Gun Control in the Contemporary Western World [Archive]

xnecron101x

23rd July 2014, 04:13

Oh boy...

Perhaps a bit ambitious for a first thread, but let's all try to be civil. I've seen the odd thread on gun control here and there on this site, but not too many full on discussions about the pros and cons of different policies and ideas.

I would also like to add that I would like to keep this discussion within the realms of the real, modern world and not a hypothetical future socialist/communist/anarchist/whateverist society.

I will natural start with my own ideas.

I am a social libertarian by nature, and as as such, I honestly believe that any citizen should be able to own any kind of weapon, magazine, and ammunition they want provided they have passed safety, information, and training courses on the type/class of weapon they are looking to purchase. I believe training should be mandatory to receive a license, and I believe a license should be mandatory to buy a firearm. I also believe that firearms should be separated by class, but not banned. For example, I don't believe in the banning of Machine Guns, but I believe receiving your basic firearms license should not allow you to purchase a select fire/fully automatic weapon. I believe that license/endorsement should come after more training. I also agree with the registering of all firearms and firearm-owners, but not at a ridiculous cost (see the $200 tax stamp for registering an NFA firearm or SBR in the United States)

My justification for these beliefs is simple. I love guns, and I believe you should have the right to do or have anything as long as you're not hurting anyone else. and remember, just because something can hurt someone else, doesn't mean it inherently will.

Well there you go, Revleft. Go nuts, I'd love to hear everyone's opinions, and remember to try and keep it civil

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th July 2014, 01:09

Psycho P and the Freight Train

24th July 2014, 01:20

My question: why is it necessary at all to have guns prevalent in society? What does it say about that society that one of the fundamental rights people want to defend is not that of decent living standards, access to education and healthcare and the forging of proper community spirit, but the right to own as many deadly weapons as possible?

Further, it's pretty hypocritical to argue against wars and imperialism and WMDs yet under this bullshit 'rights and freedoms' argument make a blithe exception for firearms.

If someone breaks into your place, would you rather have a gun or a knife? Would you NOT have a gun to protect yourself just because of some kind of principles?

Don't get me wrong, if bad people didn't have guns, I'd agree with you. But I don't want some maniac breaking into my place with a gun without having one to defend myself from them. Would you not agree?

Rosa Partizan

24th July 2014, 01:37

If someone breaks into your place, would you rather have a gun or a knife? Would you NOT have a gun to protect yourself just because of some kind of principles?

Don't get me wrong, if bad people didn't have guns, I'd agree with you. But I don't want some maniac breaking into my place with a gun without having one to defend myself from them. Would you not agree?

are we talking about reality now or some utopia? Seems you wanna have that "things as they are now"-approach, but isn't it that in case of burglary, chances are way higher that you shoot a beloved one or you get shot at yourself by that gun instead of you shoot the burglar? I dont understand this American gun obsession AT ALL, as VIL already mentioned. Why is this so important that it's even an amendment? Why is guns/the right to posess them something that everyone can agree on, contrary to education, health care etc? Is this the ultimate symbol of freedom and security? Well, if so, then statistics say something completely different.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

24th July 2014, 01:40

are we talking about reality now or some utopia? Seems you wanna have that "things as they are now"-approach, but isn't it that in case of burglary, chances are way higher that you shoot a beloved one or you get shot at yourself by that gun instead of you shoot the burglar? I dont understand this American gun obsession AT ALL, as VIL already mentioned. Why is this so important that it's even an amendment? Why is guns/the right to posess them something that everyone can agree on, contrary to education, health care etc? Is this the ultimate symbol of freedom and security? Well, if so, then statistics say something completely different.

Rosa I'm not a redneck :lol:

The U.S. is not Europe. The U.S. is filled with psychotic people wielding guns. I have a better chance of defending myself if I have one to counter theirs.

No offense, but I don't think people in Europe can properly give an opinion on this if they don't have to be around maniacs with guns all the time.

xnecron101x

24th July 2014, 01:44

For me, it's not even a matter of personal or even national security. It's a matter of personal freedom. I don't like that there are things the government says you're not allowed to have.

And to Rosa, when was the last time you saw/read about gun legislation in the US? Nobody can agree at all. Just like everything in congress.

Rosa Partizan

24th July 2014, 01:48

Rosa I'm not a redneck :lol:

The U.S. is not Europe. The U.S. is filled with psychotic people wielding guns. I have a better chance of defending myself if I have one to counter theirs.

No offense, but I don't think people in Europe can properly give an opinion on this if they don't have to be around maniacs with guns all the time.

so why don't we have these maniacs taken away the guns? Yeah, of course, it sounds naive, but do we really believe that a society spilling over with guns is more secure? Why do you embrace that "let's have everyone a gun"-thing instead of embracing a "let's take it away from sociopaths"-thing? You know why you feel endangered? Because your shitty system values guns over proper psychological health care. Why is it that NRA opposes background checks? Because they make a lot of money off of lunatics. In this respective, I understand your POV, it's just not the way it should be.

BIXX

24th July 2014, 01:52

Lol
I like guns, I want them. End of story. This doesn't mean I'll let pro-gun activism or whatever you wanna call it get in the way of my other activities, obviously things like healthcare and housing will be more important for my life, but I will always oppose gun control.

Rosa Partizan

24th July 2014, 01:54

Slavic

24th July 2014, 01:59

how do you define gun control? If it means checking thoroughly who to sell a gun to, I'm all in for that.

Its all about harm reduction. You can't feasibly "take away everyone's guns", but you can at least prevent the mentally disabled and violent criminals from buying them without restrictions,

Rosa Partizan

24th July 2014, 02:01

Its all about harm reduction. You can't feasibly "take away everyone's guns", but you can at least prevent the mentally disabled and violent criminals from buying them without restrictions,

ok, in how far is this a contradiction to "check who you sell guns to"?

Psycho P and the Freight Train

24th July 2014, 02:04

so why don't we have these maniacs taken away the guns? Yeah, of course, it sounds naive, but do we really believe that a society spilling over with guns is more secure? Why do you embrace that "let's have everyone a gun"-thing instead of embracing a "let's take it away from sociopaths"-thing? You know why you feel endangered? Because your shitty system values guns over proper psychological health care. Why is it that NRA opposes background checks? Because they make a lot of money off of lunatics. In this respective, I understand your POV, it's just not the way it should be.

Yes! I completely agree with you! But as long as this shitty system is in place, I'd feel safer with a gun to defend myself from these deranged lunatics who have them who want to break into my house. It's a shitty situation. I agree.

But people in Europe generally judge people with this mindset of wanting them for protection because Europe isn't saturated with gun violence that you need protection from. Simple as that.

BIXX

24th July 2014, 07:33

how do you define gun control? If it means checking thoroughly who to sell a gun to, I'm all in for that.

Well, first I wanna ask what would this checking entail? Who do you think we should limit access to guns to?

$lim_$weezy

24th July 2014, 08:19

It seems that one effect of easy gun availability is a high rate of death for women victims of intimate partner violence (according to some statistics I read once). So it's not just a "rights" issue, but a gendered one as well.

The Red Star Rising

24th July 2014, 08:44

I'm personally critical of the need to bear assault rifles and handguns everywhere. And I'm most certainly not impressed by people waving around privately owned HMGs or heavier ordnance like a badge of honor. I mean, I can respect them maintaining weapons that are usually relics of history in of themselves, but a lot of American gun culture seems to mostly be down to "mine is bigger than yours" dick waving.

Now I can see the desire to ensure that you, your family, and your friends are protected via having a shotgun or so but I personally can't wrap my head around fetishizing AK-47s and AR-15s. Certainly we need to be cautious about handing out guns. A gun is a tool with mostly one usage; maiming or killing (and recreational range shooting), and so I feel much safer with the number of guns in Europe than I would in say; downtown Detroit.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th July 2014, 14:17

If someone breaks into your place, would you rather have a gun or a knife? Would you NOT have a gun to protect yourself just because of some kind of principles?

I would trust that in 90+% of cases, merely startling the burglar would probably send them running off into the night. The other 10% i'd take my chances.

I don't really think all burglars are 'bad' people, most of them are probably just desperate and out of luck. Not that i'd invite them into tea, i'd make sure they fuck the hell out of my house, but i'm not about to murder somebody I don't know just because they've broken into my house. That's a seriously fucked up attitude.

Don't get me wrong, if bad people didn't have guns, I'd agree with you. But I don't want some maniac breaking into my place with a gun without having one to defend myself from them. Would you not agree?

I think you're a victim of scare-mongering propaganda. The likelihood of such a doomsday scenario occurring, in most neighbourhoods in western countries, is pretty remote IMO. And if it does occur, don't fucking murder someone for it. Fuck sake.

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 14:29

People on revleft are against the state executing child rapists yet at the same time support the state having power to do intensive background checks which exclude people who have spent time in prison and people who have had mental health problems from having guns.

Where exactly is it ok to support the state and where is it not. I see people on here for example support the abolishment of prisons while at the same time saying rape convictionsa re too low.

There is no consistency with regards to the state and where communists will deem its authority acceptable.

Why the working class should not have the means to protect themselves as well as the police do?

Why should the police have the power to stop anyone drinking, taking drugs, owning guns, driving cars if they should not have the right to kill convicted murderers and rapists, which most people support?

hatzel

24th July 2014, 14:33

Can I ask the OP why the thread title says '...in the Contemporary Western World'? I mean, I initially assumed that this was going to be a comment about existing 'Gun Control in the Contemporary Western World,' at which point I would have pointed out that it makes no sense, given the various policies in different countries, and the different approaches to guns across 'the Contemporary Western World.' Reading the post, however, and it's just about what gun policy should be...but then why 'in the Contemporary Western World'? Is there supposed to be some ideal policy that fits across 'the Contemporary Western World,' though is unsuitable for 'the Contemporary [non-]Western World'? Why would there be this kind of clean global division when it comes to gun policy?

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 14:34

I would trust that in 90+% of cases, merely startling the burglar would probably send them running off into the night. The other 10% i'd take my chances.

I don't really think all burglars are 'bad' people, most of them are probably just desperate and out of luck. Not that i'd invite them into tea, i'd make sure they fuck the hell out of my house, but i'm not about to murder somebody I don't know just because they've broken into my house. That's a seriously fucked up attitude.

I think you're a victim of scare-mongering propaganda. The likelihood of such a doomsday scenario occurring, in most neighbourhoods in western countries, is pretty remote IMO. And if it does occur, don't fucking murder someone for it. Fuck sake.

Do you know what someone who is being pistol whipped, tied up while someone rapes his loved ones is thinking?

I wish I had a gun!.

And as someone who robbed cars, houses and sold drugs from the age of 14, I can tell you most people who commit burglaries and rob working peoples shit are complete and utter arseholes who do not care who they hurt and who they mess with.

The fact you say they are not arseholes, on a site where anyone who has a simple deviation of thought from other users is called a parasite and a piece of shit, it is quite funny. The left are more angry at people who say something deemed stupid or reactionary to them than people who steal and rob and victimise working people.

xnecron101x

24th July 2014, 15:36

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th July 2014, 16:57

Do you know what someone who is being pistol whipped, tied up while someone rapes his loved ones is thinking?

I wish I had a gun!.

In a society where guns are just illegal across the board, this doesn't tend to happen.

And as someone who robbed cars, houses and sold drugs from the age of 14,

You're so badass.

I can tell you most people who commit burglaries and rob working peoples shit are complete and utter arseholes who do not care who they hurt and who they mess with.

Oh. Is there a little club that you join upon initiation into the burgling fraternity?

The fact you say they are not arseholes, on a site where anyone who has a simple deviation of thought from other users is called a parasite and a piece of shit, it is quite funny.

I challenge you to find where i've ever called anybody a parasite.

The left are more angry at people who say something deemed stupid or reactionary to them than people who steal and rob and victimise working people.

You're deviating from the point in hand. Guns cause deaths when they are in the hands of un-trained people. The more guns in the hands of untrained people, the likelihood of greater civilian deaths increases. This is borne out by the statistics quite clearly.

xnecron101x

24th July 2014, 17:01

Guns cause deaths when they are in the hands of un-trained people. The more guns in the hands of untrained people, the likelihood of greater civilian deaths increases. This is borne out by the statistics quite clearly.

ahem.

provided they have passed safety, information, and training courses on the type/class of weapon they are looking to purchase

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 17:10

In a society where guns are just illegal across the board, this doesn't tend to happen.

You're so badass.

Oh. Is there a little club that you join upon initiation into the burgling fraternity?

I challenge you to find where i've ever called anybody a parasite.

You're deviating from the point in hand. Guns cause deaths when they are in the hands of un-trained people. The more guns in the hands of untrained people, the likelihood of greater civilian deaths increases. This is borne out by the statistics quite clearly.

1.
You're so badassI never said i was badass, I have guilt about my prior actions and immense shame at what I was capable of doing to people back then.

2.
Oh. Is there a little club that you join upon initiation into the burgling fraternity?

There is obviously no burglary fraternity, but most of the guys who are involved in dealing, twoking and grafting hang about together, there were around 50 of us who would spend all day in bed, get up at around 3 and smoke weed all day then at night either sell drugs or go on a graft.

2.
Guns cause deaths when they are in the hands of un-trained people. The more guns in the hands of untrained people, the likelihood of greater civilian deaths increases. This is borne out by the statistics quite clearly.

Alcohol kills way way more than guns, unless you support the governemnt being able to dictate what you can have or making people do background checks before buying mcdonalds and cigarettes, I don't see how being pro gun control or pushing for more restriction and checks is a consistent line.

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 17:28

I have read this so many times.... i dont know what.....

Wrong thread?

Yeah, I posted the wrong reply, fixed now.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th July 2014, 17:51

1.
2.

Alcohol kills way way more than guns, unless you support the governemnt being able to dictate what you can have or making people do background checks before buying mcdonalds and cigarettes, I don't see how being pro gun control or pushing for more restriction and checks is a consistent line.

I think minimum pricing policies + better education with regards to all drugs, including alcohol, would be an excellent idea.

But generally, if people consume alcohol in moderation, they tend not to have a hugely negative effect on others around them. But you can't fire a gun at someone in moderation - the intent (and often the result) is obviously to wound/kill.

You're starting to sound less like the type of libertarian concerned with socially just outcomes and more the type of 'tea party' libertarian who foams at the mouth about rights and freedoms, regardless of the outcomes they may produce.

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 17:54

I think minimum pricing policies + better education with regards to all drugs, including alcohol, would be an excellent idea.

But generally, if people consume alcohol in moderation, they tend not to have a hugely negative effect on others around them. But you can't fire a gun at someone in moderation - the intent (and often the result) is obviously to wound/kill.

You're starting to sound less like the type of libertarian concerned with socially just outcomes and more the type of 'tea party' libertarian who foams at the mouth about rights and freedoms, regardless of the outcomes they may produce.

Minimum pricing is giving the state the ability to limit how much working class people can afford to spend on alcohol while not infringing on better off peoples ability to buy bigger quantities. Do you think poor people should not have all the rights rich people do?

Finally yes I do believe in peoples rights being upheld even if they produce bad outcomes. I think Heroin should be legal, I don't cheer when people OD on heroin. I believe that people should be free to make their own choices and we as a society should not support the state controlling our lives so we can be safer.

I agree with no one having their rights revoked. What a crazy absurd position for an Anarchist to take.

Also I am not from the U.S. I doubt the tea party would like me as a member. I do dislike tea though so can get behind throwing it in harbours.

Also just to reply to you statement

if people consume alcohol in moderation, they tend not to have a hugely negative effect on others around them. But you can't fire a gun at someone in moderation - the intent (and often the result) is obviously to wound/kill. Most things done in moderation don't harm anyone. However deaths, violence and health problems are caused overwhelmingly more through incidents involving alcohol than they do from gun owners, when you limit that to legal gun owners that number plumbets even further down.

However, even if it was the other way round, why would that be a reason to take guns out of society for those that have not shot up schools? people have used cars, knives, fire and almost every imaginable thing to kill other people. Rather than nerf the world why don't we adress the specific underlying problem in society, the abandonment and non treatment of very mentally ill people. The U.S has a mental health problem, not a gun problem. The U.S has a racism problem, a poverty problem, not a gun problem.

The Intransigent Faction

24th July 2014, 18:54

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

24th July 2014, 19:02

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 19:03

http://t.news.ca.msn.com/canada/harper-govt-proposes-easing-gun-law

On the pretext of getting rid of "red tape", the Canadian federal government is planning to deal less harshly with gun owners whose permits have expired.

Why would reactionary governments in North America make it easier for people to carry guns, if this was so contrary to their interests? They have no qualms about otherwise enforcing the continuation of capitalism, so this is either a strangely anomalous position or somehow maybe arming people more is seen as being in their interests.

1. No one is saying guns will lead to revolution or anything, they are saying peoples rights to own guns should not be taken away.

2. Governments all over the world are legalising weed, same sex marriage, portugal decriminalised all drugs etc. These laws are not to prop up or to destroy capitalism and the state, they are just laws people can apply pressure to have pushed through.

The state and white supremacy did not gain from ending segragation, that does not mean the government was not racist or that it wasn't in people of colours favour, just because the government agreed to it. The government is still somewhat forced to conceed some reform to the majority when it is demanded. Maybe the people of Canada overwhlemingly wanted laxed punishment. Maybe the government saw no danger of capitalism falling from doing so.

By your logic the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain at the time must of been in the reactionary and homophobic states interest to do so, so what, should we not have supported it?

Governments do not only pass laws that are in their interests, most laws are not in or not in their interests, they are just small laws that have no baring on the stability of the state.

LuÃs Henrique

24th July 2014, 22:32

If someone breaks into your place, would you rather have a gun or a knife?

If someone breaks into my home, I would rather be somewhere else.

If however I am home, I would rather have no guns, and would not use a knife to defend myself.

Trying to defend myself with either a gun or a knife would quite certainly result in my death, would not impede the theft of my things, gun included. So why would I pretend to be able to do something I wouldn't?

And in the case of a gun, merely having one, though not trying to use it for defense, would probably result in my death.

Would you NOT have a gun to protect yourself just because of some kind of principles?

No, I would not have a gun to protect myself just because of a realistic consideration of the possible outcomes. Being armed with a gun won't protect me from a skilled criminal, who knows how to deal with the situation, nor from an unskilled criminal, who is more likely to panic and shoot.

Don't get me wrong, if bad people didn't have guns, I'd agree with you. But I don't want some maniac breaking into my place with a gun without having one to defend myself from them. Would you not agree?

No. Your argument is a good argument for the use of locks, alarms, cellphones, perhaps even a safe room. But if a maniac breaks into my place, having a gun is pretty useless. Exactly because I am not a maniac, I would not be able to shoot the invader without hesitation, which would make my attempt at a defense useless at best.

***************************

And what is it with "bad people", anyway? "Good people" are those who put property above lives in their hierarchy of values?

Luís Henrique

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th July 2014, 22:39

Further to Luis Henrique's post, I think it is highly likely that if property owners are generally armed with guns, then it is more likely that more intruders/violent criminals will also be armed with guns.

Perhaps just handguns at first. So this will lead to the call for heavier arms, and heavier arms, to be allowed to be carried, by a greater number of people, in the name of 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'self-defence'.

All the while, society will be at risk of more bullets flying and more unnecessary deaths.

If we can eliminate weapons - all weapons - from society then we would have much safer communities. I think that's just common sense really.

Ele'ill

24th July 2014, 22:44

If someone breaks into my home, I would rather be somewhere else.

or would you rather the person breaking in was somewhere else

Trying to defend myself with either a gun or a knife would quite certainly result in my death, would not impede the theft of my things, gun included. So why would I pretend to be able to do something I wouldn't? And in the case of a gun, merely having one, though not trying to use it for defense, would probably result in my death.

Why?

No, I would not have a gun to protect myself just because of a realistic consideration of the possible outcomes. Being armed with a gun won't protect me from a skilled criminal, who knows how to deal with the situation, nor from an unskilled criminal, who is more likely to panic and shoot.

become used to handling firearms

Ele'ill

24th July 2014, 22:48

Further to Luis Henrique's post, I think it is highly likely that if property owners are generally armed with guns, then it is more likely that more intruders/violent criminals will also be armed with guns.

Perhaps just handguns at first. So this will lead to the call for heavier arms, and heavier arms, to be allowed to be carried, by a greater number of people, in the name of 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'self-defence'.

folks pulling a job don't want a gun fight they want to get in and get out anything else is a distraction and waste of time- otherwise- they'd just make a hit first then loot

LuÃs Henrique

24th July 2014, 22:49

Where exactly is it ok to support the state and where is it not.

Don't you think owning guns to protect property is exactly supporting the State?

I see people on here for example support the abolishment of prisons while at the same time saying rape convictionsa re too low.

While I have the same impression (and it certainly disturbs me a lot), I suppose that there are two different sets of people, one that supports the abolishment of prisons, and another that supports higher penalties for violent crimes. True enough, the ones who oppose the prisonal system seem to never be present when the lynching enablers are at it again, but hey.

There is no consistency with regards to the state and where communists will deem its authority acceptable.

This is in fact impossible by definition; you can't have a thing that has the monopoly of violence and at the same time effectively regulate what kind or degree of violence it can exert.

Why the working class should not have the means to protect themselves as well as the police do?

This reminds me asking my parents if robbers had the right to cross red traffic lights as the police does...

The truth is that guns aren't means to protect people as members of the working class if such people aren't armed with quite more basic weapons: the knowledge that there is a working class, the consciousness of belonging to it, and the solidarity to each others. Otherwise, people will use guns to "protect themselves", not against the State, not against the police, but against each others, in direct collusion with State and police.

Why should the police have the power to stop anyone drinking, taking drugs, owning guns, driving cars if they should not have the right to kill convicted murderers and rapists, which most people support?

Because until we are able to dispense with the State, we will have a police, and we would rather that it has no legal right to kill convicted, or suspected, murderers or rapists.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

24th July 2014, 22:50

become used to handling firearms

No, thank you.

Luís Henrique

Црвена

24th July 2014, 22:58

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 23:09

The truth is that guns aren't means to protect people as members of the working class if such people aren't armed with quite more basic weapons: the knowledge that there is a working class, the consciousness of belonging to it, and the solidarity to each others. Otherwise, people will use guns to "protect themselves", not against the State, not against the police, but against each others, in direct collusion with State and police. Well in the mean time I wouldn't get a gun to defend my property and family because unless I am using guns in a proletarian movement then I would rather die than shoot someone breaking into my house and stealing the shit I work hard for.

That is such unrealistic and insane reasoning.

As for the idea you will kill yourself if you have a handgun in your house is silly. Learn how to handle and operate firearms and have it under your bed loaded so if some violent criminal tried to break into your house and fuck with you, or steal the shit you work hard for you can do waht the dad from boyznthehood couldn't do.

Again as someone coming from a criminal background as a youth the rose tinted view communists have of criminals is ridiculous. Like someone breaking into your house shouldn't be killed because he is just a victim of the larger economic situation.

There were these two really friendly gay guys who lived in one of the houses near the end of the estate and because we knew how soft these guys were people would break into there house all the time, they had like 3 cars stolen over 10 years.

People literally had no fear of breaking into their house. Yet there were guys we knew would try and fuck us up if we went near their shit and guess what, we never did. We live under capitalism, so rather than waiting for communism, I would suggest using a bit of capitalist realism in your day to day life to all lefties.

If you saw me and a group of guys looking like thugs by the way we walked and dressed and didn't profile us, you were stupid. You might have ideals and stances, but for your longevity, please be realistic.

The world is not how we wish it would be so don't try to apply ideological theory to real life situations.

People who think like this are just setting themselves up to be the biggest victims in the world.

The Intransigent Faction

24th July 2014, 23:18

I'm not in the camp of people who believe everyone owning a gun is a good defense against the government, but do you really find it hard to believe that governments sometimes do things against their own interests out of pure incompetence and or short sightedness?

Sure, there's incompetence, but then there's deliberately making it easier for people to arm themselves. Unless people being armed somehow fits with their interests, it's a bizarre, and dangerous, thing to do.

1. No one is saying guns will lead to revolution or anything

Uh, yeah, some people are, or at least are treating them as a prerequisite for one.

2. Governments all over the world are legalising weed, same sex marriage, portugal decriminalised all drugs etc. These laws are not to prop up or to destroy capitalism and the state, they are just laws people can apply pressure to have pushed through.

Yeah, laws which are qualitative different from effectively saying "Okay, go ahead, arm yourselves!" They are also progressive reforms which are advantageous to the state in several ways compared to more reactionary alternatives. Before you jump on that, it doesn't mean we should oppose them, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking the state is (as it claims to be) acting purely in the interests of the people, just because those interests occasionally converge with the state's in the wake of mass movements.

The state and white supremacy did not gain from ending segregation, that does not mean the government was not racist or that it wasn't in people of colours favour, just because the government agreed to it. The government is still somewhat forced to conceed some reform to the majority when it is demanded. Maybe the people of Canada overwhlemingly wanted laxed punishment. Maybe the government saw no danger of capitalism falling from doing so.

Institutionalized racism didn't go away just because segregation (in the sense it existed before, at least) ended. It was a combination of a popular push for civil rights and the state conceding to this in its own interests. The difference is the state hardly has the same interest in having armed citizens that it does in having civil rights legislation. Indeed, such legislation was the state's attempt to dissuade anger and avoid more violent confrontation while leaving institutionalized racism in tact in some form. As for the people in Canada, no, statistically most of us oppose it just as most of us oppose Harper's right-wing agenda (of the roughly 60% who did vote, most did not vote for him). It's mainly his core supporters who have backed this.

Sure, they probably saw no danger of capitalism falling from doing so. I can agree with that, but it raises questions for those on the left who put so much emphasis on the importance of arms ("Political power comes from the barrel of a gun", etc.). If this doesn't serve the interests of those who want capitalism overthrown, then that leaves us wondering, whose does it serve?

By your logic the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain at the time must of been in the reactionary and homophobic states interest to do so, so what, should we not have supported it?

Sure, for the same reason that any progressive reform is in the face of enough popular pressure, and no, that doesn't mean we should oppose it. However, the same non-sequitur between civil rights reforms and allowing people to arm themselves, relating to the state's interests, applies here as well.

Governments do not only pass laws that are in their interests, most laws are not in or not in their interests, they are just small laws that have no baring on the stability of the state.

The state doesn't have a tendency to act deliberately against its own interests, so "most laws" is really a stretch. They might not be ideal from the state's perspective, but they preserve the status quo as much as possible (the same way states might have preferred workers not unionize, but when they did, a legal framework was set up to make sure they were integrated as 'negotiators', 'bargaining' in the context of a capitalist society, which is certainly in capitalist interests more than the alternative) and they might very well have unintended consequences. Fanatical right-wing populism that ignores all of the evidence about harm done to the people with loosened gun control in favour of some idealist notion of small-business owners protecting their stuff from the bad guys has unintended consequences which threaten many people, but not necessarily the material interests of the state.

Maybe guns serve a purpose, taken along with a class conscious movement, or in a post-revolutionary society. I can see how this view seems paternalist to some people, but should the left really jump on the Second Amendment bandwagon? In some future context they might have their place, but pushing for arms here and now because of some guerrilla war fantasy seems adventurist and ignorant of the actual harm it has caused. Plenty of workers realize the harm in the present context of widespread gun ownership, even when right-wing ideologues don't, and whether or not liberals seize on that as some sort of justification for state paternalism.

The Intransigent Faction

24th July 2014, 23:34

I hate the state, I hate the police and I hate their intrusion into our lives which is pure authoritarianism under the facade of "protecting the people." Gun control is yet another restriction on our civil rights, so I'm automatically against it.

There's a difference between opposing reliance on a paternalistic state to deter socially harmful things and supporting those socially harmful things themselves. What we need is to replace paternalism with an organic, common realization of societal and personal interests in preventing these harms.

The Red Star Rising

24th July 2014, 23:38

On the pretext of getting rid of "red tape", the Canadian federal government is planning to deal less harshly with gun owners whose permits have expired.

Why would reactionary governments in North America make it easier for people to carry guns, if this was so contrary to their interests? They have no qualms about otherwise enforcing the continuation of capitalism, so this is either a strangely anomalous position or somehow maybe arming people more is seen as being in their interests.
It is in the interests capitalism. The fire-arms industry wants to crack into that civilian market by any means possible having found that police and military sales aren't enough for them (The American public buys as many AKs as the Russian Army) so in the search of short term profit, they've decided to throw their lobbying weight into making guns more accessible. Especially impractically blinged out guns with heavy ammo expenditures to wring out more money. The NRA doesn't really care about the rights of the people or the American constitution it wraps around itself, it just cares about their wallets.

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 23:39

There's a difference between opposing reliance on a paternalistic state to deter socially harmful things and supporting those socially harmful things themselves. What we need is to replace paternalism with an organic, common realization of societal and personal interests in preventing these harms.

But in the mean time take no steps to defend yourself with actual realistic success? Should I never get a gun if I live in a crime ridden neighborhood, but rather wait for a revolution as my approach to deter burglary, violence and other crime that could be directed at me and my family.

Patrice O'neal

24th July 2014, 23:41

It is in the interests capitalism. The fire-arms industry wants to crack into that civilian market by any means possible having found that police and military sales aren't enough for them (The American public buys as many AKs as the Russian Army) so in the search of short term profit, they've decided to throw their lobbying weight into making guns more accessible. Especially impractically blinged out guns with heavy ammo expenditures to wring out more money. The NRA doesn't really care about the rights of the people or the American constitution it wraps around itself, it just cares about their wallets.

This is nonsense, the NRA might have shite politics, but they certainly do care about the constitution and the rights of people to own guns.

This type of conspiracy inclined, everything is a big lie thinking many lefts have is the reason so many spew so much liberal nonsense without any evidence. Making us seem irrational and bias.

Zoroaster

25th July 2014, 00:00

I hate the state, I hate the police and I hate their intrusion into our lives which is pure authoritarianism under the facade of "protecting the people." Gun control is yet another restriction on our civil rights, so I'm automatically against it.

Yeah, absolutely. It doesn't matter if criminals can easily access these weapons and use it to kill innocents, if the gat damn government is interfering in meh weapons, they can screw off.

That's some bullshit right there.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th July 2014, 14:37

But in the mean time take no steps to defend yourself with actual realistic success? Should I never get a gun if I live in a crime ridden neighborhood, but rather wait for a revolution as my approach to deter burglary, violence and other crime that could be directed at me and my family.

The annual crime survey in 2013 for the UK showed that burglary affects 2 in 100 households.

And, as you say, they are more likely to happen in poorer areas. So instead of foaming 'rights and freedoms' at the mouth and going gun crazy (which will arguably result in more deaths, criminal trials and tension on all sides), we should put our effort into eliminating the causes of burglary which, as the statistics bear out, is in the UK not a problem for the overwhelming majority of people.

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 14:46

The annual crime survey in 2013 for the UK showed that burglary affects 2 in 100 households.

And, as you say, they are more likely to happen in poorer areas. So instead of foaming 'rights and freedoms' at the mouth and going gun crazy (which will arguably result in more deaths, criminal trials and tension on all sides), we should put our effort into eliminating the causes of burglary which, as the statistics bear out, is in the UK not a problem for the overwhelming majority of people.

And in those 2 out of 100 I would like the home owners to have the means to defend themselves just as well as the police. Did you see the cases where burlgars were stabbed in England a year or so ago? Situations like that place people in a terrible situation where they could be easily overpowered and stabbed.

Also 2 in 100 is not spread out evenly, they are concentrated in certain population centres. Also lots of crimes are obviously not reported, I can't give any statistics for unreported crimes because doing so is all biased guess work, but my biased guess would be that a lot go unreported.

However this is not about statistics and how likely something is, it is about the principle of people having the right to defend themselves. If you don't see it that way then fine, but you are conflating the arguement of other people with mine, which is about the principle of the thing.

It is like arguing with a liberal as a communist, its not about how much people get paid, or how much pay has risen, in principle I am against wage slavery.

helot

25th July 2014, 15:17

This is nonsense, the NRA might have shite politics, but they certainly do care about the constitution and the rights of people to own guns.

This doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The NRA has at various points lobbied for gun control and has previously helped write gun control legislation in the US.

Loony Le Fist

25th July 2014, 16:21

This is nonsense, the NRA might have shite politics, but they certainly do care about the constitution and the rights of people to own guns.

This type of conspiracy inclined, everything is a big lie thinking many lefts have is the reason so many spew so much liberal nonsense without any evidence. Making us seem irrational and bias.

The NRA is a lobbying group with the purpose of promoting the interests of gun manufacturers, not owners. How is that position in any way conspiratorial? It is simply the truth.

Here's what's liberal nonsense: defending a bushwa organization and claiming that they somehow care about the Constitution. Wow. Then you accuse those that disagree with you of being liberals.

The Red Star Rising

25th July 2014, 16:25

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 16:42

https://www.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bushmaster-man-card-banner-e1355844973963.jpg

I somehow doubt that any factor of this gun-culture promoted by gun manufacturers, and then protected by NRA lobbying, is in any way particularly healthy.

Also it's incredibly tacky and silly.

Guns are cool and you know it.

Vegans secretly know meat is delicious and liberals know guns are cool. These are things that you can deny, but eventually the first, always, wins.

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 16:44

The NRA is a lobbying group with the purpose of promoting the interests of gun manufacturers, not owners. How is that position in any way conspiratorial? It is simply the truth.

Here's what's liberal nonsense: defending a bushwa organization and claiming that they somehow care about the Constitution. Wow. Then you accuse those that disagree with you of being liberals.

Someone can't be a lobbyist who argues in favour of gun manufacturers and gun rights?

I guess if you think people are only capable of one functioning purpose then you might have a point.

Under capitalism everything is created by capitalism, gun manufacturers make our guns, hence, gun manufacturers and gun rights groups might be closely tied together in common interest when it comes to gun laws, don't you think?

If i am pro the legalisation of weed as an individual who runs a weed legalisation group, I also am pro weed manufacturer, I am pro edible store. That does not mean I am some puppet whose sole interest is how well weed manufacturers, or growers in this case and the people who turn weed into delicious things in weed stores. I am interested in my right to weed, as I wan't weed I am pro the people I can buy guns off.

Weed though can be grown on your own, you can't grow a gun in your back yard.

Loony Le Fist

25th July 2014, 16:46

Someone can't be a lobbyist who argues in favour of gun manufacturers and gun rights?

You would have a point, except the NRA doesn't represent gun owners, they represent manufacturers.

The Red Star Rising

25th July 2014, 16:50

Guns are cool and you know it.

Vegans secretly know meat is delicious and liberals know guns are cool. These are things that you can deny, but eventually the first, always, wins.
From an academic standpoint? There is an appeal to them. I'm fond of games like Fallout after all. But gun culture where one's self worth is attached to their gun is ridiculous. Saying you need an AR-15 to be a man is just comical.

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 16:57

You would have a point, except the NRA doesn't represent gun owners, they represent manufacturers.

OK, keep this ridiculous stance.

The NRA is one of the biggest forces keeping gun laws frlm being infringed. They fight against legislation and have done so for 39 years.

They have funds to fight bills that would invade gun owners privacy and remove their rights to various firearms.

Out of the 8 pieces of legislation that has been put out the NRA actually supported them, many you could say detract from manufacturers ability to maximise profits.

Two "assault" ban pieces of legislation were opposed and one previously approved gun control act was opposed, all the other stuff that limit how much gun manufacturers can sell, like N&F firearm acts, prtection and disaster recovery laws, these include checks, the need to report to the ATF things like silencers etc etc.

So this idea the NRA are purely a lobbying tool for the gun manufacturers is purely biased politicized garbage.

BIXX

25th July 2014, 18:02

https://www.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bushmaster-man-card-banner-e1355844973963.jpg

Dude I think My dad owns that gun

I'll have to ask him when he gets home

Loony Le Fist

25th July 2014, 18:05

Dude I think My dad owns that gun

I'll have to ask him when he gets home

Very likely. The AR-15 is a really popular and solid weapon.

Ele'ill

25th July 2014, 19:10

i like how 'gun culture' comes up as if when someone picks up a gun they are automatically transmutated into someone else entirely

BIXX

25th July 2014, 19:13

Very likely. The AR-15 is a really popular and solid weapon.

Yeah we have it. It's a different model, but we have it.

I thought maybe he traded it away, but no.

Lily Briscoe

25th July 2014, 19:33

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 19:46

And this completely misses the really important point, which is that "guns are cool".

Gender rights are not distinct from any other rights.

Lily Briscoe

25th July 2014, 20:09

Gender rights are not distinct from any other rights.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 20:25

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.

It means gender rights are not a privellege but a right like any other. Making this about gender rights is silly. Men are killed by guns and women are too, more men are killed by guns than women every year.

Being killed is in violation of anyones rights, making it into something about gender rights is just... well, odd.

Lily Briscoe

25th July 2014, 21:04

It means gender rights are not a privellege but a right like any other. Making this about gender rights is silly. Men are killed by guns and women are too, more men are killed by guns than women every year.

Being killed is in violation of anyones rights, making it into something about gender rights is just... well, odd.

I still don't know what you're even talking about. First because I don't approach politics from the perspective of "rights", second because I said nothing about "gender rights" (what does "gender rights" even mean?). Someone pointed out the connection between gun possession and domestic violence fatalities, which I thought I'd highlight. What is your objection exactly? Is it a distraction from the pressing matter of discussing what kind of guns some kid's dad owns?

Patrice O'neal

25th July 2014, 21:40

I still don't know what you're even talking about. First because I don't approach politics from the perspective of "rights", second because I said nothing about "gender rights" (what does "gender rights" even mean?). Someone pointed out the connection between gun possession and domestic violence fatalities, which I thought I'd highlight. What is your objection exactly? Is it a distraction from the pressing matter of discussing what kind of guns some kid's dad owns?

I was quoting the guy you quoted and you.

It seems that one effect of easy gun availability is a high rate of death for women victims of intimate partner violence (according to some statistics I read once). So it's not just a "rights" issue, but a gendered one as well.

Mizuki

27th July 2014, 04:50

The Nra funds both major political parties in my country, it is quite hard for a politician to fight them when there accepting a handout... Personally I think it's possible to have guns for the purpose of hunting but they need to be severely regulated and there must be mandatory background checks. But it seems the Nra doesn't care about this all they care about is profit and this is a shame if they truly cared about the people they peddle there products to they would aleast support background checks. I feel this debate can be tied back into the power of special interest groups in the American government.

Firebrand

27th July 2014, 22:18

BIXX

27th July 2014, 23:56

Psycho P and the Freight Train

28th July 2014, 00:16

What to do if you are worried about being burgled.

In the US (Guns are legal)
Step 1- buy gun
Step 2- get robbed
Step 3- Shoot robber
Step 4- become traumatised because you are not a psycho
Step 5- Pay a psychiatrist lots of money
End result- everybody loses (except the psychiatrist, but they don't count because they are privately run bloodsuckers in america)

In the UK (Guns are illegal)
Step 1- Buy home insurance
Step 2- Get Robbed
Step 3- Hide in your room until the robbers are gone
Step 4- lie to the insurance company about what was stolen
Step 5- Ker-ching
End result- everybody wins (except the insurance company but they don't count because they are capitalist bloodsuckers)

Well this is just silly. What makes you think that making guns illegal will stop maniacs from getting them? The reason that didn't happen in the UK is because they didn't have a "frontier" history with common people owning them. Their society wasn't saturated with it. In the USA, there are so many guns, that making them illegal will just start a black market.

Also, hide in your room till the robbers are gone? Yeah, because robbers are totally incapable of breaking through a locked wooden door. Uhh, no. If they want to get into your room, then they will break the door down.

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2014, 00:58

Saying you need an AR-15 to be a man is just comical.

I would say it is tragic, not comical. Especially to the extent that it is true.

It is not called penis envy because of nothing.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2014, 01:02

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.

Isn't it obvious? It means that your right not to be shot by an overjealous husband does not trump the right of an overjealous husband to terrorise you with an oversized dildo AR-15.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2014, 01:13

What makes you think that making guns illegal will stop maniacs from getting them?

Making guns illegal won't stop "maniacs" from getting them, but it will make it way more difficult (because a major source of guns for criminals, be them "maniac" or not, is stealing guns from "honest citizens"). On the other hand, it will prevent "honest citizens" from killing themselves accidentally, killing their spouses in fits of jealousy, killing their children by mistake, allowing their children from killing themselves out of negligence, overreacting and killing other honest citizens in traffic incidents, or overreacting and killing petty criminals to avoid being stolen for ten dollars.

By the way, can we avoid the obviously predudiced language? Who told you that "maniacs" are the main responsibles for violent crime?

Luís Henrique

PS. This thread, albeit all its absurds, has a great virtue: it makes clear that the issue is not having guns for an eventual revolution, but to have guns to kill people in protecting our property. Because it is fun, no less.

Ritzy Cat

29th July 2014, 09:01

I find the gun control culture in America to be appalling. It's so tied up in the right-wing that it's been bastardized and turned into a "personal liberty" that can't be taken away by the President.

I do agree that the proletarian needs to be armed. However, what good will it do, at least in America? The military is so well armed and trained, a militia of the entire US populace wouldn't stand a chance. That is why I think for any meaningful revolution in a modern world in a state like USA, there must be sympathizers in the military. The military will have to fight against the state, but when the state has no military, we've already won, yes?

Depardieu

1st August 2014, 20:35

the idea that burglars want to kill and rape and kidnap their victims is nra propaganda and nothing more. resisting with a firearm is a sure-fire way to escalate any burglary into a physical attack, and obviously the burglars' lives and the residents' are more important than property.

private gun ownership is a dangerous fetish, responsible for civilian violence, the victims of which are overwhelmingly the most vulnerable members of society like women, children and residents of impoverished crime-ridden neighborhoods. it's clear to me that american politicians responsible for gun deregulation dont care about the lives of poor, marginalized, black and latino youth who are being killed and jailed by the millions so that privileged white americans can go on enjoying their pathetic gun culture and the military-industrial and prison industries can continue profiting

your fantasies of an imminent armed revolution in the West are childish and you should probably find better ways to organize and mobilize your community that doesnt involve them being murdered by the pigs

furthermore, this good guys vs bad guys dichotomy is ridiculous. people are the products of their surroundings. it's called materialism, look it up

Depardieu

1st August 2014, 20:49

i cant believe that people here are actually defending the nra. the disgusting, multi billion dollar, racist, capitalist lobby group

BIXX

1st August 2014, 20:53

i cant believe that people here are actually defending the nra. the disgusting, multi billion dollar, racist, capitalist lobby group

I don't think anyone did...

But also fuck you.

Have you been shot at? Have your friends and family been killed, or threatened?

This is my reality, where cops threaten to kill me when I walk down the street. They threatened to fucking shoot me, and you say that I shouldn't have a way to fight back in case they try? Yeah, fuck you, burn in hell.

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st August 2014, 21:09

so why don't we have these maniacs taken away the guns? Yeah, of course, it sounds naive, but do we really believe that a society spilling over with guns is more secure? Why do you embrace that "let's have everyone a gun"-thing instead of embracing a "let's take it away from sociopaths"-thing? You know why you feel endangered? Because your shitty system values guns over proper psychological health care. Why is it that NRA opposes background checks? Because they make a lot of money off of lunatics. In this respective, I understand your POV, it's just not the way it should be.

Tbh, he has a point. It would surprise some here but in some areas having a gun or weapon for basic protection is an absolute necessity. In my old neighborhood I knew a man who use to watch TV with a shotgun late at night due to burglars.

Depardieu

1st August 2014, 21:13

how many people do you know who have fared well in gunfights against pigs?

and yes i do have friends and family who have been threatened with guns. luckily nobody was killed, probably because they didnt try to "defend themselves" with guns

BIXX

1st August 2014, 22:22

how many people do you know who have fared well in gunfights against pigs?
How many people do you know who fared well against the pigs, period? Again, i would rather have the option to defend myself against them when they pull a pun on me rather than just have my voice and hope that they don't kill me.

and yes i do have friends and family who have been threatened with guns. luckily nobody was killed, probably because they didnt try to "defend themselves" with guns

Well I know people who were just flat out killed. No weapon on them. They just had no chance. A gun might've given them the chance thy needed to live.

Once you convince me that I can stop a cops bullet by talking it or some shit like that the. You have room to speak. But seriously, I have lived a life where guns have helped my friends and family survive, so who the fuck are you to tell me that we shouldn't have them?

Burn in hell you sack of shit.

Lily Briscoe

1st August 2014, 22:30

But also fuck you.
Yeah, fuck you, burn in hell.

Burn in hell you sack of shit.

What is wrong with you?

Creative Destruction

1st August 2014, 22:32

EchoShock, i thought you lived in Portland?

Depardieu

1st August 2014, 22:36

How many people do you know who fared well against the pigs, period?

hundreds, probably. many didnt exactly fare well, but were only arrested, beaten, fined, etc. confronting a pig with a gun is like asking to be killed or at the very least charged with a felony, isnt it?

i hate to resort to this, but i live in a major south american city so i know something about gun violence

Creative Destruction

1st August 2014, 22:49

Well, first I wanna ask what would this checking entail? Who do you think we should limit access to guns to?

oh, i don't know. maybe straw purchasers with ties to drug cartels. mentally ill folks who could (and have) harm themselves or others. just for starters.

Lily Briscoe

1st August 2014, 22:53

I've posted statistics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2696934&postcount=55) in other threads on this subject which demonstrate that the demographics in the US that are most likely to suffer from gun violence are the demographics least supportive of 'gun rights' (blacks and latinos, low-paid workers, women). Presumably all of these people are just "sacks of shit" who should "burn in hell", though.

Hermes

1st August 2014, 23:01

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st August 2014, 23:50

What to do if you are worried about being burgled.

In the US (Guns are legal)
Step 1- buy gun
Step 2- get robbed
Step 3- Shoot robber
Step 4- become traumatised because you are not a psycho
Step 5- Pay a psychiatrist lots of money
End result- everybody loses (except the psychiatrist, but they don't count because they are privately run bloodsuckers in america)

In the UK (Guns are illegal)
Step 1- Buy home insurance
Step 2- Get Robbed
Step 3- Hide in your room until the robbers are gone
Step 4- lie to the insurance company about what was stolen
Step 5- Ker-ching
End result- everybody wins (except the insurance company but they don't count because they are capitalist bloodsuckers)

I was unaware it was so polite in London. There was a man caught around here tying up teenage girls and raping them and so on. Would their best bet to just wait in a room with a rapist searching the house? What if burglars found you, told you to strip naked and then killed you anyway after you escorted them to a safe because you caught a name or some shit? I don't know what fairy tale world you people live in but it's certainly not the world I live in and I would never tell women or old folk to ditch their tasers, guns, sprays and bats and have 0 defend whatsoever against the bullshit that surrounds us. That's absolutely crazy.

I don't see what's so wrong with guns and I would never support any movement to guns away from the people. This seems fundamentally liberal, suicidal and wrong most especially under present material conditions.

John Nada

2nd August 2014, 03:38

This is something I don't think has any possibility of happening (at least, in the US, as things stand now), but would any of the people in this thread who currently support gun rights change their mind if the movement to restrict/abolish them was accompanied by a similar demand in re: to the disarmament of the police?

A complete hypothetical, I'm just curious.

I was just think about this too. How can you ask the public to put down their guns, when the police are armed to the teeth? Gun control won't stop trigger-happy cops.

It'd be nice if there were no need for guns. But there's already a fuckton of guns in the US. The police won't disarm, the rightist militias won't(even if it's illegal), and the military sure as hell won't. If a revolutionary situation happened you'd just give the reactionaries a head start. In this context I can't see being gun-free as a real option.

At the same time the gun laws are not written to protect the workers. They're written to protect the status quo. "Stand your ground" is about protecting property rights. It appeals the the nationalist pioneer mentality. It about attaching the picket-line on companies private property, not defending it. It's about helping racist cops and security guards do their job, not fighting them. It's to give lynchers the benefit of doubt. There's no call for angry White men to disarm, but tons for felons(minorities) and the mentally ill(perpetuating the stereotype of being violent and dangerous).

It's kind of like a nuclear arms race. So much guns you couldn't get rid of them if you wanted in the current state. I oppose gun control.

BIXX

2nd August 2014, 09:21

I was unaware it was so polite in London. There was a man caught around here tying up teenage girls and raping them and so on. Would their best bet to just wait in a room with a rapist searching the house? What if burglars found you, told you to strip naked and then killed you anyway after you escorted them to a safe because you caught a name or some shit? I don't know what fairy tale world you people live in but it's certainly not the world I live in and I would never tell women or old folk to ditch their tasers, guns, sprays and bats and have 0 defend whatsoever against the bullshit that surrounds us. That's absolutely crazy.

I don't see what's so wrong with guns and I would never support any movement to guns away from the people. This seems fundamentally liberal, suicidal and wrong most especially under present material conditions.

This post explains perfectly well why I say "fuck you" "burn in hell" etc... To people who say we ought to take away guns. Because guns DO provide a way to save people from danger.

This is something I don't think has any possibility of happening (at least, in the US, as things stand now), but would any of the people in this thread who currently support gun rights change their mind if the movement to restrict/abolish them was accompanied by a similar demand in re: to the disarmament of the police?

A complete hypothetical, I'm just curious.

I would not support a movement that sought to disarm police and people- only police.

Also, I don't see this as a rights issue and to frame it as such is inherently liberal.

EchoShock, i thought you lived in Portland?

I can't tell what exactly this is supposed to imply. But simply put I think you're trying to characterize me as a down south right winger?

hundreds, probably. many didnt exactly fare well, but were only arrested, beaten, fined, etc. confronting a pig with a gun is like asking to be killed or at the very least charged with a felony, isnt it?
Never once have I said people ought to confront them with a gun, but when they have a gun on you it is much better to be able to fight back. Quit mischatacterizing what I'm saying.

i hate to resort to this, but i live in a major south american city so i know something about gun violence

I know a lot of gang-bangers and ex gang-bangers. Gun violence was a big part of their lives. Still they oppose gun control.

oh, i don't know. maybe straw purchasers with ties to drug cartels. mentally ill folks who could (and have) harm themselves or others. just for starters.

There is a huge problem with keeping guns away from mentally ill folks that I don't want to reiterate but it has been echoed here many times (people with different beliefs, fir one, are labelled mentally ill).

I've posted statistics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2696934&postcount=55) in other threads on this subject which demonstrate that the demographics in the US that are most likely to suffer from gun violence are the demographics least supportive of 'gun rights' (blacks and latinos, low-paid workers, women). Presumably all of these people are just "sacks of shit" who should "burn in hell", though.

Those stats have no connection to the lived experiences of my friends and family as well as myself. Also that's an interesting way to load the question- trying to make it look like I hate oppressed folks. Good job on trying to be dishonest.

My position is stay the fuck out of my life, which it would seem to me is the only logical anarchist position, especially in this case as the alternative is an extension of state power.

Lily Briscoe

2nd August 2014, 16:46

^So if I'm understanding you, you're saying that...

A. Your "lived experience" has no connection to the "lived experience" of the majority of people who are vulnerable to experiencing gun violence, and therefore:

B. We should discard their "lived experience" because you have an anecdote on the internet that has no connection to a wider trend and yet is somehow more relevant to the discussion...?

Also, I don't think my previous comment was dishonest at all. The fact that you immediately react to someone presenting a mild criticism of the unconditional gun rights perspective by calling them a "sack of shit" and telling them to "burn in hell" pretty much speaks for itself..

Just as an aside, I presume the point of rednoise's question about where you live was that most people (myself included) are unaware there is some epidemic of (white?) high school students in Portland being unable to walk down the street without being gunned down by cops... I'm also completely baffled as to how anyone with any experience of the police could actually believe that carrying a gun offers any kind of protection at all against police violence when that is about the furthest thing from reality.

Creative Destruction

2nd August 2014, 17:07

I can't tell what exactly this is supposed to imply. But simply put I think you're trying to characterize me as a down south right winger?

No, Portland is one of the most tepid places I've ever lived. I'm trying to understand this paranoia you have about the Portland police or having to carry a gun with you in threat of being harmed. I've been told that some parts of the east side are "dangerous" but all the times I've been out that way, it really wasn't that big of a deal. At no point did I ever feel threatened by police or anyone else. I came from the south, in supposedly liberal Austin, and they have an issue with police brutality. Most places in Texas do. There are truly dangerous places in Houston and San Antonio, where your chances of being harmed -- robbed or otherwise harassed -- go up considerably. I even lived in one of those "dangerous" places for a couple of years. At no point did I feel the need to get a gun for any purpose other than recreation.

Not saying that those places in Portland aren't in dire straits, they are. Or that the cops here can't be trigger happy assholes (for what it's worth, though, I checked police shooting stats for this past year: all three cases involved the person coming at the police with some kind of weapon. think what you may of police shooting, but that's just dumb. you're all but asking to get shot at that point.) But even so, I can't understand how anyone could feel so generally paranoid and afraid on the streets here, so much as to feel like they need a gun on them, unless you're naturally inclined to be afraid of your own shadow, as well. The way you're talking, it's as if someone could assume that you're a black man in New York City or Houston.

There is a huge problem with keeping guns away from mentally ill folks that I don't want to reiterate but it has been echoed here many times (people with different beliefs, fir one, are labelled mentally ill)..

Okay, that's not what I'm talking about. There is such a thing as disorders that make people have a break or alteration of reality. I'm speaking from experience now: it is not a good idea to let those folks have guns. They are at a much higher risk of harming themselves and others and guns only heighten that risk. It's fucking stupid and irresponsible to think that they should have guns.

Hagalaz

2nd August 2014, 20:55

One of the problems with gun control is that criminals don't buy their guns at a gun shop.
And while I don't have a problem with background checks for the most part there are many gun laws or proposed laws that I object to. And those american cities with the strictest gun laws are usually the highest crime areas.
One more thing: I've never understood the desire to only have government forces allowed to posess guns. Do you gun haters really trust the government that much?

Depardieu

2nd August 2014, 22:19

One of the problems with gun control is that criminals don't buy their guns at a gun shop.

are you sure about that?

Hermes

2nd August 2014, 22:57

I would not support a movement that sought to disarm police and people- only police.

Also, I don't see this as a rights issue and to frame it as such is inherently liberal.

I don't mean anything by the term, I never know what to call it. Gun rights, gun control, disarmament, etc. All of them seem to have really weird connotations.

Creative Destruction

3rd August 2014, 01:09

One of the problems with gun control is that criminals don't buy their guns at a gun shop.

this isn't true. most weapons used in crime are bought, directly or indirectly, from a gun shop. most guns used in crime have a legal origin. there are not a bunch of deals made in hotel rooms, where a guy brings a briefcase full of guns and a dude chooses from them, like breaking bad or taxi driver or whatever. aside from that, it's widely known that in most places, guns can also be bought -- without a background check -- from a gun show.

Hagalaz

3rd August 2014, 02:59

this isn't true. most weapons used in crime are bought, directly or indirectly, from a gun shop. most guns used in crime have a legal origin. there are not a bunch of deals made in hotel rooms, where a guy brings a briefcase full of guns and a dude chooses from them, like breaking bad or taxi driver or whatever. aside from that, it's widely known that in most places, guns can also be bought -- without a background check -- from a gun show.

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Hagalaz

3rd August 2014, 03:00

are you sure about that?

Yes I am.

Creative Destruction

3rd August 2014, 03:51

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Oh, but I'm not. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) I'm sorry that you're wrong, though.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

...

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

You want to try that argument again?

Trap Queen Voxxy

3rd August 2014, 15:20

Yo, North View Heights, 412, tell me more about how not having a weapon for protection would be beneficial to me?

Creative Destruction

3rd August 2014, 17:41

Yo, North View Heights, 412, tell me more about how not having a weapon for protection would be beneficial to me?

i'm not entirely against having weapons for protection, so i'm not sure how to answer your question. i was saying three things:

a.) questioning why EchoShock feels so damn paranoid is one of the calmest cities in the U.S.

b.) most guns used in crimes come from a legal source, usually a gun shop.

c.) if someone is part of a drug cartel or is mentally ill with the possibility of harming themselves or someone else, among other people who should be restricted from owning a gun, it's probably not a good idea to let them have a gun.

as far as i know, i never absolutely questioned the need for using a gun for protection.

i like how norway does their system. (iirc) you can have an equivalence to a carry-conceal if you can demonstrate a need for it. otherwise, your guns need to be registered, need stay inside your home, separate from the ammo and in a gun case that is bolted to some part of your home.

Lily Briscoe

4th August 2014, 02:04

Yo, North View Heights, 412, tell me more about how not having a weapon for protection would be beneficial to me?

I'm extremely skeptical of the "guns for protection/self-defense!" refrain. I think in virtually every situation where a gun could potentially be used for "self-defense", there is a pretty equal probability (at least) that pulling/showing a gun could have the effect of completely escalating the situation and/or somebody getting killed over something ridiculous.

This is an internet anecdote so you are free to take it with as many grains of salt as you wish or to discard it entirely, but when I was fifteen I saw a kid get shot in the face over a botched attempt at an armed burglary. I was sitting in the basement of the guy I used to get weed from (which was sort of the main 'hang out' for my group of friends and I at the time), when a kid I vaguely knew (he was a grade ahead of me but went to the same school, we had mutual friends and had talked on a few occasions at parties) came through the hatch, showed everybody he had a gun and told B (the guy who sold the weed, whose house it was) to open his safe, at which point one of B's friends pulled a gun from under the couch and shot the kid in the face.

As I see it, the situation could have happened two ways: 1. B opened the safe, gave the kid a sum of money which most likely didn't exceed $2,000, possibly we all had to part with our wallets, and everybody left in one piece. Or, 2. The way that it did happen, with a 17-year-old kid ending up dead over some money. Good thing they had that gun for protection, though!

Leaving anecdote territory, I'm 5'4" and very small. There's an enormous probability that anyone who I might be compelled to pull a gun on in self-defense (e.g. during a mugging or assault) could easily overpower me, with or without a gun. There are plenty of situations in my day-to-day life where I feel very unsafe. I cannot honestly think of a single situation where carrying a gun would make me feel anything other than more unsafe.

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 02:48

I'm extremely skeptical of the "guns for protection/self-defense!" refrain. I think in virtually every situation where a gun could potentially be used for "self-defense", there is a pretty equal probability (at least) that pulling/showing a gun could have the effect of completely escalating the situation and/or somebody getting killed over something ridiculous.

This is an internet anecdote so you are free to take it with as many grains of salt as you wish or to discard it entirely, but when I was fifteen I saw a kid get shot in the face over a botched attempt at an armed burglary. I was sitting in the basement of the guy I used to get weed from (which was sort of the main 'hang out' for my group of friends and I at the time), when a kid I vaguely knew (he was a grade ahead of me but went to the same school, we had mutual friends and had talked on a few occasions at parties) came through the hatch, showed everybody he had a gun and told B (the guy who sold the weed, whose house it was) to open his safe, at which point one of B's friends pulled a gun from under the couch and shot the kid in the face.

As I see it, the situation could have happened two ways: 1. B opened the safe, gave the kid a sum of money which most likely didn't exceed $2,000, possibly we all had to part with our wallets, and everybody left in one piece. Or, 2. The way that it did happen, with a 17-year-old kid ending up dead over some money. Good thing they had that gun for protection, though!

Leaving anecdote territory, I'm 5'4" and very small. There's an enormous probability that anyone who I might be compelled to pull a gun on in self-defense (e.g. during a mugging or assault) could easily overpower me, with or without a gun. There are plenty of situations in my day-to-day life where I feel very unsafe. I cannot honestly think of a single situation where carrying a gun would make me feel anything other than more unsafe.

I personally don't feel safe or sleep unless my doors are securely locked and I have a bat and loaded shotgun handy. That's jut how it is. That's how I feel safe. If my rude behavior offends some and they come over to do shit in blowing their head off. I don't hate life that much lol and maybe it's paranoia but better safe than sorry. I do fully support gun safety tho. I'm even smaller than you. I can totally not afford not to carry a knife or taser or some shit on me when going out. You never know what some weirdo might do while walking home at night. Not all of us have money for public transport and such. I do have a life high requires me to walk home late at night. I'm also, as you probably can tell, rude and opinionated. Some people don't like me. So there's that too. Different strokes for different folks. I can fight but I'm not trying to risk ducking my face up. I'm in sales, can't hurt my money maker lol

Lily Briscoe

4th August 2014, 03:40

If my rude behavior offends some and they come over to do shit [I'm] blowing their head off.
If you say so, dude.

Not to be rude, but if the stuff you post on here is actually for real*, I would definitely sleep better at night if the government barged into your house and took away your guns. That's not reality though, not now and not anytime in the foreseeable future, so it's more important to understand the present situation re gun possession and why it exists than to make meaningless proposals for things that aren't going to happen. Very few people seem to want to actually examine the reasons why gun laws are so lax in the US, though, because they are too paranoid about the complete boogeyman of impending gun control.

*you're the poster formerly called 'vox populi', right?

The Jay

4th August 2014, 05:14

as far as i know, i never absolutely questioned the need for using a gun for protection.

i like how norway does their system. (iirc) you can have an equivalence to a carry-conceal if you can demonstrate a need for it. otherwise, your guns need to be registered, need stay inside your home, separate from the ammo and in a gun case that is bolted to some part of your home.

So you're supposed to be able to use your gun to defend yourself but you must ask the person breaking into your house to wait a minute while you load a magazine and open a safe correctly while being in a highly stressful situation while calling the police?

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 05:25

So you're supposed to be able to use your gun to defend yourself but you must ask the person breaking into your house to wait a minute while you load a magazine and open a safe correctly while being in a highly stressful situation while calling the police?

if you have a sufficient reason for needing a handgun gun for defense, then you should have one. if you can't marshal up a good reason and simply live on an irrational fear of being mugged and robbed at all times, then you should probably seek medical help for that kind of paranoia.

what you should do in a home robbery is find a way to hide and not let it be known to the robber that you're in the house. either wait until they leave or, if you are lucky enough to have your phone, call the police. 93% of robberies do not end in violence (of those that end in violence, much less end up as homicides or even less a gun being brandished at all.) (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf) it's statistically extremely unlikely that people would have to do anything like that. and in all cases, if violence can be prevented, it should be done. most material items can be replaced with insurance. it makes no sense to go liberty valence on someone, considering the high unlikeliness that they would even have a gun and much less that if they did, that they would use it.

but we can take your hypothetical even further. the sad fact of the matter is that most gun owners probably are not proficient with their guns. there is no requirement to take gun safety or proficiency courses in the united states when you get a gun. add that to, if the only thing you're using it for is to defend yourself, you're probably not going to be exactly a good user of the weapon even if you have the magazine locked and loaded to go in such a scenario. you can bet that any criminal probably has better gun skills than the average civilian. so, you go john wayne and shit on the criminal and completely miss, what you've just done is taken a crime that was non-violent and made it so that you have put yourself in complete danger. you're fucked. the myth of the badass homeowner who scares off criminals with their hotshit handgun is just that... a myth.

Depardieu

4th August 2014, 05:27

The Jay

4th August 2014, 05:30

if you have a sufficient reason for needing a handgun gun for defense, then you should have one. if you can't marshal up a good reason and simply live on an irrational fear of being mugged and robbed at all times, then you should probably seek medical help for that kind of paranoia.

what you should do in a home robbery is find a way to hide and not let it be known to the robber that you're in the house. either wait until they leave or, if you are lucky enough to have your phone, call the police. 93% of robberies do not end in violence (of those that end in violence, much less end up as homicides or even less a gun being brandished at all.) (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf) it's statistically extremely unlikely that people would have to do anything like that. and in all cases, if violence can be prevented, it should be done. most material items can be replaced with insurance. it makes no sense to go liberty valence on someone, considering the high unlikeliness that they would even have a gun and much less that if they did, that they would use it.

Cower if you want to. I do not intend to let someone take my shit and trash my home. This seems like you imposing your morals onto others when you have no authority to do so.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 05:33

Cower if you want to. I do not intend to let someone take my shit and trash my home. This seems like you imposing your morals onto others when you have no authority to do so.

no, it's not morals, you moron. it's practicality. when you introduce violence into a situation where there wasn't to begin with, you needlessly heighten the risk of your injury or death. getting shot over some stolen property is not exactly brave or noble. it's not "cowardly" to keep yourself safe. saying that it is actually is some moralistic bullshit, to be quite honest.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 05:34

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 05:37

My home wasn't broken into but I was beaten off my bicycle when I was a kid. Also, why the fuck would I risk the burglar being violent and simply ask them to leave nicely. The point is that it is not your decision. If you want to risk letting people take your possessions and possibly - even remotely - harm you or your family then that is your business. Stay out of others'.

So, you've become paranoid the rest of your life because of a stolen bicycle when you were a kid? You're exactly the type of person who shouldn't have a gun.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 05:38

no, it's not morals, you moron. it's practicality. when you introduce violence into a situation where there wasn't anymore, you needlessly heighten the risk of your injury or death. getting shot over some stolen property is not exactly brave or noble. it's not "cowardly" to keep yourself safe. saying that it is actually is some moralistic bullshit, to be quite honest.

How did I impose my morals on that? Go on fucker, explain.

So, you've become paranoid the rest of your life because of a stolen bicycle when you were a kid? You're exactly the type of person who shouldn't have a gun.

Someone asked if anyone had actually had their home broken into, so I gave a similar experience. But go on, tell me that any trauma I experienced from being beaten to a pulp isn't a big deal. I'm awaiting that.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 05:49

How did I impose my morals on that? Go on fucker, explain.

I didn't know I would have to explain what you said to you as if you were a five-year-old, but here goes: "Cowering" is what cowards do. It's an inherently moralistic term used to describe people you think aren't doing enough to "keep their families and homes safe." That's not an objective or material truth. You're casting aspersion onto people who would rather actually keep themselves and their families safe -- implying that if you didn't go all John Wayne after someone robbing your house then you weren't doing just that -- rather than making dunderheaded decisions like introducing violence into a situation where there didn't have to be any.

Someone asked if anyone had actually had their home broken into, so I gave a similar experience. But go on, tell me that any trauma I experienced from being beaten to a pulp isn't a big deal. I'm awaiting that.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. Obviously it was. But the remedy isn't being paranoid for the rest of your life and thinking you need to keep a gun at the ready. You need help.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 05:59

I didn't know I would have to explain what you said to you as if you were a five-year-old, but here goes: "Cowering" is what cowards do. It's an inherently moralistic term used to describe people you think aren't doing enough to "keep their families and homes safe." That's not an objective or material truth. You're casting aspersion onto people who would rather actually keep themselves and their families safe -- implying that if you didn't go all John Wayne after someone robbing your house then you weren't doing just that -- rather than making dunderheaded decisions like introducing violence into a situation where there didn't have to be any.

If you don't want to call hiding out of fear cowering then I don't know what to tell you. Besides, it isn't a moralistic term and does not imply that hiding is right or wrong. It is an objective assessment that you chose to associate with John Wayne's opposite. You are the one making excess and unnecessary associations here, but hey, I guess you could continue to insult me. That'll surely make you right.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. Obviously it was. But the remedy isn't being paranoid for the rest of your life and thinking you need to keep a gun at the ready. You need help.

When did I say that I was paranoid? What is your evidence for this? Do you know me? Do you follow me around on a daily basis checking if I'm carrying or not? Don't act like you know me.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:04

If you don't want to call hiding out of fear cowering then I don't know what to tell you. Besides, it isn't a moralistic term and does not imply that hiding is right or wrong. It is an objective assessment that you chose to associate with John Wayne's opposite. You are the one making excess and unnecessary associations here, but hey, I guess you could continue to insult me. That'll surely make you right.

You contrasted "cowering" with keeping your family safe; as if to say that people who "cower" (which is a loaded and moralistic term; sorry you don't know how to use or understand language) aren't keeping their family safe. That is a moralistic position, casting aspersion on people who choose not to engage in violence where none was present before. That is decidedly not a "objective assessment."

When did I say that I was paranoid? What is your evidence for this? Do you know me? Do you follow me around on a daily basis checking if I'm carrying or not? Don't act like you know me.

You're using this incident as a kid as a justification for supposing you need to necessarily introduce violence in case of a home invasion, where, statistically, overwhelmingly, you're probably not going to be subject to and could only escalate the situation should you do so. That's pretty paranoid.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:13

So you're in the IOPS, like parecon, and you call yourself a council communist yet you are talking to me like I'm stupid?

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:17

So you're in the IOPS, like parecon, and you call yourself a council communist yet you are talking to me like I'm stupid?

lmao. holy shit.

Yes, I am talking to you like you're stupid because you're saying some incredibly stupid shit. If all you can do is come up with some tired bullshit about my political affiliations, then I'll take that as your concession and accept your apology.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:20

How the fuck is an home invasion not violent anyway? Did they ask permission or something?

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:23

How the fuck is an home invasion not violent anyway? Did they ask permission or something?

There was no physical force done to any person in the break-in. That's how it's not violent. You can't be violent with property, and it'd be an incredibly specious argument if you tried mounting it, especially as a communist.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:24

I guess that means that if someone takes and breaks your glasses then that's not violent either.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:25

This is not to mention, how the fuck would you have this be enforced?

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:26

I guess that means that if someone takes and breaks your glasses then that's not violent either.

It takes physical force to steal something from you if you have it on you. If they're on your face, then yeah, I'd consider that a violent act. Something is physically being done to you or being stolen off of you, as a person.

If your glasses are sitting on the table and someone picks them up and smashes them, then, no, that's not violence. That's just being asshole.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:27

This is not to mention, how the fuck would you have this be enforced?

How the fuck would what be enforced?

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:28

Okay, give me the exact policy that you are proposing please.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:29

Okay, give me the exact policy that you are proposing please.

I already did give you an example of a policy I'd like to see, you idiot. You even quoted it. Jesus, you really suck at this reading comprehension thing, don't you?

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:31

I was trying to make this more civil and no, that is not the full policy. Who would maintain records, ensure capability, and monitor compliance? These questions were not answered.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:35

I was trying to make this more civil and no, that is not the full policy. Who would maintain records, ensure capability, and monitor compliance? These questions were not answered.

You register your gun with the local police and they're allowed to do compliance checks. IIRC, you also have to be a part of a hunting/gun club and have to re-register and re-take your proficiency test every some-odd time limit. Of course, anyone who lives in Norway, and posts here, and knows the regulations can correct me as needed, but as I understand it, that's how it's done. I can't remember exactly what the time limitations were. Basically, you're treating guns as you would cars and drivers licenses.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:37

You register your gun with the local police and they're allowed to do compliance checks. IIRC, you also have to be a part of a hunting/gun club and have to re-register and re-take your proficiency test every some-odd time limit. Of course, anyone who lives in Norway, and posts here, and knows the regulations can correct me as needed, but as I understand it, that's how it's done. I can't remember exactly what the time limitations were. Basically, you're treating guns as you would cars and drivers licenses.

How do you think this will work in a situation of Communism? Will there still be police?

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:45

How do you think this will work in a situation of Communism? Will there still be police?

http://33.media.tumblr.com/209693a1cfdb926641444ece876c10fc/tumblr_mqjqmnixk21sppmago1_400.gif

this discussion never revolved around a "how would we deal with this under communism." i'm not going to engage in blue printing how the gun issue would be handled "under communism" because a.) i don't give a fuck, that needs to be up to the community to handle under that social situation, for which we don't live under and i couldn't possibly give an answer to (nor could you) or b.) it's not the subject of the fucking thread. the title even literally says "Gun Control in the Contemporary Western World". if you want to engage in blue printing, start another thread about it.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 06:49

http://33.media.tumblr.com/209693a1cfdb926641444ece876c10fc/tumblr_mqjqmnixk21sppmago1_400.gif

this discussion never revolved around a "how would we deal with this under communism." i'm not going to engage in blue printing how the gun issue would be handled "under communism" because a.) i don't give a fuck, that needs to be up to the community to handle under that social situation, for which we don't live under and i couldn't possibly give an answer to (nor could you) or b.) it's not the subject of the fucking thread.

You are the one that supports giving more powers to the state, pushing for police to periodically search people's homes for investigating compliance with bourgeois law and support the arrest, fining, or confiscation of those that do not comply. Now tell me, how do you expect me to take you seriously at all given that and the manner in which you conduct yourself. You are a disgrace. I tried to be civil.

The Red Star Rising

4th August 2014, 06:49

How do you think this will work in a situation of Communism? Will there still be police?

On the subject of belief: As there is always likely to be some form of crime (it's like that 0.01% of bacteria in soap) I imagine that most communities will still have some method of dealing with those who cause harm to others, preferably by containing them so they can cause no further harm; then rehabilitating them so they can be reintroduced to society. More concerned citizens than police really.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 06:56

You are the one that supports giving more powers to the state, pushing for police to periodically search people's homes for investigating compliance with bourgeois law and support the arrest, fining, or confiscation of those that do not comply. Now tell me, how do you expect me to take you seriously at all given that and the manner in which you conduct yourself. You are a disgrace. I tried to be civil.

you're a fucking moron who apparently doesn't understand the topic they're discussing. any measures of gun control -- including background checks -- is going to include "giving more powers to the state" and be subject to "compliance with bourgeois law." guess what? so are traffic laws. so are laws that regulate air quality. so are minimum wage laws that help ensure the working class have at least some money to survive and not starve. i'm not so reactionary as to think that there are some harm reduction techniques that need to be taken by the state are necessarily bad because the state has the power to do so. we're not stupid fucking reactionary tea partiers here, so a little clarity is appreciated in these discussions. on the other hand, you're advocating a paranoid pro-gun stance in support of protecting fucking property, for christ sakes. presumably, after you've shot the home invader, you'll be dealing with the police to ensure that your property is returned or, if they're not dead, that they're prosecuted for breaking into your home in the first place. oh no, you're helping ensure compliance with bourgeois law.

yes, i am advocating stronger gun control laws because i'm fucking tired of hearing about mass shootings that happen so often because of the easy flow of guns; where most of those guns were purchased through legal means. that needs to change. you know who is mostly killed in these attacks? the working class. obviously, introducing more guns into the equation hasn't fucking helped. get a grip already, or at least learn how to construct a better argument. asking me "HOW WOULD THIS WORK IN COMMUNISM?!" isn't convincing.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 07:00

I don't support parliamentary reform. You are the one that is apologizing for the police here.

The Red Star Rising

4th August 2014, 07:01

you're a fucking moron who apparently doesn't understand the topic they're discussing. any measures of gun control -- including background checks -- is going to include "giving more powers to the state" and be subject to "compliance with bourgeois law." guess what? so are traffic laws. so are laws that regulate air quality. so are minimum wage laws that help ensure the working class have at least some money to survive and not starve. i'm not so reactionary as to think that there are some harm reduction techniques that need to be taken by the state are necessarily bad because the state has the power to do so. we're not stupid fucking reactionary tea partiers here, so a little clarity is appreciated in these discussions. on the other hand, you're advocating a paranoid pro-gun stance in support of protecting fucking property, for christ sakes. presumably, after you've shot the home invader, you'll be dealing with the police to ensure that your property is returned or, if they're not dead, that they're prosecuted for breaking into your home in the first place. oh no, you're helping ensure compliance with bourgeois law.

yes, i am advocating stronger gun control laws because i'm fucking tired of hearing about mass shootings that happen so often because of the easy flow of guns; where most of those guns were purchased through legal means. that needs to change. you know who is mostly killed in these attacks? the working class. obviously, introducing more guns into the equation hasn't fucking helped. get a grip already, or at least learn how to construct a better argument. asking me "HOW WOULD THIS WORK IN COMMUNISM?!" isn't convincing.
Also this.

At the moment gun deregulation mostly serves the cause of the teabaggers and the golden showers dawners.

What needs to happen first is a social change regarding gun culture. Namely; it's extinction. Guns need to stop being penis extensions and start being treated like the lethal weapons they are.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 07:10

I don't support parliamentary reform. You are the one that is apologizing for the police here.

apparently you support aggressively applying bourgeois law in some areas of your life but not others, and then denounce others when the law could be made better to protect the working class in the contemporary western world. because that makes logical sense.

what exactly are you going to do after you've shot the motherfucker? are you just going to throw them on your front lawn, dump them off at a hospital, or... do what? would you call the police in the case of a home invasion or if, god forbid, one of your family members actually did get hurt? what if some substantial part of your property was stolen? would you enlist police services to see if they can find your shit? isn't that ensuring compliance of bourgeois law and "apologizing" for the police?

The Jay

4th August 2014, 07:13

Someone breaking into where I live and me defending myself if they don't leave when I tell them has nothing to do with bourgeois law. This does make sense. Logical sense is redundant by the way.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 07:18

Someone breaking into where I live and me defending myself if they don't leave when I tell them has nothing to do with bourgeois law.

i like how you dishonestly skirted by that question!

if your contention is that having anything to do with the police is bad, and having anything to do with bourgeois law is necessarily bad, where does that leave you if your family member is hurt? you shot them but they got away, would you call the police to see if they can track this person down? would you call them to see if they could help you get your property back? if you shoot them and kill them, you're going to have to obviously comply with the police in order to keep yourself from ending up with a murder rap (in some states) and seeing that blame is placed where it needs to be. but it's ensuring compliance of bourgeois law if you do that.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 07:24

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 07:42

That would be true, but I'm not the one pushing for more cop involvement. In fact, I would rather be able to defend myself than have to deal with them. I also wouldn't shoot on sight. I would tell the person to get the fuck out. You are the one advocating for more police interference in people's lives than what they already do. If anyone's going to wear the hypocrite hat it is you.

lol. i'm not a hypocrite. i recognize a need and place for state involvement in some areas of life where it's needed to ameliorate harm to the working class, regardless of the bourgeois nature of the current state. i deal with the conditions of life as they are now instead of sitting with my thumb up my ass and hoping RevLeft forums poster "The Jay" will bring on the revolution in time to save us all.

you, on the other hand, are apparently relentless in thinking that every single thing that anyone could do to help our current situation is not a good thing to do. and even despite that, you will readily accept help from the state in some areas of your life, such as protecting property, but deny everyone else protection that they need; i.e., material support against the epidemic of gun violence this country is currently experiencing.

The Jay

4th August 2014, 07:47

Feel free to continue advocating the expansion of the state and police power. Your opinion doesn't really matter to me. Have fun.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 08:00

Have fun hunkering down with your reactionary Tea Party brethren.

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 14:01

what is this obsession with people breaking into your homes? how many of you have actually been victims of a burglary? why do you think burglars want to cause pshysical harm their victims? isnt it quite obviously safer for everyone involved to simply comply with whoever is armed rather than try to engage armed robbers in a fucking gunfight?

I actually have story about why I personally feel the way I do but it's not something I'm willing to share on here (surprising I know) but I will say, yes, I have had my house broken into and yes, I was assaulted and humiliated. I don't see anything wrong with keeping a pistol or shotgun handy for home defense. You actually have more power over your home if you're prepared. For example, I've made it so, following the lay out of my apartment if someone breaks in and I'm in my chambers, I will have time to grab my gun and hold it to the door. This gives me power to shoot through the door should the assailants try to enter. Boom. I don't get where people think robbers and rapists and such are just cool people and if you just follow orders you'll be alright. That's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's advice you give children or some shit. I'm an adult, that's aware of her present situation and reality. Painting gun owners as paranoid delusional people is a pretty sick ableist counter-argument.

I mean, like I said, they just caught some dude in my areas that was tying girls up and raping them. Following this anti-gun/weapon script, are you saying these women should just stand there and take it? Or if they had the ability spray him, tase him, cut him, shoot him? Ya know, defend themselves?

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 14:07

Also this.

At the moment gun deregulation mostly serves the cause of the teabaggers and the golden showers dawners.

What needs to happen first is a social change regarding gun culture. Namely; it's extinction. Guns need to stop being penis extensions and start being treated like the lethal weapons they are.

Ok so this is silly. I don't have guns because I want a big dick (gross) but because they are lethal hence why they work effectively for protection. What am I supposed to shoo people away with a broom or feather sword or fly swatter? Irrespective of the Tea Bag movement and so on, the working class has every interest in gun deregulation and the right for the proletariat to be armed. Just as the Black Panthers advocated protecting themselves and their communities (fuck the police). Might I also add, the Nazis were also big on gun control and also wanted to dearm the proletariat. Same with Fascist Italy.

In fact, under present material conditions the disarming of the proletariat and other revolutionary lower classes such as the lumpen or peasantry is fundamentally anti-Communist, liberal and reactionary.

https://shop.jpfo.org/images/products/78_large.gif

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 14:54

If you say so, dude.

I'm not a dude?

Not to be rude, but if the stuff you post on here is actually for real*, I would definitely sleep better at night if the government barged into your house and took away your guns.

Well that's pretty rude, reactionary and presumptuous of you but ok.

That's not reality though, not now and not anytime in the foreseeable future, so it's more important to understand the present situation re gun possession and why it exists than to make meaningless proposals for things that aren't going to happen. Very few people seem to want to actually examine the reasons why gun laws are so lax in the US, though, because they are too paranoid about the complete boogeyman of impending gun control.

Actually I think it has more to do with how can you be a Communist and support the revolution while simultaneously advocating for the bourgeoisie (the class enemy mind you) to disarm the proletariat which you're allegedly part of and of whom is suppose to carry out said revolution. The logic here is crazy and if not crazy then intellectually dishonest. If anything the Left should co-OP the gun deregulation movement in the US and support arming the working class. Again, under current material conditions it makes no sense to relinquish that kind of control to the bourgeoisie, law enforcement and the state.

*you're the poster formerly called 'vox populi', right?

Not formerly called, just temporarily using a pretty name. I am teh Voxxy. Da.

I also believe gun control is advocated mainly by and who's strongest supporters are the petty bourgeois. It seems to me the upper middle classes have an inherent fear and mistrust of the lower classes hence disarming them would seem preferable in the same way as slave owners probably wouldn't want their slaves to have weapons either. It's all a method of control and subjugation; a tactic employed by the petite et haute bourgeoisie to reinforce the hegemonic ideology of the present mode of production and models of social organization and stratification.

cyu

4th August 2014, 15:03

If capitalists, imperialists, or other oppressive forces are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus against you, what is the correct response?

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 15:20

If capitalists, imperialists, or other oppressive forces are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus against you, what is the correct response?

We should do what the White Phosphorus tell us too and it won't hurt us.

Creative Destruction

4th August 2014, 15:40

https://shop.jpfo.org/images/products/78_large.gif

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

eta. thread has just been godwinned. we can go close up shop now.

Lord Testicles

4th August 2014, 15:52

If capitalists, imperialists, or other oppressive forces are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus against you, what is the correct response?

I imagine there is no correct response, armed or unarmed I imagine your response will be to die horribly.

LuÃs Henrique

4th August 2014, 15:52

What is wrong with you?

Rape culture, of course.

Luís Henrique

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 16:19

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

eta. thread has just been godwinned. we can go close up shop now.

The article is pretty lame in my opinion in the same way that the laws surrounding marijuana prohibition were also bullshit. No, they didn't technically outlaw it at first, you, in theory, could obtain a cannabis permit however no one ever did. It was a sham. The same way gun regulation in relation to the Nazis presented in the article is also a sham and pointing to the Weimer government, from a Communist perspective is equally stupid. By the Nazis controlling through legislation who and whom meets the qualifications o gun ownership and who doesn't they control society in general. This not only included Jews explicitly but also, presumably, suspected Communists, Anarchists, as well as gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses and other maligned groups. Permits were only issued to 'trustworthy' people as so defined by the Nazis and there was a law enacting the complete disarmament of all Jews within the Reich occupied territories. Thus again reaffirming control and subjugation.

Interestingly, the article while doing the typical NRA = gun deregulation false association is that initially the NRA was pro-gun regulation when the Black Panthers were still heavy and advocating blacks in America to be armed and protect themselves. Sundown towns still exist you know. Union scuffles still happen you know. All that shit still happens in America. Again, being pro-gun regulation seems reactionary, liberal and anti-working class (and racist).

LuÃs Henrique

4th August 2014, 16:23

One of the problems with gun control is that criminals don't buy their guns at a gun shop.

They don't.

They either steal them from people who bought them at a gun shop, or they buy them at the black market.

One more thing: I've never understood the desire to only have government forces allowed to posess guns. Do you gun haters really trust the government that much?

Realistically, as long as there is a government, government forces will always be allowed to possess heavier weapons than the general populace. Even in the UK, where there is a largely "disarmed"* police, there certainly are special armed units that can be deployed in case of need. In short, if the citizenship is unarmed, the police will have handguns. If the citizenship is allowed handguns, the police will have shotguns.

The only way to change that is to have a revolution and destroy the State. Which, since the police will be always more heavily armed than the citizenship (and the army will always be much more heavily armed than the police), will have to be done with less an lighter armament than the enemy has.

If we really distrust the State as much as it deserves, we shouldn't delude ourselves that they will only use publicly accessible guns against us. Because they won't. Machine guns and cannons will be used, and, if necessary, bomber planes, tanks, and dreadnoughts as well.

The point, so, is necessarily to build a movement so strong that it becomes politically impossible for the State to smash it by massive use of its superior fire power.

... and not to verbally "fight" for the "right" of working class individuals to own warplanes, dreadnoughts and tanks.

Luís Henrique

*ie, disarmed from guns. They certainly carry weapons that can be used against a mostly disarmed citizenship, such as batons or tasers.

Lord Testicles

4th August 2014, 16:26

The article is pretty lame in my opinion in the same way that the laws surrounding marijuana prohibition were also bullshit.

Yeah that article is quite lame but I think it shows how simplistic it was of you to bring up Hitler in the first place.

Again, being pro-gun regulation seems reactionary, liberal and anti-working class (and racist).

Yeah, proposing that people should have a background check before being allowed to own a firearm is reactionary, liberal and anti-working class and racist. Could you be even more ridiculous if you tried?

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 16:39

Yeah that article is quite lame but I think it shows how simplistic it was of you to bring up Hitler in the first place.

Not entirely but ok.

Yeah, proposing that people should have a background check before being allowed to own a firearm is reactionary, liberal and anti-working class and racist. Could you be even more ridiculous if you tried?

Why the fuck do you have to be so rude when speaking to me? I don't like it so please respect my wishes and cease and desist.<3 Ty, moving forward you obviously didn't read my post did you? In it's entirety? Because in context I was talking about the NRA supporting tougher gun regulations within the context of the revolutionary wing of the civil rights movement vis a vis Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and so on, advocating black ownership of firearms en masse. The NRA's strategy was indeed racist, (also if I'm not mistaken Reagan put into plac tougher gun laws too and was himself a racist fuckhole) and all of this was based out of fear of the black community being armed and protecting themselves.

In fact, X and the Panthers quoted the second amendment in speeches arguing that if the very people that are supposed to protect you are hurting you and your people and reaffirming institutionalized racism and violence then absolutely guns and self-defense are absolutely necessary. The same thing remains the same in the US today, even if the NRA revamped itself. So, along class lines it seems absolutely necessary to arm oneself ad support gun deregulation considering institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia and violence as wells as the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement. The current gun proposal put forward by Obama also contains several executive orders thrown in their as well.

So yes I stand by my statements within the context of this conversation and of US history/political reality in general. It's tots not stupid.

Lord Testicles

4th August 2014, 16:52

Why the fuck do you have to be so rude when speaking to me? I don't like it so please respect my wishes and cease and desist.<3

No. Stop making stupid statements or live with it.

moving forward you obviously didn't read my post did you? In it's entirety?

I did, in it's entirety.

Because in context I was talking about the NRA supporting tougher gun regulations within the context of the revolutionary wing of the civil rights movement vis a vis Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and so on, advocating black ownership of firearms en masse. The NRA's strategy was indeed racist, (also if I'm not mistaken Reagan put into plac tougher gun laws too and was himself a racist fuckhole) and all of this was based out of fear of the black community being armed and protecting themselves.

Just because the NRA was proposing gun regulation for racist reasons doesn't make gun regulation racist.

In fact, X and the Panthers quoted the second amendment in speeches arguing that if the very people that are supposed to protect you are hurting you and your people and reaffirming institutionalized racism and violence then absolutely guns and self-defense are absolutely necessary. The same thing remains the same in the US today, even if the NRA revamped itself.

Gun regulation =\= Disarmament.

So, along class lines it seems absolutely necessary to arm oneself ad support gun deregulation considering institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia and violence as wells as the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement.

How exactly is gun deregulation going to help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement?

The current gun proposal put forward by Obama also contains several executive orders thrown in their as well.

I don't know anything about Obama's current gun proposal law, but I'm sure he'll try his hardest not to harm the domestic arms industry.

So yes I stand by my statements within the context of this conversation and of US history/political reality in general. It's tots not stupid.

Yes it is. Also, "tots" is a really moronic abbreviation and I don't like it so please respect my wishes and cease and desist.<3

Lily Briscoe

4th August 2014, 16:57

I also believe gun control is advocated mainly by and who's strongest supporters are the petty bourgeois. It seems to me the upper middle classes have an inherent fear and mistrust of the lower classes hence disarming them would seem preferable in the same way as slave owners probably wouldn't want their slaves to have weapons either. It's all a method of control and subjugation; a tactic employed by the petite et haute bourgeoisie to reinforce the hegemonic ideology of the present mode of production and models of social organization and stratification.

You can "believe" whatever you want, of course. Reality is a different matter.

I'll just leave this here again:

http://i.imgur.com/Fz7Lzib.jpg

The Red Star Rising

4th August 2014, 17:01

Ok so this is silly. I don't have guns because I want a big dick (gross) but because they are lethal hence why they work effectively for protection. What am I supposed to shoo people away with a broom or feather sword or fly swatter? Irrespective of the Tea Bag movement and so on, the working class has every interest in gun deregulation and the right for the proletariat to be armed. Just as the Black Panthers advocated protecting themselves and their communities (fuck the police). Might I also add, the Nazis were also big on gun control and also wanted to dearm the proletariat. Same with Fascist Italy.

In fact, under present material conditions the disarming of the proletariat and other revolutionary lower classes such as the lumpen or peasantry is fundamentally anti-Communist, liberal and reactionary.

https://shop.jpfo.org/images/products/78_large.gif
Bringing a gun into the face of a robbers tends to escalate the situation tremendously. Contrary to boogeyman scare stories, most robbers aren't out to rape, kill, or maim people, they just want stuff. Yes they're doing wrong, but most of them will be scared off by loud, barking dogs, alarm systems, and/or a baseball bat.

Also, you know what us proleteriat charging at tanks and jets with nothing heavier than home made mortars and assault rifles will achieve? Dying, horribly. If you want to beat a military with heavy weapons, we need a military with heavy weapons of our own, and that means a large portion of the military defecting to our cause. And before you say "But, but, Vietcong." The guys who finally defeated South Vietnam were the NVA, not Victor Charlie. The Vietcong was a tool of harassment and annoyance, the NVA was what actually won the war.

As for Hitler, first off: Godwin's law, second off: Hitler actually loosened gun restrictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Partial_relaxation_of_g un_control_in_Nazi_Germany) because he adored the idea of an armed master race. Hell when the infamous Generalplan Ost was done, he planned to have Aryan farmers and border soldiers who would wage eternal war with a purposefully exiled horde of Slavs he planned to exile beyond the Urals to give him never-ending conflict to fap to (after killing or enslaving most of them). The Jews? He disarmed them because he hated the idea of any of them or other untermensch having any power.

If capitalists, imperialists, or other oppressive forces are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus against you, what is the correct response?
Generally the only option is "Die screaming."

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 17:48

No. Stop making stupid statements or live with it.

Well, tbh, this has all yet to e demonstrated and I don't think you'd like it all to much if I was rude to you, now would you? I don't think so, just because you disagree doesn't warrant you being a prick for the sake of being a prick. It's not attractive love. :(

I did, in it's entirety.

Ok so comprehension and appreciation of context is your problem?

Just because the NRA was proposing gun regulation for racist reasons doesn't make gun regulation racist.

How on earth does that make sense? Would you say this in regards to any other issue concerning the black community and state racism? I doubt it. Within the context of American history, yes, gun control is racist. Or do you believe after the civil rights movement ended everything was all hunky dorey then?

Gun regulation =\= Disarmament.

It's a form of disarmament. My statements remain.

How exactly is gun deregulation going to help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement?

The same way X/NOI, the Black Panthers armed the black community at a time when law enforcement worked hand in hand with the klan, politicians and so on? Or do you believe persecuted minorities should bend over and take it? Why the fuck are you defending capital and the state? Is the RL? Or have I been fooled into thinking it's RL an it's actually a forum for democrats?

I don't know anything about Obama's current gun proposal law, but I'm sure he'll try his hardest not to harm the domestic arms industry.

Wow, how irrelevant is that guys. Is anyone else seeing this? Lol tf

Yes it is. Also, "tots" is a really moronic abbreviation and I don't like it so please respect my wishes and cease and desist.<3

Ok<3 see I can be the bigger woman :)

TOTS

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 17:49

You can "believe" whatever you want, of course. Reality is a different matter.

I'll just leave this here again:

http://i.imgur.com/Fz7Lzib.jpg

What's this shit supposed to mean? It seems to only confirm what I'm saying.

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 17:51

I have a brunch date so I'll respond more later but question is. Are you peoples also against women taking self-defense including the use of firearms an other weapons and various methods of disarming all forthwith to combat abuse, rape and other issues surrounding the objectification and subjugation of women?

Similarly following this bizzare gain of illogic should products such as rape-axe also be banned?

cyu

4th August 2014, 18:23

us proleteriat charging at tanks and jets with nothing heavier than home made mortars and assault rifles will achieve? Dying, horribly. If you want to beat a military with heavy weapons, we need a military with heavy weapons of our own

Actually, you could do it with continuous assassination of key political and military figures. The reason this is often not done is that there is an unspoken rule between opposing military forces - if you don't assassinate our leaders, we won't assassinate yours - instead, we just let our low level grunts kill each other off.

As long as "your side" has leaders, your military force would be prone to this type of behavior. Fortunately I prefer anarchist militaries, in which case, assassination of opposing officials has no real counter-response ;)

Lily Briscoe

4th August 2014, 18:37

What's this shit supposed to mean? It seems to only confirm what I'm saying.

Then you are reading it wrong, because it doesn't confirm what you're saying at all. I'm someone who is awful with numbers/reading graphs/etc. and didn't have any problem with it, so I think you can figure it out. It shows particular demographics (far left), what percent supports gun rights (middle column) versus gun control (right column within the red 'circle' I drew). The populations most supportive of gun control measures and least supportive of gun rights are women, ethnic minorities, and low-income people.

The Red Star Rising

4th August 2014, 18:54

Actually, you could do it with continuous assassination of key political and military figures. The reason this is often not done is that there is an unspoken rule between opposing military forces - if you don't assassinate our leaders, we won't assassinate yours - instead, we just let our low level grunts kill each other off.

As long as "your side" has leaders, your military force would be prone to this type of behavior. Fortunately I prefer anarchist militaries, in which case, assassination of opposing officials has no real counter-response ;)
Given how no one managed to assassinate Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Saddam Hussein, Khoemeni, or any other war-time head of state in recent times I'm dubious that this is a viable military strategy. In addittion, with say; a robotic army, they could just attempt to flush us out with soldiers that have no concept of morale, just flamethrowers and machine guns to gun us down.

Especially when they could just nuke us into surrendering if we lack any WMDs to retaliate.

The only way to win is to have at least some of the army on our side. Guerrillas can only annoy and harass, they do not win wars on their own without outside help and extenuating circumstances. The European Partisans tried assassinating Nazi leaders left right and center, it took the armies of the Commonwealth, America, and the Soviet Union to actually push the Nazis out.

Guerillas are like airpower, they're nice to have but regular ground forces are what win wars.

cyu

4th August 2014, 19:15

have at least some of the army on our side

I'd like that strategy too, but don't consider it the only one.

There have actually been plenty of world leaders assassinated by anarchists as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed - so technically it isn't that hard, as long as your target thinks you're one of his constituents. On the tactical side, as a means of gaining followers, it hasn't worked so well - even if the killing was justifiable, as long as your opposition controls the mass media, it just gives them another excuse to demonize your cause. However, if war is already ongoing - I'd consider it more justified to eliminate an instigator than a tiny squad that is "just following orders".

Hermes

4th August 2014, 19:32

Given how no one managed to assassinate Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Saddam Hussein, Khoemeni, or any other war-time head of state in recent times I'm dubious that this is a viable military strategy. In addittion, with say; a robotic army, they could just attempt to flush us out with soldiers that have no concept of morale, just flamethrowers and machine guns to gun us down.

Especially when they could just nuke us into surrendering if we lack any WMDs to retaliate.

The only way to win is to have at least some of the army on our side. Guerrillas can only annoy and harass, they do not win wars on their own without outside help and extenuating circumstances. The European Partisans tried assassinating Nazi leaders left right and center, it took the armies of the Commonwealth, America, and the Soviet Union to actually push the Nazis out.

Guerillas are like airpower, they're nice to have but regular ground forces are what win wars.

I don't necessarily have a position one way or the other, but I'm not sure about your reasoning. re: the list of people who weren't assassinated, I think cyu's talking about in a purely revolutionary situation, not members of a different country attempting to perform it. As well, I think it's a little ridiculous to start positing an entirely robotic army.

This might just be naive optimism, but I find it difficult to believe that a country would drop a WMD on their own country, especially since if it was a truly revolutionary situation (depending on the size of the country, etc), they would probably have to drop several.

I think it's a mistake to try and equate a war between countries with a revolutionary situation. I would find it difficult to believe that any revolutionary movement that existed long enough and occupied enough territory to form concrete battle-lines, etc, would have any chance of succeeding (this is not me advocating a "people's war", as I hope is clear?).

--

posted this before I saw that cyu responded themselves, sorry

Lord Testicles

4th August 2014, 21:50

Well, tbh, this has all yet to e demonstrated and I don't think you'd like it all to much if I was rude to you, now would you? I don't think so, just because you disagree doesn't warrant you being a prick for the sake of being a prick. It's not attractive love. :(

I'm not trying to be attractive. I'm not even being rude, all I said was that your statement was ridiculous, which it is. If I was trying to be a prick or to be rude I would have said "Could you be even more ridiculous if you tried, you thin-skinned, dim-witted wanker?"

Ok so comprehension and appreciation of context is your problem?

No, your idiotic rhetoric is my problem.

How on earth does that make sense? Would you say this in regards to any other issue concerning the black community and state racism? I doubt it. Within the context of American history, yes, gun control is racist. Or do you believe after the civil rights movement ended everything was all hunky dorey then?

It's simple logic. Gun control is not racist in and of itself. You can propose gun control for racist reasons (People shouldn't be allowed guns because non-whites will shoot us) and you can have gun control which is racist (no guns for non-whites) but nobody in this thread is arguing for that and neither do I think most people who are in favour of gun control.

I'll say it again for you just incase you didn't catch it the fist time: Gun control is not racist in and of itself. If you think it is, then prove it.

It's a form of disarmament. My statements remain.

:rolleyes:

The same way X/NOI, the Black Panthers armed the black community at a time when law enforcement worked hand in hand with the klan, politicians and so on? Or do you believe persecuted minorities should bend over and take it? Why the fuck are you defending capital and the state? Is the RL? Or have I been fooled into thinking it's RL an it's actually a forum for democrats?

No this is MoronicRight where you come to make apologies for the Israeli Defence Force and argue for gun deregulation a la the NRA.

Seriously though, maybe it's you that have a problem with comprehension because that didn't answer my question in the slightest. I'll ask it again:

How exactly is gun deregulation going to help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement?

Wow, how irrelevant is that guys. Is anyone else seeing this? Lol tf

Well, at least I'm honest, I don't know anything about Obama's new gun laws. Maybe you can fill us in.

Ok<3 see I can be the bigger woman

TOTS

Yeah, clearly. :rolleyes:

Lord Testicles

4th August 2014, 22:00

I'd like that strategy too, but don't consider it the only one.

There have actually been plenty of world leaders assassinated by anarchists as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed - so technically it isn't that hard, as long as your target thinks you're one of his constituents. On the tactical side, as a means of gaining followers, it hasn't worked so well - even if the killing was justifiable, as long as your opposition controls the mass media, it just gives them another excuse to demonize your cause. However, if war is already ongoing - I'd consider it more justified to eliminate an instigator than a tiny squad that is "just following orders".

I don't think your opponent even needs a mass media. I believe that when Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate Henry Frick he was beaten and heckled by the workers (who were striking against Henry Frick) during/after the assassination attempt.

Depardieu

4th August 2014, 23:13

There was no physical force done to any person in the break-in. That's how it's not violent. You can't be violent with property, and it'd be an incredibly specious argument if you tried mounting it, especially as a communist.

a home invasion in itself isnt violent, but threatening people with guns is. confronting armed burglars is very likely to result in someone needlessly getting hurt. the vast majority of burglars obviously only want to steal crap and not deal with people at all. i have actually had my home broken into on multiple occasions including by armed burglars. if personal experience counts for anything, they never even pointed their guns at anyone in an aggressive manner or try to threaten anyone into doing anything.

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th August 2014, 23:52

I'm not trying to be attractive. I'm not even being rude, all I said was that your statement was ridiculous, which it is. If I was trying to be a prick or to be rude I would have said "Could you be even more ridiculous if you tried, you thin-skinned, dim-witted wanker?"

Ok, so you being a rude prick is what? Somehow meaningful? Are you making te mistake that I'm the least bit emotive over the situation? I just like showing some modicum of politeness even if we disagree but if you wish to be a boarish poncey little shit, go right ahead. No skin off my nose Jack.

No, your idiotic rhetoric is my problem.

K, cool story.

It's simple logic. Gun control is not racist in and of itself.

Did I say that? No, I didn't, I said within the historical context of American politics. Totally. That's actually what I said. Get over your shit and read.

You can propose gun control for racist reasons (People shouldn't be allowed guns because non-whites will shoot us) and you can have gun control which is racist (no guns for non-whites) but nobody in this thread is arguing for that and neither do I think most people who are in favour of gun control.

Ok so because they're not conscious of something that means that something doesn't exist? Am I getting this right? Is that how it works? Fascinating.

read this asshole (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/09/adam-winkler-gun-fight-author-on-gun-control-s-racism.html)

I'll say it again for you just incase you didn't catch it the fist time: Gun control is not racist in and of itself. If you think it is, then prove it.

I have already been pretty clear. Gun control in America, historically has meant the attempted disarmament of blacks, 'radical immigrants' and so on.

No this is MoronicRight where you come to make apologies for the Israeli Defence Force and argue for gun deregulation a la the NRA.

Funny how I've been criticizing the NRA this whole fucking time.

Seriously though, maybe it's you that have a problem with comprehension because that didn't answer my question in the slightest. I'll ask it again:

How exactly is gun deregulation going to help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement?

I already did you just chose to gloss over it with your short snipits and took it as an opportunity to be rude. Not my fault.

Well, at least I'm honest, I don't know anything about Obama's new gun laws. Maybe you can fill us in.

When I edit this later I will.

Yeah, clearly. :rolleyes:

Don't be so sore guy :(

Lord Testicles

5th August 2014, 00:27

Ok, so you being a rude prick is what? Somehow meaningful? Are you making te mistake that I'm the least bit emotive over the situation? I just like showing some modicum of politeness even if we disagree but if you wish to be a boarish poncey little shit, go right ahead. No skin off my nose Jack.

I'm not even being rude, that's the point. Have you got trouble reading?

Did I say that? No, I didn't, I said within the historical context of American politics. Totally. That's actually what I said. Get over your shit and read.

Yes you did, you said nothing about the historical context of American politics. The direct quote is:

Interestingly, the article while doing the typical NRA = gun deregulation false association is that initially the NRA was pro-gun regulation when the Black Panthers were still heavy and advocating blacks in America to be armed and protect themselves. Sundown towns still exist you know. Union scuffles still happen you know. All that shit still happens in America. Again, being pro-gun regulation seems reactionary, liberal and anti-working class (and racist).

What's that sound I can hear? Vox frantically back-peddling.

Ok so because they're not conscious of something that means that something doesn't exist? Am I getting this right? Is that how it works? Fascinating.

Are you trying your hardest to win the biggest drooling imbecile on the forum award? What you are presenting is an association fallacy, the NRA and the KKK used to support gun control for racist reasons ergo gun control is racist. Except it isn't. It's just racist in those instances.

I have already been pretty clear. Gun control in America, historically has meant the attempted disarmament of blacks, 'radical immigrants' and so on.

I know this is your attempt to back-peddle and rationalise your previously ridiculous utterance and it's cute and all but you've got to understand that nobody is arguing for that.

Funny how I've been criticizing the NRA this whole fucking time.

You've been criticising their historical support for gun control. I don't know if you've heard but these days they're all about deregulation and fighting any mention of regulation, you'd get along swimmingly with the modern NRA.

I already did you just chose to gloss over it with your short snipits and took it as an opportunity to be rude. Not my fault.

You did no such thing. You name dropped the black panthers, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam but you didn't explain how they used their firearms to vanquish institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement.

You did even less to explain how gun deregulation will help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement.

Don't be so sore guy

I'm not. I'm quite enjoying taking your post apart, it's nice easy work.

Trap Queen Voxxy

5th August 2014, 02:30

I'm not even being rude, that's the point. Have you got trouble reading?

You do apparently.

Yes

нет нет :'[

What's that sound I can hear? Vox frantically back-peddling.

No, I obviously said it seems given history, under capital, in America, that this is the case. Extra licenses and permits and qualifications would all cost money. Fire arms in general, can be incredibly expensive. All this extra shit just seems like more power out of the hands of the working class and other groups. Again, reading is key here. Try it. Can you not read lad? Hmm? Or is being snarky and again rude is somehow badass for you? I also further explained what I meant as well but of course, fuck all that, let's go with this bullcrap here.

Are you trying your hardest to win the biggest drooling imbecile on the forum award? What you are presenting is an association fallacy, the NRA and the KKK used to support gun control for racist reasons ergo gun control is racist. Except it isn't. It's just racist in those instances.

Calling me stupid and a bunch of other shit doesn't make you right you know. I mean really, you can huff and puff all you want but I been pretty fucking clear as to what I've meant. More or less.

I know this is your attempt to back-peddle and rationalise your previously ridiculous utterance and it's cute and all but you've got to understand that nobody is arguing for that.

Oh you've only used the term 'back peddle' 50 fucking times now, did uh huh* learn a new word or something? Lmfao, I know very well what I said and the clarifications made.

You've been criticising their historical support for gun control. I don't know if you've heard but these days they're all about deregulation and fighting any mention of regulation, you'd get along swimmingly with the modern NRA.

You're childish and ridiculous. I'm well aware however this doesn't change anything I've said nor is all this nonsense your pulling is meaningful in any way.

You did no such thing. You name dropped the black panthers, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam but you didn't explain how they used their firearms to vanquish institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement.

No, I absolutely explained more than just merely name drop. But again, fuck all that, it's your story, tell it how you wish idc anymore. This is boring and stupid. I very clearly said combat, not vanquish, implicitly implying self-defense. But if you want to jump on the state's cock and in sure they always have the proletariat out gunned then by all means, continue being a class traitor. Congrats, you've crossed the class line asshole.

You did even less to explain how gun deregulation will help fight institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement.

No, I did, your just being a sniffling adult child about it.

I'm not. I'm quite enjoying taking your post apart, it's nice easy work.

An internet conversation being taken as a personal victory with emotional gratification and all is pretty adorbs. Whatever makes you happy sport. :)

*youre welcome for the little rascal joke lol

Lord Testicles

5th August 2014, 02:43

No, I obviously said it seems given history, under capital, in America, that this is the case. Extra licenses and permits and qualifications would all cost money. Fire arms in general, can be incredibly expensive. All this extra shit just seems like more power out of the hands of the working class and other groups.

The working class doesn't derive it's power from an AR-15.

No, I absolutely explained more than just merely name drop. But again, fuck all that, it's your story, tell it how you wish idc anymore. This is boring and stupid. I very clearly said combat, not vanquish, implicitly implying self-defense.

The same way X/NOI, the Black Panthers armed the black community at a time when law enforcement worked hand in hand with the klan, politicians and so on? Or do you believe persecuted minorities should bend over and take it? Why the fuck are you defending capital and the state? Is the RL? Or have I been fooled into thinking it's RL an it's actually a forum for democrats?

Let's be clear, this isn't an explanation for how institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the militarization of lawn enforcement was fought.

But if you want to jump on the state's cock and in sure they always have the proletariat out gunned then by all means, continue being a class traitor. Congrats, you've crossed the class line asshole.

:lol:

Just one question really: How does arguing for a background check (let's say for mental illness) before you can purchase a firearm make someone reactionary, anti-working class and racist?

An internet conversation being taken as a personal victory with emotional gratification and all is pretty adorbs.

You are insufferable.

Lily Briscoe

5th August 2014, 02:53

@ Vox Populi:

Then you are reading it wrong, because it doesn't confirm what you're saying at all. I'm someone who is awful with numbers/reading graphs/etc. and didn't have any problem with it, so I think you can figure it out. It shows particular demographics (far left), what percent supports gun rights (middle column) versus gun control (right column within the red 'circle' I drew). The populations most supportive of gun control measures and least supportive of gun rights are women, ethnic minorities, and low-income people.

So you're not going to address this, then?

Trap Queen Voxxy

5th August 2014, 03:03

The working class doesn't derive it's power from an AR-15.

Yeah because literally putting the proletariat at very obvious disadvantage is totally Communist, you're right, it's not some lily livered bullshit based on fear and emotion with the implication that the bourgeois state is there to help and protect you and that law enforcement doesn't actual exist to reinforce this social stratification and generate revenue, beat, kill or rape you, no they're you're friends. There isn't obvious racism reflected by simple prison statistics, nooooo.

Let's be clear, this isn't an explanation for how institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia, violence and the militarization of lawn enforcement was fought.

No because you're only using a selected quote your cherry picked you intellectually dishonest stoolie. There is this;

Quote: Originally Posted by Василиса Прекра:
"Because in context I was talking about the NRA supporting tougher gun regulations within the context of the revolutionary wing of the civil rights movement vis a vis Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and so on, advocating black ownership of firearms en masse. The NRA's strategy was indeed racist, (also if I'm not mistaken Reagan put into plac tougher gun laws too and was himself a racist fuckhole) and all of this was based out of fear of the black community being armed and protecting themselves."

And also this;

"In fact, X and the Panthers quoted the second amendment in speeches arguing that if the very people that are supposed to protect you are hurting you and your people and reaffirming institutionalized racism and violence then absolutely guns and self-defense are absolutely necessary. The same thing remains the same in the US today, even if the NRA revamped itself. So, along class lines it seems absolutely necessary to arm oneself ad support gun deregulation considering institutionalized racism, patriarchy, homophobia and violence as wells as the ever increasing militarization of lawn enforcement. The current gun proposal put forward by Obama also contains several executive orders thrown in their as well.."

Following these historical examples it should easy to imagine what I mean by all of this thus you repeating this question is fucking stupid.

:lol:

Just one question really: How does arguing for a background check (let's say for mental illness) before you can purchase a firearm make someone reactionary, anti-working class and racist?

That's obviously not something I said however I could point to a book called Medical Apartheid where blacks have been misdiagnosed with stupid diseases and even given lobotomies and been institutionalized. So, needless to say, the whole mental illness thing is pretty screwy. Who gets to define 'crazy' exactly? You are aware that mental insanity is legal construct, not one found in actual psychiatry, yes? Exactly how would you implement this without giving the state more invasive power and influence? You don't see at all given how states use seemingly altruistic things to disguise fuckery, this might be problematic?

You are insufferable.

If by insufferable you mean kawaii as fuck then totally. :3

Trap Queen Voxxy

5th August 2014, 03:20

@ Vox Populi:

So you're not going to address this, then?

I did I asked what does that really mean? Like what's your point? All I see is some bullshit voting list. So, what? I can obviously can read it, maybe I should've been more clear in my questions. Idk

Lily Briscoe

5th August 2014, 20:36

I did I asked what does that really mean? Like what's your point? All I see is some bullshit voting list. So, what?
So, this is what you said:

I also believe gun control is advocated mainly by and who's strongest supporters are the petty bourgeois. It seems to me the upper middle classes have an inherent fear and mistrust of the lower classes hence disarming them would seem preferable in the same way as slave owners probably wouldn't want their slaves to have weapons either. It's all a method of control and subjugation; a tactic employed by the petite et haute bourgeoisie to reinforce the hegemonic ideology of the present mode of production and models of social organization and stratification.

I responded with statistics showing that, in reality, well-off white men are actually the demographic most supportive of gun rights and most opposed to gun control, whereas women, ethnic minorities, and low-income people are the demographics most in favor of gun control and least in favor of protecting gun rights.

I'm not sure what part of this is unclear exactly...?

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 16:54

So, this is what you said:

I responded with statistics showing that, in reality, well-off white men are actually the demographic most supportive of gun rights and most opposed to gun control, whereas women, ethnic minorities, and low-income people are the demographics most in favor of gun control and least in favor of protecting gun rights.

I'm not sure what part of this is unclear exactly...?

Your stupid poll doesn't signify anything. That's what I'm saying. This is like me saying that less because less than 10% of Americans think Communism is a superior political system to capitalism. The proletariat must then support capital and capital is superior to Communism. I am not even sure as to authenticity of this poll, either.

there is also this (america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/1/for-some-blacks-guncontroldebateraisesechoesofsegregatedpast.html)

and this (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/us/minority-gun-owners-face-balancing-act-weighing-isolation-and-stigma-of-violence.html?referrer=)

and this (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2900166/)

Lily Briscoe

6th August 2014, 17:14

Your stupid poll doesn't signify anything. That's what I'm saying. This is like me saying that less because less than 10% of Americans think Communism is a superior political system to capitalism. The proletariat must then support capital and capital is superior to Communism. Yes, that is exactly what it's like...

I am not even sure as to authenticity of this poll, either. It's from Pew (http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf)

there is also this (america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/1/for-some-blacks-guncontroldebateraisesechoesofsegregatedpast.html)

and this (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/us/minority-gun-owners-face-balancing-act-weighing-isolation-and-stigma-of-violence.html?referrer=)

and this (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2900166/)
I can't say I'm terribly interested in hearing what NRA members have to say about gun rights and gun control, regardless of whether they are among the handful of token black members.

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 17:33

Yes, that is exactly what it's like...
It's from Pew (http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf)

The poll is also misleading and you are also being misleading in posting it. They're is also differences between white and black voters in voting Democrat/Republican, and differences between various regions and a whole host of other things. Again, I don't see why you feel this is so significant.

I can't say I'm terribly interested in hearing what NRA members have to say about gun rights and gun control, regardless of whether they are among the handful of token black members.

:rolleyes: whatever, fuck em, right? They're the wrong kind of black person, right? I should only post links that support your position right? We only accept the opinions of the "good ones."

gun control: white man's law (http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html)

VH0w_qoYPjo

Lily Briscoe

6th August 2014, 17:45

The poll is also misleading and you are also being misleading in posting it. They're is also differences between white and black voters in voting Democrat/Republican, and differences between various regions and a whole host of other things. Again, I don't see why you feel this is so significant.
It is relevant because you made the claim that most supporters of gun control were upper middle class and/or petty bourgeois, when this is demonstrably untrue, which is something you keep trying to evade.

:rolleyes: whatever, fuck em, right? They're the wrong kind of black person, right? I should only post links that support your position right? We only accept the opinions of the "good ones."
And this is what it comes down to. For all the obnoxious overwhelmingly-white pro-gun leftists in America living completely in fantasy world, anyone who is critical of gun rights must be a racist. I'm done with this discussion, have fun.

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 17:51

It is relevant because you made the claim that most supporters of gun control were upper middle class and/or petty bourgeois, when this is demonstrably untrue, which is something you keep trying to evade.

I'm sorry if I don't accept one poll, posted randomly, as being definitive proof of which completely negates everything I've said. Could I have been mistaken in saying this? Sure, but it remains to be seen.

And this is what it comes down to. For all the obnoxious overwhelmingly-white pro-gun leftists in America living completely in fantasy world, anyone who is critical of gun rights must be a racist. I'm done with this discussion, have fun.

I'm not white? I never said that but saying shit like "I don't care to hear from tokens," is kind of a fucked up thing to say. It does seem racist to state that. Past that I'm not saying I you're critical of gun rights your racist just that you personally said something racist.

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 17:58

What about the Pink Pistols?

Sinister Intents

6th August 2014, 18:02

This thread seems fun, I'll join later. I'm completely on voxxy's side in this case

Krasnyymir

7th August 2014, 10:35

It's simple logic. Gun control is not racist in and of itself.

Sorry, but anyone saying that the history of gun control isn't based on racism, is completely ignorant of the subject.

(Like the well meaning liberals who claim that the war on drugs is racist, without ever realizing that it for a large part was the African-American community who fed and encouraged the war on drugs and disparity in sentencing.)

You need to read up on the history of gun control, and especially how the Black Panthers used the second amendment to fight racism and oppression.

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, that the beneficiaries of the 2nd amendment and availability of weapons for personal defense ESPECIALLY is the working class, and marginalized groups. (And revolutionaries, obviously. You can't fight oppression or the state with good intentions, prayers and identity politics, unlike what liberals and the professional black mis-leadership class seems to believe...)

#FF0000

7th August 2014, 12:54

(Like the well meaning liberals who claim that the war on drugs is racist, without ever realizing that it for a large part was the African-American community who fed and encouraged the war on drugs and disparity in sentencing.)

I was with you on the racist history of gun control laws, but could you expand on this?

Krasnyymir

7th August 2014, 14:22

I was with you on the racist history of gun control laws, but could you expand on this?

Sure... I'll post some links that go over this, but to briefly explain it: Today the war on drugs is being seen by some not just as racist in consequence, but as a deliberate policy of disenfranchising African-Americans.

But who helped formulate that policy? Well, among others it was people like Charles Rangel, one of the most influential members of the black caucus for decades, a member of the House Narcotics Comitee for decades, and even head of that committee in the 80ies when the "crack epidemic" hit American cities, and the sentencing disparity for cocaine originated.

You see, back in the 60ies, 70ies and even 80ies, many in the black community saw not drug policing as racist, but rather the LACK of drug policing: "Its only cause we're black and poor that you don't see police arresting dealers. If it was middle as white kids who were getting hooked on dope, you better believe police would start arresting dealers and doing something about it!" was the thinking that was prevalent.
(1988 the aforementioned Charles Rangel advocated putting military personnel and equipment on the streets of Bronx and Harlem to deal with the menace of drugs!)

Faced with many young people in black neighbourhoods getting addicted to drugs, and turning to crime, many black leaders and churches started demanding more policing and "getting tough on crime". Which helped lead to the current situation.

I was pretty surprised too, when I recently read up on it, and surprised at how short our collective memories are.

Here are some links:

Whoops, nevermind! I can't post any links yet, but send me a PM if you want to read more about it. Or I'll post them here in about 20 posts or so... ;)

Hermes

7th August 2014, 14:42

I understand and agree with those who are claiming that gun control laws have a history of racism behind them, especially in the US, but could anyone expand on how the armed self-defense of oppressed communities would work the same way today as back then?

It seems to me that, for instance, if a racist cop got driven out of a neighborhood with gunfire, it wouldn't end there, like it might have in the past.

Krasnyymir

7th August 2014, 16:25

I understand and agree with those who are claiming that gun control laws have a history of racism behind them, especially in the US, but could anyone expand on how the armed self-defense of oppressed communities would work the same way today as back then?

Well, the Black Panthers were very good at using open carry laws to discourage police discrimination.
(Basically by following police officers around on their patrol, while openly carrying a shotgun or semiautomatic rifle.)

Not sure if that would be legal today, considering the change in gun laws.
(Which is quite ironic, considering that the black mis-leadership class forms large part helped push these laws through. Actually, if I was an Afro-American, I would interpret the fact that Rengel, Jackson, Sharpton and all the rest of the stooges of the establishment are pushing gun control, is a pretty good reason in itself to push gun-ownership and gun-legalization.)

But besides any overtly political consequences of gun-ownership (including obviously the fact that the state then doesn't have a monopoly on lethal weapons) one of the immediate benefits of gun ownership in oppressed/marginalized communities is selfdefence.

The right to self defense is one of the most basic human rights. And since minority and low inc

Krasnyymir

7th August 2014, 16:29

I understand and agree with those who are claiming that gun control laws have a history of racism behind them, especially in the US, but could anyone expand on how the armed self-defense of oppressed communities would work the same way today as back then?

Well, the Black Panthers were very good at using open carry laws to discourage police discrimination.
(Basically by following police officers around on their patrol, while openly carrying a shotgun or semiautomatic rifle.)

Not sure if that would be legal today, considering the change in gun laws.
(Which is quite ironic, considering that the black mis-leadership class forms large part helped push these laws through. Actually, if I was an Afro-American, I would interpret the fact that Rengel, Jackson, Sharpton and all the rest of the stooges of the establishment are pushing gun control, is a pretty good reason in itself to push gun-ownership and gun-legalization.)

But besides any overtly political consequences of gun-ownership (including obviously the fact that the state then doesn't have a monopoly on lethal weapons) one of the immediate benefits of gun ownership in oppressed/marginalized communities is selfdefence.

The right to self defense is one of the most basic human rights. And since minority and low income communities usually are a very low priority for law enforcement, higher rates of gun ownership, would mean that the community is better able to protect itself against crime.

LuÃs Henrique

7th August 2014, 19:06

No this is MoronicRight where you come to make apologies for the Israeli Defence Force and argue for gun deregulation a la the NRA.

That's only the "Right" part, though. The "Moronic" part has to do with cannibalism, of course.

Luís Henrique

Trap Queen Voxxy

7th August 2014, 19:56

That's only the "Right" part, though. The "Moronic" part has to do with cannibalism, of course.

Luís Henrique

Don't strain yourself cracking a joke now. ;)

The Red Star Rising

7th August 2014, 20:10

I don't necessarily have a position one way or the other, but I'm not sure about your reasoning. re: the list of people who weren't assassinated, I think cyu's talking about in a purely revolutionary situation, not members of a different country attempting to perform it. As well, I think it's a little ridiculous to start positing an entirely robotic army.

This might just be naive optimism, but I find it difficult to believe that a country would drop a WMD on their own country, especially since if it was a truly revolutionary situation (depending on the size of the country, etc), they would probably have to drop several.

I think it's a mistake to try and equate a war between countries with a revolutionary situation. I would find it difficult to believe that any revolutionary movement that existed long enough and occupied enough territory to form concrete battle-lines, etc, would have any chance of succeeding (this is not me advocating a "people's war", as I hope is clear?).

--

posted this before I saw that cyu responded themselves, sorry
To give you an idea of Nuclear weapons policies. France will nuke an enemy into Ash if it feels that it's going to go down. Which means it will nuke any revolutionary held cities if the Bastille is about to be stormed. Israel similarly is theorized to deploy a "fuck everyone, you all die now" option if it's similarly about to be overwhelmed where it nukes every center of human civilization (Moscow, Washington, the likes), and every nation that has historically wronged the jews (the Russians, the Germans, the Arabs), and the centers of every world religion.

WMDs essentially mean nobody wins unless you count living in a pile of radioactive ash to be victory.

In addition, I'm unconvinced that a light infantry only force is capable of defeating modern armies. Especially since in the future (I personally don't see a revolution occuring until at least the second half of the century, maybe the next one) warfare will favor the more highly equipped forces even more.

To win, we need armies to turn red and some way to stop Nations to blast the world into ash out of sheer spite, because that is a legitimate policy of theirs.

Hermes

7th August 2014, 20:50

To give you an idea of Nuclear weapons policies. France will nuke an enemy into Ash if it feels that it's going to go down. Which means it will nuke any revolutionary held cities if the Bastille is about to be stormed. Israel similarly is theorized to deploy a "fuck everyone, you all die now" option if it's similarly about to be overwhelmed where it nukes every center of human civilization (Moscow, Washington, the likes), and every nation that has historically wronged the jews (the Russians, the Germans, the Arabs), and the centers of every world religion.

WMDs essentially mean nobody wins unless you count living in a pile of radioactive ash to be victory.

I think you're missing a couple of points. French nuclear policy wasn't decided on the basis of domestic issues, and their policy doesn't explicitly say that they would nuke their own cities, or use it against domestic terrorists, etc, which seems to be what you're suggesting. In that same vein, I think it's one thing to postulate something, and another to actually do it. So, I think that suggesting their policy is to 'blast the world into ash out of sheer spite', or that it applies to a situation other than (to use a cliche) global thermonuclear war, is a little... disingenuous? is the word I think I'm looking for.

Especially considering that, as in the earlier post, if revolutionary forces ever failed to the point where they need to start defending static positions and policing battle lines, the conventional military would be much better suited to the task of suppressing them than nukes.

In addition, I'm unconvinced that a light infantry only force is capable of defeating modern armies. Especially since in the future (I personally don't see a revolution occuring until at least the second half of the century, maybe the next one) warfare will favor the more highly equipped forces even more. Again, I think you're conceiving of this far too much as a fight between two states with conventional military forces. I've already said what I think would happen if it became a slugging contest between the two, and that it would probably be too late by that point anyway.

--

Sorry, forgot to add this into the post, could you cite your sources for Israel's nuclear policy? I wasn't aware that they had made one publicly known since they still deny that they have any, and it would seem odd that anyone would give them nuclear weapons (or weapons of any kind, i.e. the US) if their plan was to nuke them in retaliation.

The Red Star Rising

7th August 2014, 21:02

I think you're missing a couple of points. French nuclear policy wasn't decided on the basis of domestic issues, and their policy doesn't explicitly say that they would nuke their own cities, or use it against domestic terrorists, etc, which seems to be what you're suggesting. In that same vein, I think it's one thing to postulate something, and another to actually do it. So, I think that suggesting their policy is to 'blast the world into ash out of sheer spite', or that it applies to a situation other than (to use a cliche) global thermonuclear war, is a little... disingenuous? is the word I think I'm looking for.

Especially considering that, as in the earlier post, if revolutionary forces ever failed to the point where they need to start defending static positions and policing battle lines, the conventional military would be much better suited to the task of suppressing them than nukes.

Again, I think you're conceiving of this far too much as a fight between two states with conventional military forces. I've already said what I think would happen if it became a slugging contest between the two, and that it would probably be too late by that point anyway.

--

Sorry, forgot to add this into the post, could you cite your sources for Israel's nuclear policy? I wasn't aware that they had made one publicly known since they still deny that they have any, and it would seem odd that anyone would give them nuclear weapons (or weapons of any kind, i.e. the US) if their plan was to nuke them in retaliation.
Light infantry cannot take and seize territory when faced with competent conventional armies without outside help. They are tools of annoyance and harassment and to discount the need for heavy weapons is to commit ourselves to a long, bloody guerrilla war. Especially when in the far future where a revolution is likely to take place, we wouldn't be fighting guys with M-16s, but would be folks with civilian grade weapons with what are likely transhuman soldiers and legions of killbots. You can't compete with that grain of firepower without having some of your own.

And revolutionaries in France would likely lose a fair deal of spirit for the sake of revolutionaries in other countries if France starts bombing any city that's fallen to revolutionaries if it feels that it's being overwhelmed. They don't need to target their own cities, they simply need to bomb cities in other countries that have fallen. This is why seizing WMDs is crucial. The WMD does not ensure that you can win every war, what it does ensure is that nobody will ever gain anything better than a pyrrhic victory against you.

As for Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option It's the ultimate "if I can't have this ball, no one can" in deterrence strategies.

The Modern Prometheus

7th August 2014, 21:03

Well as a Communist i think the state which protects the bourgeois dictatorship has absolutely no right to tell me if i can own a gun or not. I also believe that every human being has the right to defend themselves against both tyranny and anyone trying to get your awesome stereo out your back door. Granted for the latter i would certainly never shoot anyone unless my life was in imminent danger and i have no need for a gun for self defense purposes personally.

I also like guns and many people in the rural area of my province are still poor enough to have to hunt to get through the winter. If i had not been able to shoot a Moose last winter i would have had more then a few hungry days myself actually.

cyu

10th August 2014, 20:47

I don't think your opponent even needs a mass media. It is because they already have the mass media that you think certain "values are innate in the general population" - if capitalists didn't already own the media, then there would be no reason to value the life of a rich man more than the life of a poor man.

It's the same thing used by Germans to devalue the lives of Jews.

...not to mention the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin". Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese: men, women, and children.

Hermes

13th August 2014, 05:28

This is probably going to be my last post on the topic, sorry.

As for Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option It's the ultimate "if I can't have this ball, no one can" in deterrence strategies.

Sorry, but this seems to be entirely the work of one book, written in 1991, with one person who says they worked for Israeli intelligence services interviewed. The citation for him corroborating everything with at least one other source leads to a book review. Not having read the book (and even if I had), I can't state definitively how much weight it should carry. This quote from an American author seems to come the closest to what you've claimed, but it isn't Hersh's or Ben-Menashe:

Ron Rosenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Rosenbaum) writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option.

Light infantry cannot take and seize territory when faced with competent conventional armies without outside help. They are tools of annoyance and harassment and to discount the need for heavy weapons is to commit ourselves to a long, bloody guerrilla war. Especially when in the far future where a revolution is likely to take place, we wouldn't be fighting guys with M-16s, but would be folks with civilian grade weapons with what are likely transhuman soldiers and legions of killbots. You can't compete with that grain of firepower without having some of your own.

I don't know why you keep repeating this without ever actually engaging with anything I've said. I've stated multiple times that, if the situation devolved into an actual war, then the fight was probably already lost.

Further, your seeming obsession with transhuman soldiers/mechs/'killbots' is really kind of weird to me.

And revolutionaries in France would likely lose a fair deal of spirit for the sake of revolutionaries in other countries if France starts bombing any city that's fallen to revolutionaries if it feels that it's being overwhelmed. They don't need to target their own cities, they simply need to bomb cities in other countries that have fallen. This is why seizing WMDs is crucial. The WMD does not ensure that you can win every war, what it does ensure is that nobody will ever gain anything better than a pyrrhic victory against you.

I think it's kind of a ridiculous assumption that France will suddenly decide to bomb St. Petersburg, or Glasgow, or Cleveland, whatever, if they're taken by rebels. Not only would it just be incredibly ineffective, it would be an explicit declaration of war on the country they bombed, since apparently we're still dealing with revolutionaries fighting a conventional war against states.

So even in the really weird assumption that rebels somehow... seize WMDs... if the French are already willing to bomb anything just because, then it doesn't matter in the first place.