

Besides every tyranny has sought gun control, so it&#39;s a bit ironic that liberals are in favour of gun control, it just exposes liberals as false defenders of freedom, they are just statists in disguise&#33;

As an anarcho-communist, I would also like to point out that every capitlalist and Stalinist state has sought to control it&#39;s peoples. The basis of this is a professional army as opposed to a peoples militia. Stalin turned the Red Army into a professional Soviet army after siezing power&#33; ALL Capitlalist nations have professional armies and a monopoly of arms&#33;

So for a free society there needs to be NO army, but an ARMED people&#33;

This is the ONLY issue that I am in AGREEMENT with US conservatives/patriot militias&#33;

[ComradeRobertRiley]

If someone wants to own a gun then no-one should take that right away from them.

If you rufuse them, then they are not free.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

How about if someone wants their very own battery of anti-aircraft missles?

[Hiero]

Your all fucking crazy i think. When it comes to guns fuck freedom guns are meant to do one thing that is kill so of course there has to be regulations. Just have a look at countries that have gun control compared to crazy gun nut america... notice a huge difference in deaths by guns. The only reason why guns should be legal to the public is for hunting so only bolt loading rifle should be legal.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

gotcha

[YKTMX]

Yeah, I&#39;m personally in favour of gun control.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:11 AM

being able to take out a bank account and be given a free gun seems odd to me.

It seems odd to me too but you have to fill out a lot of forms to do that.


You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new rifle, a gift for opening the account. There was barely anything to fill out at all.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Who cares? I would trust children with guns more then I&#39;d trust anything in the US imperialist military machine.

[RedCeltic]

Just have a look at countries that have gun control compared to crazy gun nut america...

Yes, we do have some gun nuts in America, but as I have pointed out, we had different levels of gun control here. In New York City for example, you can&#39;t buy any firearms... yet.. somehow there are still plenty of them on the streets.

Canada, believe it or not... dispite having actually less restrictions on firearms, and dispite the fact that it is possibly one of the most solidly gun loving nations... has less murders, and violent crime as a whole than the United States.

I think that we have some major social problems in the United States that need to be addressed... and pushing for gun control is an easy cop-out to seem like... as a politician, you are trying to do something...

People need to wakeup and realize that gun-control.. may be affective in some small nations with controlable boarders, but it is totally impractical in the United States.


You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new gun

First of all, there is no telling how long it really took, I suspect that for the sensationalism of the film they let him walk out with it right away...

secondly, he was not handed a gun. He was handed a hunting rifle. There is a big difference there.

[BuyOurEverything]

dispite having actually less restrictions on firearms

Really? I wasn&#39;t aware of that, I always thought that Canada had more restrictions. There is a federal gun registry and every gun owner must have a licence, which you get after taking a firearms safety course, having a background check, and a brief interview with a cop.

I agree that gun control is just a band-aid solution to serious social problems. People should be free to own guns if the wish however, they should be required to receive training and education first to prevent accidents and dangeroususe and storage etc.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:11 PM
You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new gun, a gift for opening the account. There was barely anything to fill out at all.
Watch again, they did also did a background check.

[RedCeltic]

Really? I wasn&#39;t aware of that, I always thought that Canada had more restrictions.

Yeah... I&#39;m probobly wrong on that one. I heard they had less restrictions by alot of different people but I never asked any mounties or anything.

[Hiero]

I do beleive america has a alot of social problems which causes gun violence and that having gun control is just a band aid solution there still needs to be restrictions. Even if you didnt have gun restrictions at least there should be a law that says every person owning guns must have them stored in a locker seperated from amunition that would stop kids and thiefs getting guns.

[Inti]

I think that one should just be allowed to use the weapons that one is born with.. no guns and stufff.. thats for chicken shit people who dont know how to defend themselves properly.. ok.. perhaps disabled people could be allowed to have it, since they have obvious difficulties to defend themselves.. otherwise I would prefer some good ol swingin.. :D

[Inti]

ohhh.. or otherwise we could do like I heard Chris Rock saying.. Ok to sell guns cheaply but every bullet should cost 3000 bucks.. so that when you go around killing people it would be someone that you REALLY wanted to kill..

[James]

I am a Stalinist, capitalist, revisionist, nut case who needs to be removed from the Commie Club and restricted. :<


lol - i left one day. Came back 2 months latter, and i was no longer a moderator person, and the commie club had gone&#33;

Or is it there, and i just havn&#39;t seen it (thats not sarci)?

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:25 AM
First of all, there is no telling how long it really took, I suspect that for the sensationalism of the film they let him walk out with it right away...

secondly, he was not handed a gun. He was handed a hunting rifle. There is a big difference there.
Moore being the propagandist that he is makes it seem possible to me that he could have cut the time it took to get the rifle. As for the diffrence between a rifle and gun, doesn&#39;t gun refer to handguns and rifle, I&#39;ve been under that impression my whole life. You seem to be saying that the word gun is inappropriate when used to describe a rifle.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jan 6 2004, 12:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Jan 6 2004, 12:51 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 09:11 PM
You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new gun, a gift for opening the account. There was barely anything to fill out at all.
Watch again, they did also did a background check. [/b]
They did do a background check, but the paperwork was very minimal, or atleast Moore decided to cut a lot of the paperwork out to make the situation seem worse than it was. All Moore was show to be filing out was a paper that questioned his background, stuff like whether or not he has been involved in a crime or if he was ever in jail.

[RedCeltic]

doesn&#39;t gun refer to handguns and rifle,

Most people make the mistake but they are wrong. Watch "Full Metal Jacket" where the Marine instructor has the recrutes march holding rifles and their crotch and saying "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun..." That&#39;s just an exersise to help you tell the difference.. haha...

Anyway... there are "Shot-guns" ... "Tommy-Guns"... and "Hand guns"... than there are rifles.... bolt action, semi-automatic, fully automatic...

It doesn&#39;t make much of a difference other than I only wanted to point out that he wasn&#39;t going to stick a pistol in his pocket and than walk into the 7-11 nextdoor and rob it... a rifle isn&#39;t as good for a holdup.

[timbaly]

I saw Full Metal Jacket, the first few scenes are hilarious. I love the fact that Ho Chi Minh was called a "son of a *****" by Lee Ermy (the instructor).

Anyway, I see what you&#39;re saying a hand gun is much more easily concealed than the rifle that Moore was given. I should edit my post to prevent confusion.

[commieboy]

you know what?

I see nothing wrong with the gun control restrictions in the U.S. right now.....

If i learned anything from bowling for columbine, it was that dont blame guns for the amount of gun deaths, America is just a fucked up country...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, militarily speaking, the word GUN is inapropriate(sp?) to describe things like rifles, shotguns, pistols, assault rifles etc.
The correct word is FIREARM. GUN refers to things like howitzers, mortars, and cannons.

FIREARMS
|
|------Pistols = Automatics(Glock18)/Revolvers(Colt Anaconda)/Machine Pistols(MP5k)
|
|------Shotguns = Break-Open(Most Hunting Shotguns)/Pump-Action(Remington 870)/Semi-Auto(M1014)
|
|------Rifles = Bolt Action(AWP, Barret M82)/Semi Auto(PSG)
|
|------SubMachine Guns = MP5, P90, Bizon.
|
|------Assault Rifles = AK-47, M-16, M4a1 (Often with attatched M203 Grenade Launcher or Bayonet)
|
|------Machine Guns = Light(M249 SAW)/General Purpose(M60)/Heavy(Browning .50Inch M2HB)
|
|------RPGs/RLs = RPG-7/LAW


That should clear things up a bit...

[RedCeltic]

NoXion

Yeah you&#39;re right&#33; Actually I was talking to my father on this subject since I posted in this thread the last time and he said that according to the Army (Which he was drafted into in the 1960&#39;s).....

...."A Gun requires more than one person to opperate." Anything that one person can fire is not a gun according to him.

Anyway, I still associate "Gun" with a "Handgun" as I wasn&#39;t expecting the bank to give him a howitzer lol...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But If I shot in the ass withss my spamm roxket qould you stillm call it a gunn??

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jan 6 2004, 12:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Jan 6 2004, 12:51 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 09:11 PM
You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new gun, a gift for opening the account. There was barely anything to fill out at all.
Watch again, they did also did a background check. [/b]
yep and he got the gun several days later, that shot was edited. wasnt he not even able to get the gun at the bank? from what i read he went back to the bank for some of those scenes.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Jan 8 2004, 09:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Jan 8 2004, 09:24 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:51 AM

[email protected] 5 2004, 09:11 PM
You should watch the documentary "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore was able to open a brand new account in a rural Michigan town and in less than a half an hour he was able to walk out of the bank with brand new gun, a gift for opening the account. There was barely anything to fill out at all.
Watch again, they did also did a background check.
yep and he got the gun several days later, that shot was edited. wasnt he not even able to get the gun at the bank? from what i read he went back to the bank for some of those scenes. [/b]
I saw Moore go on the Oprah show and I&#39;m pretty sure he said that he was given the within a few minutes. Moore being the propagandist that he is probaly got around the question by saying it took a few minutes, which on the grand scale of things could equate to a day or more. If what you say is true than Moore really mislead the audience on Oprah or perhaps he actually lied, I can&#39;t remember the actual wording of the questions or his answers. I would not doubt Moore lieing on the show or at all, it seems like something he would do.

The people at the bank said the bank was a liscened arms dealer, they claimed to have something like 500 different firearms in the bank. (I&#39;m not sure if it was 500 different models or 500 separate guns.)