Gun Control

[j.guevara]

Someone told me today that Chomsky is pro gun control. Thsi guy claims to be an anarchist. Anyone know if this is true?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm not really sure what he believes as I rarely read that windbag, however since anarchism simply means that the person believes in the complete abolishment of the state, I don't see how someone cannot be for gun control and be an anarchist.

Remember, anarchists don't specifically say there should not be social law and order, they simply feel that the masses are "enlightened" enough to control themselves without state intervention.

In addition, "the path to" communism will vary depending on your personal opinions. Some may prefer more direct and violent means for revoloution while others may feel that a pacifistic revolution is more ideal.

Dig?

[Loknar]

how the hell am i supposed to hunt? a gun is merely an improvement of a bow and arrow. just because americas culture is loaded with the stupidest mother fuckers the earth has ever seen, dont blame the guns, it's the people.

[synthesis]

I don't think Chomsky has ever actually spoken up to support one position or another. He has written a well-known critique of the motives behind anti-gun control, but his language leaves it fairly open as to his thoughts on the topic itself.

-------------

Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?

It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.

But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.

The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy -- not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially influenceable -- and potentially very influenceable -- by the general population.

Many people who advocate keeping guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.

Do the media foster the feeling people have that they're under attack?

At the deepest level, the media contribute to the sense that the government is the enemy, and they suppress the sources of real power in the society, which lie in the totalitarian institutions -- the corporations, now international in scale -- that control the economy and much of our social life. In fact, the corporations set the conditions within which the government operates, and control it to a large extent.

The picture presented in the media is constant, day after day. People simply have no awareness of the system of power under which they're suffering. As a result -- as intended -- they turn their attention against the government.

People have all kinds of motivations for opposing gun control, but there's definitely a sector of the population that considers itself threatened by big forces, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Council on Foreign Relations to big government to who knows what, and they're calling for guns to protect themselves.

Radio listener: On the issue of gun control, I believe that the US is becoming much more like a Third World country, and nothing is necessarily going to put a stop to it. I look around and see a lot of Third World countries where, if the citizens had weapons, they wouldn't have the government they've got. So I think that maybe people are being a little short-sighted in arguing for gun control and at the same time realizing that the government they've got is not exactly a benign one.

Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The government is far from benign -- that's true. On the other hand, it's at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.

What's not benign (what's extremely harmful, in fact) is something you didn't mention -- business power, which is highly concentrated and, by now, largely transnational. Business power is very far from benign and it's completely unaccountable. It's a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. It's also the main reason why the government isn't benign.

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

Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.

[Professor Moneybags]

Someone told me today that Chomsky is pro gun control. Thsi guy claims to be an anarchist. Anyone know if this is true?

He's supposed to be an anarcho-socialist. I don't understand this concept at all; how can you have anarchy AND a regulated economy ?

[j.guevara]

ok i see. I think he's an anarcho-syndicalist not an anarcho-socialist. I dunno there just labels. Hes just a guy with opinions and views.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2004, 11:52 PM

Someone told me today that Chomsky is pro gun control. Thsi guy claims to be an anarchist. Anyone know if this is true?

He's supposed to be an anarcho-socialist. I don't understand this concept at all; how can you have anarchy AND a regulated economy ?
It's rather simple. It's not a "regulated" economy. It is an economy in the public sector, i.e., economic power decentralized from private hands.

Anarchism is the rejection of all forms of authority. As Chomsky himself has said many times (including above), the government is certainly a dangerous form of authority, yet it is at least slightly accountable, as opposed to the bougeoisie, the factory owners, the stock brokers, completely untouchable, not to mention the source of the modern abuses of government power.


American democracy was founded on the principle, stressed by James Madison in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.

[Professor Moneybags]

i.e., economic power decentralized from private hands.

That's a contradiction in terms.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2004, 09:39 AM

i.e., economic power decentralized from private hands.

That's a contradiction in terms.
No, it isn't. Anarchism is economic democracy.

[Loknar]

If the people are advanced enough (dont make me laugh) to exist peacefully in an anarchist society, wouldnt guns be a non issue? for example guns can be used for other things aside from defense.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:31 AM
how the hell am i supposed to hunt? a gun is merely an improvement of a bow and arrow. just because americas culture is loaded with the stupidest mother fuckers the earth has ever seen, dont blame the guns, it's the people.

how the hell am i supposed to hunt?

Ooooh, poor baby.


Try the supermarket, it's easier.




just because americas culture is loaded with the stupidest mother fuckers the earth has ever seen, dont blame the guns, it's the people


I suppose those are the very same people that dress in their neat rigs from
Chuck's Army and Navy surplus store so "dem deerses don' see ya comin".

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2004, 06:52 AM
He's supposed to be an anarcho-socialist. I don't understand this concept at all; how can you have anarchy AND a regulated economy ?
Typical fallacy of the "socialism = regulating policies".

In case you haven't figured out in anarchism ("anarcho-socialism") it's everyone who makes decisions about the economy. Of course this changes in every situation depending on what we talk about (workplaces will be controlled by those who work on it and to an extent it's decisions will be affected by other organizations that they are related with).


If the people are advanced enough (dont make me laugh) to exist peacefully in an anarchist society, wouldnt guns be a non issue? for example guns can be used for other things aside from defense.

Like killing.
I'd say that after a revolution there should be a group that should control if people knows how to use guns properly. This group can distribute what's left from those "good" old armies that killed millions. But this will of course depend on lots of things that I don't want to discuss because i will have to write for about 5 hours so that's up for others to think about it.


Ooooh, poor baby.


Try the supermarket, it's easier.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DSCH]

All fascists believe in gun control and Noam Chomsky is most certainly a fascist.

[truthaddict11]

LOL you are funny Chomsky is automaticly a fascist because he supports gun control? :lol: I guess the majority of the member on this board are fascists then! Malte better change the board name to Fascism-Lives! :lol:

btw I am against gun control but dont think everyone who is for it is a fascist. you must have some screws loose

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:00 PM
LOL you are funny Chomsky is automaticly a fascist because he supports gun control? :lol: I guess the majority of the member on this board are fascists then! Malte better change the board name to Fascism-Lives! :lol:

btw I am against gun control but dont think everyone who is for it is a fascist. you must have some screws loose
Anyone who is for gun control cannot be a follower of Che Guevarra who was a soldier of fortune and a militant.

I guess you think anarchism = hypocrisy?

Only fascists support gun control. Guns = anarchy.

[BuyOurEverything]

Wait a sec, soldier of fortune? Do you know what that means?


Only fascists support gun control. Guns = anarchy

Two things. First, you obviously have no idea what either facism or anarchism is. Second, your statement doesn't make sense, by your logic, everyone is either a facist or an anarchist. Which one are you?

[synthesis]

Guns are the ultimate tool for the exertion of power over individuals and groups. I don't understand how gun ownership could ever possibly be construed as anarchist.

(By the way, as BuyOurEverything noted, Che Guevara was certainly not a soldier of fortune; in fact, it was he who attached an ideology to Fidel's forces, not the other way around.)

[M_Rawlins]

Haha the CPGB is anarchist then: (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html#3_7)


The people have the right to bear arms and defend themselves.

[DSCH]

All anarchists reject all laws and all government authority. Therefore the anarchist is against all gun laws. Only fascists who worship the State believe in gun control laws. This is as basic as 7+5=12.

[M_Rawlins]

so anyone who believes in gun control can be labeled a fascist who worships the state????

right.... how does that work


All anarchists reject all laws and all government authority. Therefore the anarchist is against all gun laws.

and what if the state passes pro gun laws? According to you, that would be a state law, so anarchists would therefore reject it.

[DSCH]

Do you know what anarchy means? Hint: it doesn't mean fascist gun control laws.

[M_Rawlins]

answer my questions

[DSCH]

Anarchists believe in NO GUN CONTROL LAWS. What part of no don't you understand?

[elijahcraig]

^You don't know what you're talking about. Anarchists believe in the common good, which sometimes include gun control.



I am pro-gun control at least so people don't own massive weapons they use to "shoot up the animals" or whatever stupid reason.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:30 AM
^You don't know what you're talking about. Anarchists believe in the common good, which sometimes include gun control.



I am pro-gun control at least so people don't own massive weapons they use to "shoot up the animals" or whatever stupid reason.
Um no. Anarchists believe in no laws. I suggest you look up anarchy in the dictionary before you opine... :rolleyes:

Anarchy means absense of political authority. What you are suggesting, namely gun control, is a form of fascism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy

If you are pro gun control, then you are not an anarchist and you are not a follower of Che who himself was armed... :rolleyes:

[elijahcraig]

I suggest you look up the ideology of Anarchism (Libertarian Socialism), and stop wasting my time with this rubbish.

Look up Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman (What is Communist Anarchism?), etc.

[DSCH]

Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism are polar opposites. Anarchists believe in NO LAWS! What part of no laws don't you understand?

"I am not a Communist because Communism unites all forces of society in the state and becomes absorbed in it; because it inevitably leads to the concentration of all property in the hands of the state, while I seek the abolition of the state *the complete elimination of the principle of authority and governmental guardianship, which under the pretence of making men moral and civilising them, has up to now always enslaved, oppressed, exploited and ruined them." -- Bakhunin

PS: You're a moron.

[elijahcraig]

You stupid little fuck , read "ABC of Anarchism" by Alexander Berkman.

Here is the Anarchist FAQ for the jackass--http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/







There is a difference between anarchy (chaos) of the dictionary and anarchy (libertarian socialism) of the movement.



You can get ANY anarchist on this board to answer the question on anarchism, and they will agree with me.

[Dan_Canadian]

What you are suggesting, namely gun control, is a form of fascism.


Just because something is controlled doesn't mean there is facism involved. For your own sake, find out what facism is. If you think gun control is facist, then Canada, Britain, most of Europe are all facist. Last time i checked, Canada was a constituional monarchy...democracy. We have gun control, i think its a good thing. The last thing Canada, or any country needs is people thinking that they deserve to have a gun. Point in case, people are stupid, a gun is a very dangerous thing. A stupid person with a gun = more dangerous, a stupid person not allowed to have a gun = angry, annoying, but harmless. Get my point? watch Bowling for Columbine. Canada has excellent gun control laws, and i feel safe because of that. Any anarchists that dispute this can learn a lesson from America. So much gun violence in that country. Most anarchists have one failure: they are optimistic about human nature. The fact is, people need order and good gov't, how strict/not strict that gov't is is up to debate. Anarchism is a SIMPLE SOLUTION TO A VERY COMPLICATED PROBLEM...IT WILL NOT WORK

[NYC4Ever]

I saw Bowling for Columbine and paused it on a point where there are higher unemployment rates in Canada than in all of America. Is that true?

[Dan_Canadian]

I'm not saying anything for certain, but yes, i think that is true. I probably heard it somewhere. I don't remember that part in the video or what connection it has to gun control :huh: lol, but either way. Canada has high unemployment rates because there are areas of the country that are very different from the North American "norm." most notably, Native Reserves, while they are NOT lazy, jobless people by any strech, they have abnormal employment habits. Unlike most Canadians and Americans, some aboriginals are content with working until they can buy a much needed snowmobile, hunting equipment, etc. After they have enough $$, they quit their job. This is not a generalization, i have experianced it first hand. My father ran a mining exploration company that hired Inuit workers who displayed the same habits. Most simply do not have the same incentive to plan for the future and get careers. Thus, many are unemployed..but not permanently. This is not an attack on natives at all, it is simply my observations on their lifestyle. I respect the natives in Canada very much. Canada's gov't is putting a lot of money towards developing those reserves and creating better employment opportunities for them.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:51 PM
All fascists believe in gun control and Noam Chomsky is most certainly a fascist.
Let's use the typical conservative logic:
1. "All communists need to eat to survive"
2. "All anarchists need to eat to survive"
3. "All fascists need to eat to survive"
4. "Therefore, all communists and anarchists are fascists"

:lol: :rolleyes:

Next time think and research before telling someone else what something is and what certain people stand for before trying to defend what you can't.

What idiots like you can't seem to understand is that having an oppinion on one small issue doesn't necessarilly represent a whole political-economical system. Chomsky would be a fascist if he says that "we need great leaders to bring greatness to this nation and save it from communism", or "those damn inmigrants are ruining our country", or "we need to use authority to stop all those anarchic chaotic trouble-makers", or "we need to show our military strength for the Aryan race", or "we must defend private property and impose a corporatist system to make our great nation progress", BUT HE NEVER SAID THAT!


Um no. Anarchists believe in no laws. I suggest you look up anarchy in the dictionary before you opine...

I suggest you to look into the Anarchist theory and forget all those stupid dictionary definitions that tend to speak about the situation where there's no real centralized power. This makes people speak of anarchists as "young chaos lovers that go around throwing bombs and shooting people because they think it's fun".


So much gun violence in that country. Most anarchists have one failure: they are optimistic about human nature. The fact is, people need order and good gov't, how strict/not strict that gov't is is up to debate. Anarchism is a SIMPLE SOLUTION TO A VERY COMPLICATED PROBLEM...IT WILL NOT WORK

And most non-anarchists have an even bigger failure: they are pessimistic about human nature, which is even worse.

[DSCH]

Anarchists believe in NO LAWS including NO GUN CONTROL LAWS. I'm sorry to educate you people. I know the truth hurts.

Also, Che was armed.

[Dan_Canadian]

And most non-anarchists have an even bigger failure: they are pessimistic about human nature, which is even worse.

I disagree, both are equal, what would be bad is if EVERYONe was pessimistic or EVERYONE was optimistic. Optimistic people provide hope, while pessimistic people keep that hope practical, there is a very good balance between the two. We need both types of people in this world.

Also, i find it hard to believe that if most anarchists are optimistic about human nature, why do they have so much to complain about? With all the "wrongs" that are done on them, you would think THEY would be a bit more pessimistic about human nature. <_< hmmm

But, that doesn&#39;t matter, as I said, this world needs a good balance of pessimists and optimists.

- Personally, and pessimistically I think that anyone who believes anarchy could work is naive about human nature. There is evidence all around you, when there is no order, no government, no control, NOTHING WORKS. Take Iraq, even though there is a minor bit of control (evidently not enough) things still are volitile. As I said before, people need to be controlled, governed, and led. Sometimes more than others.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Personally, I am on the fence on this issue. On one hand, if the government does not possess the means to defend the country with a capable military, then civilian militias will need to pick up the slack and do whatever is necessary. Crime here is very high, and I have every intention of packing heat in order to ensure my own safety when the government fails to do it for me. I have seen a person get mugged before, by a person with just a pocket knife, and if that person happens to be me next time, then that thief isn&#39;t going to get very far... My 21st birthday is going to be celebrated with my getting my consealed weapons permit. On the other hand, people would be much safer with less guns in society, and there are a lot of people who I would definately prefer not to have one. I would imagine it would be pretty difficult for something like Columbine to happen if people didn&#39;t have guns. It doesn&#39;t take much guts for someone to walk up and shoot someone compared to having to actually getting down and dirty and having to stab them until they are dead. If guns were banned murder rates would definately go down. Both points are valid in my opinion so it really doesn&#39;t make that much of a difference either way, but I think we should know who does have the weapons, and make sure that people who shouldn&#39;t be having them should not be able to get a hold of them, and we should keep an eye on people who look like they might be up to something. As for Che, he was a guerrilla fighter, how do you think he will fight against capitalism? Hold a protest? :lol:

[Dan_Canadian]

I agree fully. Basically, America is screwed...sorry guys. You&#39;re part of a vicious circle, people have guns, they shoot other people, the people who don&#39;t get shot get scared, so they buy guns, and shoot more people...and the circle of life continues :lol:

All i can say is i&#39;m glad i&#39;m in Canada right now, because even if the U.S. wanted to ban guns completly it would be almost impossible without a LOT of blood getting shed. Americans have had it drilled in their heads that its thier right to own a gun and no one should take that away from them, well, now thats your problem...You got a lot of nuts who think that its thier god given right to own an assault rifle. <_<

as for Che, yes guns helped him..but that is an ongoing problem in todays society...who should have guns and who shouldn&#39;t?

a question that has plagued mankind since the firearm was invented

[Lefty]

Guns kill people. Getting rid of or controlling guns would decrease people killing people. Hence, gun control is a good thing. However, that logic doesn&#39;t make anyone a state-worshipping moron. Oh, and thanks for educating me on anarchy, DSCH. The truth did hurt.

[NYC4Ever]

You guys trust your government and your citizens that much?

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:23 PM
Guns kill people. Getting rid of or controlling guns would decrease people killing people. Hence, gun control is a good thing. However, that logic doesn&#39;t make anyone a state-worshipping moron. Oh, and thanks for educating me on anarchy, DSCH. The truth did hurt.
All of you fascists advocating gun control should be restricted members. You are all Che haters. If your fascist gun control laws had been implemented there would be no Che Guevarra. ElHumano is right -- you&#39;re all posers. The Hypocrisy is obvious to all. Just like Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist hypocrisy.

[NYC4Ever]

DSCH is right. How will you guys start your communist revolt against a capitalist government? With a hammer and a sickle? Or is your road to communism paved in your governments becoming more socialist?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:51 PM
All fascists believe in gun control and Noam Chomsky is most certainly a fascist.
You are stupid.


I&#39;m sorry to have to "educate you" on that fact. Please go away kid.

[Loknar]

How can you educate him if he goes away?

[Dan_Canadian]

DSCH is right. How will you guys start your communist revolt against a capitalist government? With a hammer and a sickle? Or is your road to communism paved in your governments becoming more socialist?

sigh, ohh what a world. Where we think guns are the only way to solve problems...

its a shame, really. The fact that the U.S., Cuba, China, and countless other nations were borne from the barrel of the gun. Now, all of those countires children feel that that is THE ONLY WAY...well, its not.

We&#39;ve all made the same mistake before, one way works, so we think its the only way. In this case, violence and uprisings with bloodshed is the only way. Sorry folks, its not. I hate to brag about this grand country of mine, but if i know my history, and i do (don&#39;t worry) Canada achieved independence and its desired government without one drop of blood (in the name of its independance) of course there was a large amount of blood spilled in FAILED rebellions and such, so don&#39;t bother brining that up, i&#39;m fully aware.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Gun Control? no way&#33; If sane sensible citizens can&#39;t own the arms they want then I&#39;ll have no part of that liberal&#39;s wet dream.

I&#39;ve got an AK-47 yeah you know it makes me feel alright
got an Uzi by my pillow helps me sleep a little better at night

There&#39;s no feeling any greater than to
shoot first and ask questions later

Oh I accidently shot daddy last night in the den
I mistook him the dark for a drug-crazed nazi again

Why did you have to get so mad?
it was just a lousy fleshwound dad

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:59 AM

DSCH is right. How will you guys start your communist revolt against a capitalist government? With a hammer and a sickle? Or is your road to communism paved in your governments becoming more socialist?

sigh, ohh what a world. Where we think guns are the only way to solve problems...

its a shame, really. The fact that the U.S., Cuba, China, and countless other nations were borne from the barrel of the gun. Now, all of those countires children feel that that is THE ONLY WAY...well, its not.

We&#39;ve all made the same mistake before, one way works, so we think its the only way. In this case, violence and uprisings with bloodshed is the only way. Sorry folks, its not. I hate to brag about this grand country of mine, but if i know my history, and i do (don&#39;t worry) Canada achieved independence and its desired government without one drop of blood (in the name of its independance) of course there was a large amount of blood spilled in FAILED rebellions and such, so don&#39;t bother brining that up, i&#39;m fully aware.
You planning on using pitch forks and sticks during the "revolution"? That&#39;s ok with me. I&#39;ll put a lazy boy on my roof and climb up there with a 30/06.

[cubist]

lucid i would love for you to shoot me but unfortunately you have a deluded idea of revolution if it was that easy the america wouldn&#39;t have used the taliban and sadam to help against those dirty commies.

i think chris rock got it right

with "all bullets should cost &#036;5,000 cus then there wouldn&#39;t be any innocent by standers, and when that niggers lying there with 5 bullets in his face, he must have been summet."

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:39 PM
lucid i would love for you to shoot me but unfortunately you have a deluded idea of revolution if it was that easy the america wouldn&#39;t have used the taliban and sadam to help against those dirty commies.

i think chris rock got it right

with "all bullets should cost &#036;5,000 cus then there wouldn&#39;t be any innocent by standers, and when that niggers lying there with 5 bullets in his face, he must have been summet."
Someone is deluded but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s me.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Hey now, theres no need to get out of hand with this. I don&#39;t think anyone here honestly intends on revolting armed with hammers and sickles, nor do I think we intend to give ak-47s to every child for their 8th birthday. There needs to be a happy medium somewhere.

[DEPAVER]

Anarchism has nothing to do with guns, "enlightenment" or economics. Anarchism says nothing about these issues other than the people organize their own system of self governance without forming hierarchical, coercive, oppressive system.

People within an anarchistic society can decide for themselves what rules they will have regarding gun ownership via consensus process. Those same people can decide what sort of economic system they want for their community. It doesn’t require anyone become enlightened (whatever the hell that means); it only requires that the person recognize that all people within the community have a voice in how the community is developed and maintained.

In fact, an anarchist community may decide to have a militia that is armed and prepared to fight off attacks from non-anarchistic communities.

Ed Abbey was a well known anarchist that supported the right to bear arms, and I agree with his position.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:03 PM
Anarchism has nothing to do with guns, "enlightenment" or economics. Anarchism says nothing about these issues other than the people organize their own system of self governance without forming hierarchical, coercive, oppressive system.

People within an anarchistic society can decide for themselves what rules they will have regarding gun ownership via consensus process. Those same people can decide what sort of economic system they want for their community. It doesn’t require anyone become enlightened (whatever the hell that means); it only requires that the person recognize that all people within the community have a voice in how the community is developed and maintained.

In fact, an anarchist community may decide to have a militia that is armed and prepared to fight off attacks from non-anarchistic communities.

Ed Abbey was a well known anarchist that supported the right to bear arms, and I agree with his position.
Anarchism means the rejection of all political authority and the absense of all laws. This means no gun control laws.

[Dan_Canadian]

You planning on using pitch forks and sticks during the "revolution"? That&#39;s ok with me. I&#39;ll put a lazy boy on my roof and climb up there with a 30/06.

Thanks for proving my point, lucid. Obviously you completly missed the fact that I was leading away from the violent revolution. Revolutions don&#39;t have to cause bloodshed, change can happen without people getting killed. I know its hard for a lot of Americans to understand, but it happens&#33;

All i&#39;m saying is that BEFORE you go pick up your gun make sure it is the LAST and ONLY thing that you can do. Never the first. If violence is neccessary to achieve your goals, so be it. There are plently of ways to achieve what you want through peaceful means, ESPECIALLY in democratic countries, as we have more freedom to protest, vote, become part of government...eTC. I&#39;m not saying its the easiest and best system, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than most places in this world.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:41 PM
Anarchists believe in NO LAWS including NO GUN CONTROL LAWS. I&#39;m sorry to educate you people. I know the truth hurts.
Anarchist believe in NO AUTHORITY, NOT IN NO LAWS.

You&#39;re right, truth hurts buddy. Sorry to make you feel like that.


- Personally, and pessimistically I think that anyone who believes anarchy could work is naive about human nature. There is evidence all around you, when there is no order, no government, no control, NOTHING WORKS. Take Iraq, even though there is a minor bit of control (evidently not enough) things still are volitile. As I said before, people need to be controlled, governed, and led. Sometimes more than others.

Anarchists do NOT want to "smash the state" and that&#39;s it. If you want to know how an anarchist society can be created imagine a big crisis in capitalism, followed by a total economical collapse, and workers seizing their workplaces to govern it by themselves, and different armed groups fighting the bourgeois, until getting control of the military. Then you imagine the rest. You are too much into the stereotype of "the chaos loving anarchistic nihilistic terrorists who put bombs and kills people because they dont care and think it&#39;s fun and want to kill all the politicians and install chaos as in Iraq". It seems you&#39;re brainwashed.
Anarchism has been asking for about 2 centuries for workers to GOVERN THEIR WORKPLACES BY THEMSELVES (where&#39;s the "chaos" of that? you think it&#39;s going to be a bunch of about 10000000 "lazy criminal niggers" arguing in some kind of assembly and killing each other? learn a bit more and think about how could things like "federalism" ORGANIZE things).
And that attitude of "people need to be controlled, governed" is very stupid, honestly. Only somebody who hates freedom and equality can claim that for some mythological reason there are some that must "rule" and other "dumb animals" must obey. Back to feudalism. It was tried in Europe between the 20s,30s and 40s when the ruling class was scared of the "red barbarians" and it was successful on what it was meant to do (nothing at all excepting imposing lame dictatorship that killed millions because of the stupid ideas their "enlightened leaders chosen by God to rule above the others of our glorious nation/race" had).

[Dan_Canadian]

sigh, I guess i&#39;m just too stupid to understand the genious of Anarchism. :rolleyes:

Sure, I guess there would be no chaos if they governed their own workplaces...but what is the advantage? I certainly see none. End point...very few people want anarchism...whether it will work or not doesn&#39;t matter, it ain&#39;t gonna happen.

[Dan_Canadian]

Anarchist believe in NO AUTHORITY, NOT IN NO LAWS.


I&#39;m very confused, I would like to learn more about anarchism but it seems that so many different people have so many different ideas on the subject. Some people think anarchists are this, some ppl think anarchists are that...well i&#39;m fucking confused.. its so contradictory.

Let me ask you this: so anarchists can have laws..but not authority.. ummm *stares into computer screen for an hour...drool forms*

it doesn&#39;t work that way professor, authority is needed to uphold the law...without authority people won&#39;t follow laws.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:07 PM
Anarchism means the rejection of all political authority and the absense of all laws. This means no gun control laws.
It ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THAT. May I suggest you go back to the library and study a bit further.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:46 PM
[Also, i find it hard to believe that if most anarchists are optimistic about human nature, why do they have so much to complain about? With all the "wrongs" that are done on them, you would think THEY would be a bit more pessimistic about human nature. <_< hmmm

snip

- Personally, and pessimistically I think that anyone who believes anarchy could work is naive about human nature. There is evidence all around you, when there is no order, no government, no control, NOTHING WORKS. Take Iraq, even though there is a minor bit of control (evidently not enough) things still are volitile. As I said before, people need to be controlled, governed, and led. Sometimes more than others.
As I&#39;ve stated previously.....

The human nature argument is often posited to allegedly demonstrate that
an anarchist society is impossible, due to some perceived inherent human
nature that prevents cooperative behavior.

This is much the same as quoting scripture to buttress a pre-conceived
position. One can dredge up any particular human behavior, call it human
nature, and use it to support any position.

In fact, there is no all-encompassing human nature that is adhered to by
all humans, not even by all societies. Human behavior varies across a wide
spectrum through time and space. One of the first things taught in
introductory anthropology courses is cultural relativism, the fact that
human behavior cannot be judged using cultural criteria from outside the
culture.

The society we observe today exhibits human behavior resulting from the
characteristics of the society we observe today. Were we to observe a
different society, with different cultural characteristics, we would observe
different behaviors. There is no inherent "human nature" that causes
specific human behaviors.

Therefore, we cannot say that humans are "too greedy, selfish,
apathetic...<insert adjective here>" for anarchy to work. We cannot
anticipate the behavior of individuals in a decentralized,
anti-authoritarian, cooperative society by observing human behavior in a
centralized, authoritarian, competitive society.

A biologically driven predisposition to human behavior is not the same
as "human nature." The human nature that is pointed to is
"need for authority," hierarchy, greed, desire for leaders. No one has ever
demonstrated that these characteristics are inherent, genetically determined
behaviors.

Humans do indeed have genetically determined behaviors: fear of falling,
suckling, sex. These are exhibited by infants. Behaviors not exhibited by
infants, including language, are learned from the dominant society. In
language acquisition, infants make all sounds possible then stop making
sounds that are not reinforced by their society. The same is true for all
learned behavior. Therefore, the behavior observed in authoritarian,
centralized, hierarchical societies is learned within that society and is
not genetically determined.

[Dan_Canadian]

Thanks, thats like taking Anthropology in a nutshell. I could do without the wasting of time reading all of it though..please make your point clear and simple, the quicker the better mate

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:55 PM
Thanks, thats like taking Anthropology in a nutshell. I could do without the wasting of time reading all of it though..please make your point clear and simple, the quicker the better mate
Okay.
There&#39;s absolutely nothing about human behavior that will keep anarchism from working. In fact, it has worked and worked well&#33;

Today&#39;s systems are simply brash upstarts when compared against history.

[DaCuBaN]

anarchism
Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them. Prominent modern anarchists include Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin.

Recommended Reading: Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (Black Rose, 1989) {at Amazon.com}; Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (Penn. State, 1994) {at Amazon.com}; Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy and Liberty (Cambridge, 1983) {at Amazon.com}; and Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (California, 1998) {at Amazon.com}.

Also see Christopher Joseph Roberson, Peter Kropotkin, ISM, IEP, and ColE.

extracted from http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm

[Dan_Canadian]

thank you dacuban, thats just what i wanted :D

[DSCH]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Apr 27 2004, 01:43 AM--> (DEPAVER @ Apr 27 2004, 01:43 AM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 10:07 PM
Anarchism means the rejection of all political authority and the absense of all laws. This means no gun control laws.
It ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THAT. May I suggest you go back to the library and study a bit further. [/b]
As long as you reject concensus dictionary defintions you might as well just reserve your debating for the insane asylum.

[synthesis]

As long as you reject concensus dictionary defintions you might as well just reserve your debating for the insane asylum.

Why should anyone have to confine their ideology to what the dictionary says is the definition?

"Consensus" means nothing. For one thing, it&#39;s not a consensus, because the people who actually are anarchists don&#39;t agree with what the "consensus" definition is. None of them "consented" to that definition. :rolleyes:

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:54 PM
As long as you reject concensus dictionary defintions you might as well just reserve your debating for the insane asylum.
Dictionary definitions are simply too reductive and simplistic for accurately describing complex sociological/political systems.

In fact, dictionary definitions frequently change, and most people have little knowledge of anarchism as a political system. It is different from the word ANARCHY. They are not the same.

If you attempted to describe anarchism with a dictionary definition in a college class, you would receive a failing grade, every time.

Anarchism doesn&#39;t mean no rules; it means no rulers.

If we really wanted to, we could substitute democracy for anarchism, since Democracy in its ultimate form is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Democracy is governance of the people, by the people and, for the people. It is a form of governance in which each individual citizen takes personal responsibility for his or her own well-being and for the well-being of thcommunity in which he or she lives. Each individual takes part in the decision-making process, individually, in the family, in the neighborhood, in the community, in the bioregion, in the state, in the nation, in the world.

Decision-making means deciding on each aspect of the society, from paving the roads to dealing with crime, to protecting wilderness, to responding to external threats of violence. Power is not concentrated at the top but flows from the citizens. Power is not assigned to centralized systems, it is retained at the individual level.


That means there absolutely can be rules, but the people within a community decide what rules they want and what they don&#39;t want. For example, there&#39;s an interesting anarchistic cooperative living community in my area that decided (with everyones input) that all members would work in the community garden X number of hours per week. There&#39;s no hierarchy and no coercion, since every member participated and was heard via a consensus process. If one person didn&#39;t agree, they could stand aside or the action could be delayed until a consensus was reached.

The key is for every person to have a voice...anarchism is more about "freedom to" than "freedom from."

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by DSCH+Apr 27 2004, 02:54 AM--> (DSCH @ Apr 27 2004, 02:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:43 AM

[email protected] 26 2004, 10:07 PM
Anarchism means the rejection of all political authority and the absense of all laws. This means no gun control laws.
It ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THAT. May I suggest you go back to the library and study a bit further.
As long as you reject concensus dictionary defintions you might as well just reserve your debating for the insane asylum. [/b]
Look at page three of this thread - I&#39;m not quoting myself (again) tonight but that is a DICTIONARY MEANING OF ANARCHISM - what you posted was one of the many misconceived ideas of the ideology.

[DSCH]

I suggest you both look up anarchism in the dictionary and read some more Bakhunin. Anarchism means no gun control laws. Period. You guys are trying to tell me that 2+2=5.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:27 AM
anarchism
Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them. Prominent modern anarchists include Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin.

Recommended Reading: Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (Black Rose, 1989) {at Amazon.com}; Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (Penn. State, 1994) {at Amazon.com}; Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy and Liberty (Cambridge, 1983) {at Amazon.com}; and Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (California, 1998) {at Amazon.com}.

Also see Christopher Joseph Roberson, Peter Kropotkin, ISM, IEP, and ColE.

extracted from http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm
PLEASE READ - THIS IS YOUR DICTIONARY MEANING&#33;

Thank you :D

Now gun controls, gun controls, gun controls, hmmmm anyone? :unsure: :lol:

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:48 PM
I suggest you both look up anarchism in the dictionary and read some more Bakhunin. Anarchism means no gun control laws. Period. You guys are trying to tell me that 2+2=5.
I&#39;ve spent years studying anarchism and can tell you for a fact that anarchism and vehemently disagree with your statement.

Ed Abbey examined the efficacy of violence as a tool of anarchist action in his 1959 Masters thesis, "Anarchy and the Morality of Violence." Through analysis of the writing of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Sorel, Abbey concluded that there is no justification for violence in the pursuit of anarchy, and that, in fact, violence is counterproductive to the establishment of a non-coercive society. However, there is no evidence that suggests a freely assembled community cannot decide their own whether its members should be armed or unarmed.

ANARCHISM IS ABOUT THEM BEING ABLE TO DECIDE AND EVERY MEMBER HAVING A VOICE, not having some government decide for them. Period.

[XianType56]

What about Switzerland? Every adult male is required to have a fully automatic assault rifle provided by the government. Check their firearms death rate, not very much.

[Dan_Canadian]

What about Switzerland? Every adult male is required to have a fully automatic assault rifle provided by the government. Check their firearms death rate, not very much.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ahahaha

where did you hear that, some bum off the street?

No country requires its citizens to have assault rifles, or any type of weapon for that matter. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[lucid]

Commies don&#39;t think anyone should have guns. Except for the revolutionists that are going to run the state.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:46 AM

where did you hear that, some bum off the street?

No country requires its citizens to have assault rifles, or any type of weapon for that matter. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I&#39;m not sure, but I seem to recall reading that every able male in Switzerland is required to join the military for some period of time, and upon completion of service, they actually take their weapon home with them.

So, in a way, this is somewhat true.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I don&#39;t know, I think guns should be acceptable in rural areas where people often hunt for their food, and need to protect their livestock against predators. I think guns should be acceptable as long as the government can not 100% ensure your safety from criminals, and in the city, I view that as imperative, so guns should be banned inside the city limits of cities with populations of +25000. I&#39;m not exactly set in this belief, just tossing around some ideas.

[Shredder]

In order to defend society without a state, everyone needs to have a gun.

Replace the standing army with the arming of the people.

Also, on the &#39;dictionary definition of anarchism&#39;, in different intellectual fields, like economics, sciences, philosophies, words can have different meanings. Anarchy, broken down to its ancient roots, simply means &#39;no ruler&#39;. In whatever circle you come from, it may mean complete chaos and nihilism, but as long as you are on che-lives, you are obliged to use che-lives definition. If you can&#39;t figure out what that is, you must not be very smart because there is a Che Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255) stickied at the top of the page.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:46 PM

What about Switzerland? Every adult male is required to have a fully automatic assault rifle provided by the government. Check their firearms death rate, not very much.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ahahaha

where did you hear that, some bum off the street?

No country requires its citizens to have assault rifles, or any type of weapon for that matter. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry son but I&#39;ve got to burst your bubble here - the swiss take the model of the Peoples Army or Militia to defend the country - although they have an organised military structure they don&#39;t have a standing army - the entire population is given firearms training, and much like isreal all adults of serviceable age must carry their weapons with them.

I think it&#39;s crazy to be honest, but it&#39;s better than having soldiers sitting around all day thinking how much better they could run things <_<

[truthaddict11]

The Swiss and Guns (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/swiss.html)

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:36 PM
The Swiss and Guns (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/swiss.html)
Switzerland is neither Anarchist nor Communist. Why are you bringing the Swiss into this? As an example of what evil capitalists do?

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by DSCH+Apr 27 2004, 10:03 PM--> (DSCH @ Apr 27 2004, 10:03 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 09:36 PM
The Swiss and Guns (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/swiss.html)
Switzerland is neither Anarchist nor Communist. Why are you bringing the Swiss into this? As an example of what evil capitalists do? [/b]
They may be capitalist but....


the swiss take the model of the Peoples Army or Militia to defend the country

which is an ideal within communism/anarchism(i think the latter is true - please correct me otherwise)

That&#39;s not the point though - this thread is about GUN CONTROL not political ideology - the two are not necessarily linked as the link proves if you would bother reading it - which i doubt considering you&#39;re not even reading half the threads in the post.

[DSCH]

It is impossible to be an anarchist and support gun control. Only fascists and Communists support gun control.

Che was armed.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:32 PM
It is impossible to be an anarchist and support gun control. Only fascists and Communists support gun control.

Che was armed.
it is NOT impossible to be in favour of anarchism and gun controls - look up the damned dictionary&#33; (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism)

anarchism

n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

it&#39;s an irrelevant point&#33;
That aside, would you consider the UK government to be fascist or communist? because last time I checked they were considered liberal... yet we have damn strict gun controls. How does that fit into the big picture?

[lucid]

I&#39;m gonna bury a gun in my yard. If we ever adopt anarchy I am gonna wait until all your guns are gone. Then I am gonna dig mine up and make you all my *****es&#33;

[Louis Pio]

Hmm I can see you need revenge for being a ***** all your life lucid...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:42 AM
sigh, I guess i&#39;m just too stupid to understand the genious of Anarchism. :rolleyes:
I agree :lol:


Sure, I guess there would be no chaos if they governed their own workplaces...but what is the advantage? I certainly see none. End point...very few people want anarchism...whether it will work or not doesn&#39;t matter, it ain&#39;t gonna happen.

Ever heard of things like "Marxism"???
And btw that&#39;s probably what they tought about "humans flying". Now we have airplanes and have addapted to them :rolleyes:


I&#39;m very confused, I would like to learn more about anarchism but it seems that so many different people have so many different ideas on the subject. Some people think anarchists are this, some ppl think anarchists are that...well i&#39;m fucking confused.. its so contradictory.

It seems so. I recommend you to read some stuff from the anarchist theorists to understand anarchism.


Let me ask you this: so anarchists can have laws..but not authority.. ummm *stares into computer screen for an hour...drool forms*

it doesn&#39;t work that way professor, authority is needed to uphold the law...without authority people won&#39;t follow laws.

In such a society you are not imposed laws. When you join a certain organization you are accepting it&#39;s rules. If you don&#39;t like them you don&#39;t. That simple. Of course you can join other people when you feel they represent your interests and views. If you decide to live somewhere where you are not allowed to have guns but you do not recognize that as a principle, it doesn&#39;t necessarilly means that you are "breaking the law", unless you abuse from such laws and use a gun to kill somebody else. Then those who have "control" over that place will consider you as a criminal. I think it&#39;s common sense that killing people is wrong. You might argue that condemning somebody for doing such a thing is authoritarian, but the act of killing someone else is not "abusing from freedom" but imposing authority over another&#39;s life. The idea of death penalty or sending them for life to prison are useless and generate huge expenses. I&#39;d say that the best thing is locking them into some place where they have to work and be watched by a couple of armed guards all day long. Authoritarian? No, this can be coupled with trying to rehabilitate them and such measures, but I&#39;m starting tog et away from the discussion so...
overall, what I mean is this: laws should be just some rules that protect freedom, make people respect each others and establish the best alternatives people have to deal with "criminals". This laws won&#39;t be imposed unless you prove to be a criminal (which includes authoritarian behaviours). Some of this laws (like in the gun control case) will be there to control who has such an important thing guns are (just to be sure of who have them) but that will be very important only at the start of this system, when armies are dissolved.
Chances are that "workers militias" will exist but most people should have guns and learn how to use them properly, just in case someone decides to impose authority or "rule the world muwahahahahaha".
So, to make this shorter, laws aren&#39;t "imposed" until someone breaks them. They should not "regulate" behaviour but give some "ideas" on how should situations be dealt with. An Anarchist society will allow for different types of contract, which would include things like "if you show you know how to use guns safely we give you one with the condition that you don&#39;t use it to make authoritarian actions, otherwise we demand you to give it back because you aren&#39;t following a contract YOU HAVE VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED". It can be argued that such a thing is simmilar to the modern idea of the "social contract" but that isn&#39;t a problem to me, but rather the fact that such states with their "services" are inefficient and are there to defend the ruling class. This new system should be there just to ensure nobody abuses from having a gun. And obviously this organizations will have to agree with what most assemblies decide otherwise that "gun control organization" can become a threat.
Note that in such a "contract" it&#39;s assumed that those who have the role of "gun control" are in fact managing the resources, and they do not really have any more "special power" than that.
So, such things as "authoritarian laws" can be only accepted if there&#39;s a threat for a non-authoritarian society or somebody doesn&#39;t follow what he voluntarily accepted. It&#39;s just as if an anarchist "country" gets invaded. People will response by force because that&#39;s their only choice.
If you think this "ruins" my "utopia" I suggest you to blame the bastards who developed guns in first place.
All this will depend on many things such as quantity of guns in existance or potential threats.

that was longer than i expected. I hope it didn&#39;t end up very confusing.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN+Apr 27 2004, 11:03 PM--> (DaCuBaN @ Apr 27 2004, 11:03 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 10:32 PM
It is impossible to be an anarchist and support gun control. Only fascists and Communists support gun control.

Che was armed.
it is NOT impossible to be in favour of anarchism and gun controls - look up the damned dictionary&#33; (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism)

anarchism

n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

it&#39;s an irrelevant point&#33;
That aside, would you consider the UK government to be fascist or communist? because last time I checked they were considered liberal... yet we have damn strict gun controls. How does that fit into the big picture? [/b]
How come you can&#39;t understand what anarchy means?

[DaCuBaN]

Am I banging my head of a brick wall here? you quoted a false dictionary definition of Anarchism, I corrected you. You&#39;re getting confused between Anarchism and Anarchy - they are NOT the same thing.


an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


an·ar·chism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-kzm)
n.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).


NB: both words are NOUNS. Is this getting through?

[synthesis]

DSCH: There are important distinctions to be made between an Anarchist - essentially direct democracy, wherein the collective sets the rules - and a Nihilist, who rejects all rules and all sense of what is right and wrong.

Some light reading which I hope will prove enlightening:

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


But there is no central authority to define what is anarchism, so there exist a lot of distinct theories and movements that either claim to be anarchists or are considered to the anarchist. These theories and movements cover the whole political spectrum, from right to left, top to bottom, and whatever axis, so that there can be "anarchists" who have very opposed opinions on about everything but the malevolent character of the State.

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


Nihilism was characterized by a rejection of all systems of authority and all social conventions. This is not necessarily the case with anarchism. In fact, many forms of anarchism rely on the existence or creation of a strong community.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:08 AM
Hmm I can see you need revenge for being a ***** all your life lucid...
Why would I need revenge? You commie slackers are the ones that are crying about being shit on.

[DSCH]

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Active resistance and terrorism against the state
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?

The people who are claiming that anarchists believe in gun control are either mentally retarded or trolls who should be banned.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:37 AM

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Active resistance and terrorism against the state
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?

The people who are claiming that anarchists believe in gun control are either mentally retarded or trolls who should be banned.
No government doesn&#39;t mean no governance. Whether there is a government or not, people will make decisions about how they govern their lives and their communities. You&#39;ll make decisions about how to manage the community garden; how to manage the community water supply; how to manage transporation and education, etc.

This means a community can have a community meeting (with no government) and via consensus process, decide how they want to handle guns. They may decide to do nothing. They may decide to do "something." The key is THEY decide, and EVERYONE participates. That is how it works.

The only one trolling is YOU. If you can&#39;t refrain from insulting people and calling them names, just don&#39;t post. Keep your negative, vitriolic thoughts to yourself, please.

[DSCH]

No government doesn&#39;t mean no governance. Whether there is a government or not, people will make decisions about how they govern their lives and their communities. You&#39;ll make decisions about how to manage the community garden; how to manage the community water supply; how to manage transporation and education, etc.

This means a community can have a community meeting (with no government) and via consensus process, decide how they want to handle guns. They may decide to do nothing. They may decide to do "something." The key is THEY decide, and EVERYONE participates. That is how it works.
That&#39;s called democracy not anarchy. You are mentally handicapped.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[cubist]

ignorance is strength


lmao you really are a DUSCHe

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:42 PM
ignorance is strength


lmao you really are a DUSCHe
His words going over you head doesn&#39;t make him a douche, it makes you an idiot.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:40 AM
That&#39;s called democracy not anarchy. You are mentally handicapped.


Democracy is governance for the people, by the people, of the people. You could easily substitute one for the other as long as the people, all people, are in charge of their affairs.

You stand corrected.

[DaCuBaN]

That&#39;s called democracy not anarchy. You are mentally handicapped

And who&#39;s a troll? sorry I missed that :P


WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Yes, Blair was a talented writer wasn&#39;t he? his predictions for the US-UK alignment against Asian and European power blocks with Africa and the Middle East taking the brunt is pretty much spot on

WAR IS PEACE - This argument is great for the USA simply because of her 228 years as an independant nation she has been at PEACE for precicely 23 years. Pretty bad huh?

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - Yes the freedoms in capitalism cause you to become a slave to the wage. Pretty bad huh?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - your living proof buddy :) Give it up :P

[DSCH]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Apr 28 2004, 07:25 PM--> (DEPAVER @ Apr 28 2004, 07:25 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 11:40 AM
That&#39;s called democracy not anarchy. You are mentally handicapped.


Democracy is governance for the people, by the people, of the people. You could easily substitute one for the other as long as the people, all people, are in charge of their affairs.

You stand corrected. [/b]
Democracy is not anarchy you retard.

[Osman Ghazi]

And anarchy isn&#39;t anarchism you retard.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 28 2004, 09:07 PM
And anarchy isn&#39;t anarchism you retard.
You don&#39;t know what anarchy or anarchism mean. There is no gun control in anarchist states. There is only gun control in authoritarian fascist states (America and UK included).

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:42 AM
Am I banging my head of a brick wall here? you quoted a false dictionary definition of Anarchism, I corrected you. You&#39;re getting confused between Anarchism and Anarchy - they are NOT the same thing.


an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


an·ar·chism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-kzm)
n.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).


NB: both words are NOUNS. Is this getting through?
Do you not see the difference between the two words? Anarchism is a theory, Anarchy is a state. Both words are NOUNS, one is not the verb of the other as you are assuming. I can only assume that English isn&#39;t your first language and I apologise for getting technical on it if so.

[Louis Pio]

Why would I need revenge? You commie slackers are the ones that are crying about being shit on.

:rolleyes:

Well ehmm we don&#39;t have sick need to brag though...

[DaCuBaN]

You commie slackers

that kind of remark really gets my goat up - Surely being the &#39;man&#39; is in fact a lot lazier - you sit back doing very little, acrueing funds. Where&#39;s the hard graft there?

I&#39;ve been working since the day I left school and by no means am I a slacker. The fact that I do not like the current system does not by any means make me a &#39;slacker&#39; - I productively participate in my society despite my dislike of it - I merely wish to see a better solution, as this one clearly works for the select few, not the many - which we should be far more concerned with.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:46 PM
Democracy is not anarchy you retard.
I can see you&#39;re one of those immature, "last word people." That&#39;s fine. You go ahead and believe what you want and insult people all you&#39;d like. Unfortunately, you&#39;ll never have the respect of anyone as long as you act that way.

This is my last post on the subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WARNING&#33;&#33; Do not read this treatise in company of your lover. Severe
impotence is likely to result on exposure to radical ideas.

Let&#39;s do away with this word that seems to cause so much apoplexy among
its percipients. Let&#39;s substitute democracy for anarchism. Democracy in its
ultimate form is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people and, for the
people.

The United States government is not a democracy and has never been. It
is a representative republic in which representatives to the central
government are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote and have no
responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office.
Elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political
contributions for political favor.

Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which each
individual citizen takes personal responsibility for his or her own
well-being and for the well-being of the community in which he or she lives.
Each individual takes part in the decision-making process, individually, in
the family, in the neighborhood, in the community, in the region, in the
state, in the nation, in the world.

Decision-making means deciding on each aspect of the society, from
paving the roads to dealing with crime, to protecting wilderness, to
responding to external threats of violence. Power is not concentrated at the
top but flows from the citizens. Power is not assigned to centralized
systems, it is retained at the individual level.

M. Lewis, Ph.D.

[elijahcraig]

Anarchists believe in NO LAWS including NO GUN CONTROL LAWS. I&#39;m sorry to educate you people. I know the truth hurts.

Also, Che was armed.

Can you prove this? Can you find any Anarchist (Socialist Libertarian) who agrees? If not: shut the fuck up.


DSCH is right. How will you guys start your communist revolt against a capitalist government? With a hammer and a sickle? Or is your road to communism paved in your governments becoming more socialist?

Gun control doesn’t mean you can’t get guns if you want them. If there were any chance of a socialist revolution any time soon—believe me: the capitalist government would outlaw all guns that would aid that revolution.

Right now, building a base is more important than having little “heroes” or Weathermen, etc., acting like morons.


The human nature argument is often posited to allegedly demonstrate that
an anarchist society is impossible, due to some perceived inherent human
nature that prevents cooperative behavior.

The leading Anarchist philosopher Chomsky is the modern founder of the concept of human nature in science. What he distinguishes between are “myths” of human nature and “truths” and “unknowable” human nature traits. He says, without a doubt, it exists. He also says the left has in the past hated the idea because the right used it in a way to justify capitalist oppression. Read “Language and Responsibility.”


There&#39;s absolutely nothing about human behavior that will keep anarchism from working. In fact, it has worked and worked well&#33;

This is false. Anarchism has never worked in the modern world. It has worked in small collectives in villages in primitive societies. This is NOT Anarchism.

I believe that authority is inescapable—along with all other realistically minded individuals. Even on the personal level, authority is inescapable, not to mention the political level.


As long as you reject concensus dictionary defintions you might as well just reserve your debating for the insane asylum.

Good fucking god man, we KNOW what “anarchy” can me. The IDEOLOGY of Anarchism is something different. FUCK&#33;


Anarchism doesn&#39;t mean no rules; it means no rulers.

That’s so utopian. You could easily make any “idealized” societal statement. You sound like any socialist utopian.


I suggest you both look up anarchism in the dictionary and read some more Bakhunin. Anarchism means no gun control laws. Period. You guys are trying to tell me that 2+2=5.

Ban this fucker.


Democracy is governance for the people, by the people, of the people. You could easily substitute one for the other as long as the people, all people, are in charge of their affairs.

Lenin showed how democracy was a form of government—therefore obsolete in Communist/Anarchist society.

[DEPAVER]

"The leading Anarchist philosopher Chomsky is the modern founder of the concept of human nature in science. What he distinguishes between are “myths” of human nature and “truths” and “unknowable” human nature traits. He says, without a doubt, it exists."

I like Noam, but he is not a "leading Anarchist philosopher," and he would tell you so. Yes, he&#39;s written about anarchism, but he&#39;s primarily a linguist and an excellent investigative writer about world politics. His comments on anarchism are minimal when compared against the totality of his works.

He is not an expert on "human nature." However, a CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGIST might be better qualified to settle this dispute.

A biologically driven predisposition to human behavior is not the same as "human nature." Humans do indeed have genetically determined behaviors: fear of falling, suckling, sex. These are exhibited by infants. Behaviors not exhibited by infants, including language, are learned from the dominant society. In language acquisition, infants make all sounds possible then stop making sounds that are not reinforced by their society. The same is true for all learned behavior. Therefore, the behavior observed in authoritarian, centralized, hierarchical societies is learned within that society and is not genetically determined.

The range of human behavior exhibits a normal bell curve around whichever attributes you care to measure; that is, there&#39;s good folks and there&#39;s bad folks.

How we act out this genetic variation, our behavioral phenotype, if you will, is mediated by the society we live in (or, in which we live, for grammatical fundamentalist). If we live in a society that rewards selfish behavior, those members of society who are genetically on the more selfish side of the curve will come to the fore. If we live in an altruistic society, those altruistic individuals will be foremost. This is hopelessly simplistic, of course, just an easy example.

Genetic human behavior doesn&#39;t change. We all must behave in the ways we are genetically arranged with regards to getting food, sex, shelter, all the better things of life. The society we build determines how we modify our behavioral repertoire to form interrelationships among fellow humans.

And those are simply the scientific facts.


"

This is false. Anarchism has never worked in the modern world. It has worked in small collectives in villages in primitive societies. This is NOT Anarchism."

No, I&#39;m afraid that is a true statement and you have not disproved it. I never said anarchism worked or existed in modern, western culture. But so what? It&#39;s a huge mistake to limit your view of history to everything after 1066.

Cooperative living in non-hierarchical societies (regardless of the age) absolutely is anarchistic.


"That’s so utopian. You could easily make any “idealized” societal statement. You sound like any socialist utopian."

I&#39;m not a socialist and have serious problems with socialism, and it&#39;s NOT utopian. Utopian implies it will never happen; this, in fact, has happened and can happen again.


"Lenin showed how democracy was a form of government—therefore obsolete in Communist/Anarchist society."

I wouldn&#39;t be so quick to embrace everything that Lenin wrote. I believe Ema Goldman cleared the air on what a fraud he was.

Democracy is a form of governance, not necessarily a government. People make decisions every day in a democratic manner, so no, democracy doesn&#39;t necessarily imply there is a government.

[DaCuBaN]

I totally agree with Depaver on most of those points. However...


This is false. Anarchism has never worked in the modern world

He did say modern world though, and that doesn&#39;t even go back as far as 1066. I know this is really nitpicking, but in essence nothing was wrong with the initial statement


I&#39;m not a socialist and have serious problems with socialism, and it&#39;s NOT utopian. Utopian implies it will never happen *EDITED*

Democratic Socialism is practiced in Sweden for one, I don&#39;t know about others though I&#39;m sure they exist. Certainly the UK has flirted with socialism over the years, though never with enough gusto for me to declare they have been a socialist country.


Democracy is a form of governance, not necessarily a government. People make decisions every day in a democratic manner, so no, democracy doesn&#39;t necessarily imply there is a government

Spot on&#33; People seem to get very confused over the difference between a Representative Republic and Democracy, the former being electing a representative with nothing tying them to follow their &#39;manifesto&#39; once in power but the threat of recall or losing the next election (both take time), the latter being where all decisions are &#39;voted&#39; upon by all.

So by that, surely democracy is far more &#39;utopian&#39; than socialism

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:26 PM


I&#39;m not a socialist and have serious problems with socialism, and it&#39;s utopian. Utopian implies it will never happen

Democratic Socialism is practiced in Sweden for one, I don&#39;t know about others though I&#39;m sure they exist. Certainly the UK has flirted with socialism over the years, though never with enough gusto for me to declare they have been a socialist country.

The quote you have was a typo....I went back, corrected it and started adding a bunch of other stuff, too....

I meant to say it&#39;s not utopian.

[Osman Ghazi]

What about the Catalan Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War? Weren&#39;t they Anarchist?

[DSCH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 12:47 AM
The leading Anarchist philosopher Chomsky is the modern founder of the concept of human nature in science. What he distinguishes between are “myths” of human nature and “truths” and “unknowable” human nature traits. He says, without a doubt, it exists. He also says the left has in the past hated the idea because the right used it in a way to justify capitalist oppression. Read “Language and Responsibility.”
Noam Chomsky is an an anarchist like Adolf Hitler is an anarchist.

The leading anarchist philosopher is Bakunin wo believed in no gun control.

Again, Che was armed. I don&#39;t need to prove any of this because it is self-evident. I also don&#39;t need to prove that 2+2=4. But you can go on believing that 2+2=5, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.


Ban this fucker.
Typical fascist reply.

[DSCH]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 01:38 AM
What about the Catalan Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War? Weren&#39;t they Anarchist?
I don&#39;t know if they were anarchists or not but they were certainly armed and believed in no gun control laws.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:50 AM
The leading anarchist philosopher is Bakunin wo believed in no gun control.

Again, Che was armed. I don&#39;t need to prove any of this because it is self-evident. I also don&#39;t need to prove that 2+2=4. But you can go on believing that 2+2=5, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
I&#39;d like to see where Bakunin said he wanted no gun laws. I&#39;ve been googling for it and I&#39;ve come up dry :/

I do believe the request for you being banned was unjust - that is never required in sensible debate, but you haven&#39;t exactly been a saint in this debate yourself.

Evidently you&#39;ve not been reading these posts very well. I explained why Ignorance is strength, Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace. Scroll up&#33; oh wait, you can&#39;t... we&#39;ve been here before and I was forced to repeat myself THREE TIMES and even then you simply ignored my questioning.

Che WAS armed... but he also believed in Guerilla Warfare which is a small revolutionary force representing the masses, so as to minimise civilian casualities (or at least I&#39;d like to think that was the reasoning). I&#39;ve never heard ANYONE quote his opinion on gun laws - which unless you can effectively rules him out of the debate.

[DSCH]

"I seek the abolition of the state *the complete elimination of the principle of authority" - Bakunin

This means no gun laws.

Modern Crusader (http://moderncrusader.blogspot.com/)

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:37 PM

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Active resistance and terrorism against the state
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?


Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?

The people who are claiming that anarchists believe in gun control are either mentally retarded or trolls who should be banned.
All hail the mighty Spamzor, in all his spamming glory. Come one, come all, to see the mighty Spamzor spam what could have been a decent discussion past the point of recognition. Only &#036;4.43 per visit. One night only.

Coming soon: Spamzor on ice

Trolls who should be banned, eh? Remind you of anybody? :rolleyes:

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:19 AM
How come you can&#39;t understand what anarchy means?
Did you ever thought about the possibility that maybe the reason why most of us are disagreeing with your definition of "anarchy" is because it&#39;s that the one who doesn&#39;t understand the meaning of it is you??? :rolleyes:


THIS MEANS NO GUN CONTROL LAWS&#33; Is this getting through to you?

What should an anarchist society do if it makes a revolution with the army&#39;s equipment? Of course it can be useful and it should be distributed, but an organization will probably appear to control that those guns are given to those that know how to use them. Where&#39;s the "fascist" bit on that?


Noam Chomsky is an an anarchist like Adolf Hitler is an anarchist.

How much do you know about Chomsky? Take a look at the Internet, there are lots of sites that have his texts for free for you to go and read them and stop saying bullshit.


The leading anarchist philosopher is Bakunin wo believed in no gun control.

How much do you know about him?


That&#39;s called democracy not anarchy. You are mentally handicapped.

Anarchists promote direct democracy all the time. What you call democracy is "representative democracy", which is not as democratic as you may think (unless you are an fascists playing rational which seems to be the truth). And the degradating bits aren&#39;t necessary, apart from making you look like you like to discriminate the "mentally handicapped" which isn&#39;t surprising coming from someone like you.


There is no gun control in anarchist states.

Of course there isn&#39;t, because there can&#39;t be such a thing as an anarchist state. :rolleyes:
And nobody said that it was a necessary thing, in the same way you can&#39;t expect all the people to have the same exact thoughts (modern "liberals" do not always support things like abbortions or don&#39;t do it with the same system, it&#39;s just that they tend to).


Again, Che was armed.

So are all governments.


I don&#39;t need to prove any of this because it is self-evident. I also don&#39;t need to prove that 2+2=4. But you can go on believing that 2+2=5, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

It&#39;s funny that you mention the slogan of a capitalist dystopia written by a socialist who actually went to fight in the Spanish Civil war which you don&#39;t know much about it seems, as you posted:


I don&#39;t know if they were anarchists or not but they were certainly armed and believed in no gun control laws.

who actually attempted to create an anarchist revolution and in fact did manage to create an anarchist economy (one of the few examples) who was later crushed (as it was expected) by the Christian fascists&#33;&#33;&#33;

And by the way "war is peace" ("let&#39;s bomb the Iraquis to free them&#33;), "freedom is slavery" ("I have the right to hire people because im such a narcissist exceptional hard worker, even if it means i will be almost enslaving them"), and "ignorance is strength" ("anarchy is what i think it is and anarchists are what I think they are even if i have no fucking clue of any of their ideas" as you are saying) are typical capitalist ideas (like when in 1984 they constantly change the enemy between Eurasia and Eastasia, as the yanqui empire did with China, Iraq, Iran, etc.). In fact I think Orwell was criticizing capitalism and pseudo-communist dictatorship.
If you like Orwell so much you should read his book called "Homage to Catalonia" which you can find for free here (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/). He speaks about the moment when Anarchists had control over Catalonia in some parts. But of course you will feel horrified about their reject of Christianity (which supported Franco anyway).



Ban this fucker.

Typical fascist reply.

Funny because you said some posts above:


The people who are claiming that anarchists believe in gun control are either mentally retarded or trolls who should be banned.

which is the typical pro-eugenics, intolerant, ignorant, fascist "let&#39;s kill all those red chaos lovers in the name of our glorious Nation" attitude. And you have even contradicted yourself. Idiot.

And the funny thing is that the one here who knows nothing about Anarchism is you, who try to justify his positions based on some stupid biased dictioanry definitions (after all the use of the word "anarchy" as "chaos and disorder and no laws" comes from politicians using it on the period between the late 1850s and until about 1930 to attack those "red revolutionaries" based on stereotypes), is actually you&#33;
I saw once a simmilar discussion in another forum where a dude was facing about 3 anarchists claiming that "Anarchists aren&#39;t real Anarchists". He was as you, beaten and making himself look like a dumbass because he had to resort to cheap tactics and close-mindedness to hide his ignorance towards anarchist ideas. Like you are doing here.


That’s so utopian. You could easily make any “idealized” societal statement. You sound like any socialist utopian.

Like the idea of the state that "withers away"... :rolleyes:


Anyway, here are some nice links for our friend DSCH:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html - Anarchy Archives is a site with many texts by Anarchist theorists. Very popular site to read about Anarchism. Take a look around.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/ (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/) - Self explanatory link

http://www.che-lives.com/Archive/afaq/ - Che-Lives&#39;s copy of the Anarchist FAQ which is also on many other sites on the internet. Worth taking a look at it.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/ - A site made by a memeber who posts here from time to time (Morpheus). Very good anarchist site.

http://www.chomsky.info - Chomsky&#39;s texts

http://www.infoshop.org/ - Another anarchist site that has the famous Anarchist FAQ

http://www.struggle.ws/anarchists/bakunin.html - Bakunin

http://www.nestormakhno.info/index.htm - Nestor Makhno, an anarchist too. Worth taking a look.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html - Information about the Spanish Civil War and the Anarchist Revolution inside it

http://www.spunk.org/ - Another site

That&#39;s all but there are lots more

[DaCuBaN]

You&#39;re getting yourself hung up on Anarchy rather than remembering that were discussing Anarchism (remember us talking about nouns earlier?)


"I seek the abolition of the state *the complete elimination of the principle of authority" - Bakunin

This in no way intimates that the society is &#39;lawless&#39;, simply that there is no authority enforcing it upon you other than those around you - peer pressure if you will :D

and from your own sig....


harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being

[Maynard]

There is only gun control in authoritarian fascist states (America and UK included).

Well, by going by your way of defining political ideologies..I hardly think that those who write the dictionary are scholars in political science. Anyway, you would concede that America is a "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." ?

Incidentally, the definition of " anti-Semitism " in Websters is "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel". Which I find a horrible definition.


What about Switzerland? Every adult male is required to have a fully automatic assault rifle provided by the government Every male that is aged from 20 to 42, is required to have one, as far as I know and since 2001, when a gunmen shot 14 people in parliment, they are now starting to tighten the laws pertaining to gun use. And "After Jan. 1, 1999, Swiss concealed-handgun owners were required to have a permit and had to demonstrate to the authorities that they needed a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precise danger".

More information here: http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/h...act/gunown.html (http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html)