Poem of Gun control

[Daniel Karssenberg]

I just saw this great poem, I am writing poems myself as well, though this one is much better :). I suppose this actually belongs in literature, but my political views makes me unable to post there.

What my opinion is of this great poem, that if teh individual hasn't got the ability to protect against those who want to steal his or her life/property/rights the world he lives in turns into a totalitarian state. As long as the individual is allowed to protects its own life/property/rights without unjustly taking that of others we could prevent Government violence or the bloody attacks by rebels on citizens.


[quote]When Adolph Hitler was elected

by the German nation,

He subjected his people to

broad weapons registration.

After he’d used that registry

for weapons confiscation,

His victims were quite helpless

to resist annihilation.



Non-governmental entities,

In this twentieth century,

Have killed approximately eighteen-million.

While governmental entities,

In this same very century,

Have killed at least a hapless quarter billion.



And one-hundred-eighty-million,

Were governments’ own civilians,

Whose rulers thought, would be improved, if dead;

Whose low race or foul opinions,

To who exercised dominion,

Justified a bloody bludgeon to the head.



Before each bloody genocide,

So "peace" would rule the countryside,

The victims’ guns, by force of law, were taken,

Conveniently, it’s not denied,

For those with arms did most abide,

Right where it said upon gun registrations.



Tyrants have favored arms control,

From Nero to Pol-Pot;

They figured out their programs would

Make people want them not;



They know they cannot have their way,

In a home of the brave;

They know an unarmed populace

Is simpler to enslave;



They wish to have the people’s views

all rendered less than moot;

They count on people being not

historically astute;

They’ve ordered: " Raise your right hand,

in assent and in salute;"



They set the stage for East Timor,

Tibet, Tienamine Square;

Before they knock upon your door,

Gun control will be there.

[Invader Zim]

Thats incorrect, Hitler did not activley impose gun control to anyone, he spoke of imposing gun control on non white ethnic groups, but never passed any law on gun control until 1938.

Quite ironically the United confederate states of America, did actually stop black people owning guns. I believe that the north also employed the same tactic, of baring black people from owning guns. That was until the North was getting thrashed and Lincon allowed black people to be drafted into the army.

Nazi's actually support the active withdrawl of gun legilation.

Infact it was not until 1938 that the Nazi party passed any laws regarding gun control, and guess what it actually relaxed gun control measures, from the gun control laws passed by the Weimar government.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Well that is at least one good issue from the Nazis... hate to say that though. But with the secret police and the "fight"-groupies like the SS and (though not later) SA people were still chanceless.

[Cobra]

While I agree with Hitler that not everyone should own guns, I am against not allowing people to own guns just because they are not white. Instead, I believe that everyone who owns less than $100,000 in assets (which would be adjusted for inflation after this year) should be required to own a gun. But it should be illegal for anyone (including members of the police and military) who has over $100,000 in assets to own a gun. That way it would be more difficult for the rich to oppress the poor, and it would be easier for the poor to liberate factories from the rich.

[AC-Socialist]

Nor was Hitler elected.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:33 PM
While I agree with Hitler that not everyone should own guns, I am against not allowing people to own guns just because they are not white. Instead, I believe that everyone who owns less than $100,000 in assets (which would be adjusted for inflation after this year) should be required to own a gun. But it should be illegal for anyone (including members of the police and military) who has over $100,000 in assets to own a gun. That way it would be more difficult for the rich to oppress the poor, and it would be easier for the poor to liberate factories from the rich.
So it's wrong to discrimiate on racial grounds, but okay to do it on socio-economic grounds ? (Overlooking the absurdity and unenforcability of such a law, should it ever be made).

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 18 2004, 10:34 PM
Nor was Hitler elected.
Actually he was in the 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:33 PM
While I agree with Hitler that not everyone should own guns, I am against not allowing people to own guns just because they are not white. Instead, I believe that everyone who owns less than $100,000 in assets (which would be adjusted for inflation after this year) should be required to own a gun. But it should be illegal for anyone (including members of the police and military) who has over $100,000 in assets to own a gun. That way it would be more difficult for the rich to oppress the poor, and it would be easier for the poor to liberate factories from the rich.
yeah because we all know Bill Gates has a secret stockade of weapons right? :rolleyes: get real, worker oppression from the upper class doesnt happen because of how many guns you have if that were the case much of the south would be controled by redneck vigilantes.

[revolutionindia]

I believe more american kids are killed from gunshot wounds each year
than american police.
That's a very sad statistic :(

[Cobra]

Professor Moneybags
So it's wrong to discrimiate on racial grounds, but okay to do it on socio-economic grounds ?

Yes, but only when the rich are discriminated against.


truthaddict11
yeah because we all know Bill Gates has a secret stockade of weapons right? get real, worker oppression from the upper class doesnt happen because of how many guns you have if that were the case much of the south would be controled by redneck vigilantes.

In a racist politically backwards countries like the United States, the law would have problems. However, in places with many impoverished socialist-thinking individuals, like South America and Africa, the law would be greatly to our advantage.


revolutionindia
I believe more american kids are killed from gunshot wounds each year
than american police.
That's a very sad statistic

If the parents had taught their children how to shoot the guns correctly (at rich people instead of at themselves) then they wouldn’t have that problem.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:40 AM
In a racist politically backwards countries like the United States, the law would have problems.
Backwards relative to where ? Are you trying to denounce an entire country as racist ? Isn't that racist in itself ? There aren't any racist laws in the US (apart from the affirmitive action laws); they were disposed of quite some time ago.


many impoverished socialist-thinking individuals

That's probably why they're impoverished.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

In a racist politically backwards countries like the United States, the law would have problems. However, in places with many impoverished socialist-thinking individuals, like South America and Africa, the law would be greatly to our advantage.
Every individual is unique, be it a Cuban American or African. Calling an entire people from a country politically backwards is racist andonly shows of your hate against a certain group for their government actions. Hating entire peoples is the most backward thing existing.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 20 2004, 02:56 PM

In a racist politically backwards countries like the United States, the law would have problems. However, in places with many impoverished socialist-thinking individuals, like South America and Africa, the law would be greatly to our advantage.
Every individual is unique, be it a Cuban American or African. Calling an entire people from a country politically backwards is racist andonly shows of your hate against a certain group for their government actions. Hating entire peoples is the most backward thing existing.
I hate to be picky, but the US is a multicultural society, to insult and steriotype its people can not logically be racist, as the US is neither a race nor is it a collection of people from the same race.

The word for looking for is xenophobia, and the fact that you didn't get this and then have the gall to call this guy backward...

:rolleyes:

[Cobra]

Backwards relative to where ? Are you trying to denounce an entire country as racist ? Isn't that racist in itself

The United States is definitely a politically backwards country. It has only 2 political parties that are both right wing and are almost exactly the same. Have you ever thought of why half the population of United Sates does not vote? More often than not, they don’t vote because their vote because their views are different from the 2 appointed candidates. And the voting districts are skewed. Party officials draw the voting districts themselves in blocks by so that the party can win by a 6 to 4 ratio in each area. By using methods of polling the party is able to figure out the voting habits of each area, and then use that information to manipulate the public. I can go into things like campaign financing and bribes, but I don’t think I need to. While the United States claims to be a democracy, that definitely is not the case.

And the United States is also a racist country. It has been a racist country since the time of slavery. Watch what’s on the media. Why is Tarzan white? Why is the amount of time in the news showing blacks committing crimes increasing, while the actual amount of “black crimes” committed is decreasing? Why does UPN portray blacks as dumb buffoons for people to laugh at? And why are black people afraid to walk in a white neighborhood? Think about it. It’s racist. If you think the United States is not a racist country then you’re probably a racist yourself.


[socialism is] probably why they're impoverished.

Do you actually believe that everyone can live like rich people under capitalism? Are you that naïve?

Imagine 6 billion people driving SUV’s, drinking two cups of coffee a day, stopping for a hamburger at McDonalds, buying the latest brand name clothes, and living in giant houses. It simple isn’t sustainable. Under capitalism, there will always be someone working in the fields cutting sugar cane for a near starvation wage. There will always be mothers working in sweatshops to get the 30 cents an hour they need to feed their children. Under capitalism, corporations will always keep the worker down. As long as capitalism dominates most of the world, there will always be impoverished workers.


Hating entire peoples is the most backward thing existing.

Do you think that we should love the people that exploit us? If so, then you’re a fool.
We should hate rich and the racists, but never the poor (unless they're racist). Hate is our greatest weapon.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

The word for looking for is xenophobia, and the fact that you didn't get this and then have the gall to call this guy backward...

According to you people are probably more united in class as in nationality, according to fascists people are more united in nationality as in class. I believe that people are united as individuals. Calling me backward has not made better the fact that one hates an entire people due to the choices made by their government. Every individual must be judged separately, but apparently because of your inane ability to do so, if you hate Americans you hate Bill Gates and the poorest American worker. Your class struggle is illusive.


We should hate rich and the racists, but never the poor (unless they're racist). Hate is our greatest weapon.

Do you hate all non-poor Americans? Lets say all Americans who do not live in poverty? I could make a lot of people I know laughing right now and confirming the weakness of Communists because you just told me hate is your greatest weapon. Hate is extremism, extremists follow a leader or cause because they cannot think rationally as an individual. Hate is a terrible weakness and a conformation of intellectual sloth. Now are said OUR greatest weapon, who are THEY?

[Cobra]

Don’t misinterpret the words I say. I never said that I hate poor non-racist Americans. I just hate rich Americans, as well as anyone from any other nationality who is rich. And I also hate people who have no nationality who are rich. I hate all of the rich. But I love the poor, but not the racist poor. The only reason I even mentioned Americans in the first place is that truthaddict mentioned rednecks in the south. I was just pointing out that America is not a typical country. It is “special”.

[SgtPepper369]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:20 PM
Don’t misinterpret the words I say. I never said that I hate poor non-racist Americans. I just hate rich Americans, as well as anyone from any other nationality who is rich. And I also hate people who have no nationality who are rich. I hate all of the rich. But I love the poor, but not the racist poor. The only reason I even mentioned Americans in the first place is that truthaddict mentioned rednecks in the south. I was just pointing out that America is not a typical country. It is “special”.
What about the rich who made an honest living and are using the money they don't need to help solve the problem with poverty, hunger, homelessness, and fair trade ?

[DaCuBaN]

Most hard line communists hate 'reformists' too - Although not perceived as an immediate threat, the true hardliners have a militaristic attitude.

It's all about classification really


According to [communists] people are probably more united in class [than] in nationality, according to fascists people are more united in nationality [than] in class. I believe that people are united as individuals ... Every individual must be judged separately

With a little paraphrasing, I couldn't put it better myself ;) :D

Excluding language barriers, the idea of there being a bigger divide between rich and poor than between nationalities is quite valid but it is merely a guideline. In reality there are far more divisions amongst people than those that are illustrated
in the classical left/right debate and the factors that do unite us can often be obscure (smoking, as an example)

[DaCuBaN]

just saw this great poem, I am writing poems myself as well, though this one is much better . I suppose this actually belongs in literature, but my political views makes me unable to post there

Considering this thread has been well and truly hijacked, I thought I should respond to the author

You can indeed post this into 'literature' as you are free to post around the board as long as you do not piss anyone off - you will notice that some members have 'restricted' next to their name - and now you know why :)

[Daniel Karssenberg]

as long as you do not piss anyone off

Okay but both you and the fanatic Cobra certainly piss me off, so what you’re actually saying is: as long as you are communist you may piss everyone off but when you’re anti-communist you may no piss others off even whilst being exposed to blind and intellectually backward ideas and illusions?

Also I do not see the sense of editing my spelling or grammatical order, I do not see how that contributes in any sense to this discussion. Also I would like to go back to what the real topic was about. Though it makes little sense considering the “contribution” of our great comrade Cobra with his idiotic hate against rich people.

[DaCuBaN]

Firstly, I'm not a communist, nor an anarchist. I won't be pigeonholed so easily, as I allow my ideas to change over time. Close your mind and you become an asshole - it's as simple as that.

Most would call me a reformist socialist :rolleyes:


so what you’re actually saying is: as long as you are communist you may piss everyone off but when you’re anti-communist you may no piss others off even whilst being exposed to blind and intellectually backward ideas and illusions?

Nope, here it is:

As long as you show that you can debate with respect, and do not enflame other users you are free to move around the board as you please. The only way you can freely move around the board and still piss people off is if you show what a 'good old boy' of a communist you are.

Clearer?


Also I do not see the sense of editing my spelling or grammatical order, I do not see how that contributes in any sense to this discussion. Also I would like to go back to what the real topic was about. Though it makes little sense considering the “contribution” of our great comrade Cobra with his idiotic hate against rich people

I apologise if correcting your grammar hit a nerve: I agreed wholeheartedly with your statement and simply felt it would be helped by being tidied. I don't think I even took it out of context...

Yes, the tirade against rich was unnecessary - but the odds are you were talking to a 14-15 yr old kid - in which case they can be excused to some extent as at that age you may think you know about life and the world, but you would be sadly mistaken ;)

If a mod is watching, this would do well to either be moved or copied to Literature - it's where a topic like this really belongs.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Close your mind and you become an asshole - it's as simple as that.

Basically I thought that this sentence would be very much worth repeating. All over the world we can see the consequences of people who allow intellectual sloth to slip in, or (though not intentionally) support authoritarian regimes by not thinking for themselves and not being open for the ideas of others. Openness can be directly associated with respect, I think if both “parties” in a debate are open and respectful the debate has sense, if one calls all Communists pigs or blindly hates all Rich people I’d advise to lock such topics, but of course, I am no mod.


Clearer?
If a mod is watching, this would do well to either be moved or copied to Literature - it's where a topic like this really belongs.

Yes, much clearer, though I doubt whether the mods wouldn’t immediately have moved this to OI if they’d see my posts.


I apologise if correcting your grammar hit a nerve: I agreed wholeheartedly with your statement and simply felt it would be helped by being tidied. I don't think I even took it out of context...

No problem there, I am learning English and I’ve generally no problems with people correcting me. I just found it slightly unnecessary considering this was a topic concerning Gun control not grammar.

Yes, the tirade against rich was unnecessary - but the odds are you were talking to a 14-15 yr old kid - in which case they can be excused to some extent as at that age you may think you know about life and the world, but you would be sadly mistaken

Ehm, I hate to confess my age. Usually I couldn’t have any normal debates whilst I was not being taken serious anymore. I am 15 myself.

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

Now let us come back to the topic: Gun control, what are you stances and opinions on this? Do you believe any individual should be allowed to carry a gun, or should this be restricted to the government / a ruling class / ethic group?
Personally I believe everyone should be free to carry a gun, in order to protect him or herself: A criminal who wants to attack me has two choices: kill me and rob me or don’t kill me and don’t rob me. For me the criminal leaves no option but to defend myself, as no authority is able to defend its citizens everywhere at any time, I believe an individual should be able to defend him or herself.

[DaCuBaN]

Ehm, I hate to confess my age. Usually I couldn’t have any normal debates whilst I was not being taken serious anymore. I am 15 myself.


Your honesty is appreciated :D I myself am not an awful lot older at 20, and I think you'll find you're not far off the 'average age' here at che-lives either. Your age has no indication as to how well you can debate, nor how reasonable you can be - the only excuse it carries is ignorance, which you (through this little contact) do appear to be fighting the good fight against. After all, ignorance was cured thousands of years ago, and the cure is called literacy

Anyway


Gun control, what are you stances and opinions on this?

Living in the UK, I'm not exposed to much in the way of firearms. In all honesty I've only ever fired 4 different guns - 3 of which were 'air-rifles' of less than .22 calibre, and the third being a hunting rifle - I can't remember anything much of it as I was about 12 at the time - up in Northern California. As such, I'm not really the best person to comment on this, but i'm leaning towards compulsary ownership to all between the age of 18-65 (working age) and abolishment of the classical armed forces

I believe the swiss use this model.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

I do not believe all people should necessarily carry weapons, I happen to know pacifists who by any means won't ever use a gun: so you can give them a weapon but they will not use it as self-defence. I think one must choose whether or not to defend him or herself with a weapon, but to defend yourself with a weapon should certainly be an an option. Though, I do not see the use of compulsory ownership. As for the abolishment of classical armed forces: this is possible as long as you're 100% sure that your nation will not be exposed to external dangers.