Gun control in the US

[lucid]

It's about damn time. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120638,00.html)

[DaCuBaN]

Well common sense would tell you that make guns illegal and kids will want to do it.

If Dad is playing with a gun, then they would want nothing to do with it. It's a question of who is more dangerous with the gun - the kid or the adult. In the USA I couldn't say :ph34r:

[BuyOurEverything]

Nah, in America it's just another way for misguided liberals to think they're making a difference.

[Ziggy]

i don't know where i stand on gun control, but could we at least have a fucking national database that lists what gun belongs to who? It may not always be correct because people can buy guns on the black market or steal them, but it could also help alot of the time.

[BuyOurEverything]

They tried that in Canada, Ziggy, and it was a fucking disaster. It cost something like a billion dollars and didn't come close to registering everyone. A better idea would be to require all gun owners to take gun safety courses and get licences, similar to drivers licences.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think that that prevent most guns from somehow ending up in the hands of criminals like they do today.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Guns are not home at homes. Guns at gunclubs.You do not need your AR-15 next to your bed. I am all for people's millitia's. People are trained in weapon usage by the State, putting them able in defending themselves from everyone, foreign invaders, dicator in charge etc.

[cubist]

i stand on the its your fault you let poeple own guns in the first place side, criminals will always have guns, but not having them makes that illegal too which at the end of the day makes punishing criminals eASYier

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:40 AM
i stand on the its your fault you let poeple own guns in the first place side, criminals will always have guns, but not having them makes that illegal too which at the end of the day makes punishing criminals eASYier
There are already tons of laws making it illegal to commit gun crime. Just having one is supposed to give you a harsher sentence. Also felons lose their right to purchase or have guns. The past has shown that gun control does not stop criminals it only disarms the victims.

[cubist]

yes indeed, the situation is quite a problem, but people who are law obiding could surely still own a rifle, just not a concealable automatic,

[Big Mike]

I think everyone should be able to own a gun, but I don't think handguns or automatic weapons are necessarily what the constitution had in mind. It's a question of degrees ... self-defense and hunting ... vs. robbery and murder.

I think that Buy Our Everything has the best idea ... make everyone take gun safety classes and get licenses to buy a gun. That will cut down on the people buying them in anger ... and hopfully make it a safer USA.

Revolutionaries and criminals will always be able to get 'hot' weapons ... but at least the average citizen who owns one, will be trained to use one, and the weapon will be 'trackable' ...

A weapon free world is NOT an option in my mind. I don't want any government to control all the weapons ... for any reason. The addage, Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrpts Absolutley is true for even the most liberal societies.

[Hiero]

Well common sense would tell you that make guns illegal and kids will want to do it.

If Dad is playing with a gun, then they would want nothing to do with it. It's a question of who is more dangerous with the gun - the kid or the adult. In the USA I couldn't say

Oh ok and thats how criminals work as well do they. So if they made it normal to have loaded guns lying around and dont mention that it is bad tomplay with things will be alright. Kids are idiots they will do anything



do u not understand? guncontrol is just another way for the government to put us down.

Yeah that makes sense since the country is on the edge of revolution. Its a way of keepin guns in the hands of responsible people, who will lock them up unloaded



Nah, in America it's just another way for misguided liberals to think they're making a difference.

I hope this laws stick becuase looking at the rate of gun deaths copmpared to countries with gun laws, i think this liberals willl make a differences.

Dont you people understand guns are very fucking dangarous, and in the hands of kids, idiots and criminals it is lethal.

[cubist]

and in the hands of kids, idiots and criminals it is lethal. most things are lethal in the hands of these people,

petrol
bombs
sticks
alcohol

[Hiero]

Um yeah and your point is. We can restrict guns.

[cubist]

my point is that that is silly reason to restrict guns, in the wrong hands just about anything is dangerous

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We can also restrict petrol and alcohol, that doesn't make it right does it?

Bottom line is that no amount of gun control will stop criminals getting guns. Here in the UK, where it is illegal to own a handgun, the criminals all have guns (Especially in London and other cities) but the citizenry do not. This is not a favourable situation.

There needs to be a big change in terms of culture surrounding guns in the US. There are more handguns, rifles and fully automatic weapons per person in Switzerland than in the US, but gun deaths due to criminal activity are lower (Source) (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html)

Banning guns is a typically stupid liberal knee-jerk reaction.

Also see this (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html)

[Big Mike]

Banning certain types of guns isn't knee-jerk ... it's logical. Handguns and Automatic rifles make no sense. The article you used as a source noted that Rifles were issued to everyone as a part of their national defense.

Translation = they are visible, and in the hands or registered, trained gun owners ... NOT hidden under a shirt or coat, being carried by an angry man or woman, or a criminal bent on crime.

If they banned handgun sales in the USA I would have NO problem with it ... and who the hell needs an assault rifle??? Sure, give us all rifles or shot-guns ... but stop with the weapons that have no purpose other than to kill humans in anger, or while committing a crime.

It's also not logical to compare the Swiss to the Americans ... they don't have the poverty and drug problems the USA does ... and their culture isn't one of warfare and cowboy justice. They are that great neutral nation, that avoids war at any cost and has a extremely high quality of life index.(Or did you forget?)

[cubist]

automatic rifles are fine, why would you want to have to reload when hunting if you miss, automatic UZI's and other smaller concealable weapons are this issue,


you can't stop a law breaker with laws, you must rehabilitate and educate,

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:09 PM
automatic rifles are fine, why would you want to have to reload when hunting if you miss,
So what, we should allow dangours weopons such as automatice rifles to be legal so some people dont have to reload for when they miss. That doesnt make sense to me, dead people or manual loading of a rifle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Firearms are only as dangerous as the people who use them, is someone is given proper firearms safety training the risk is greatly reduced.


That doesnt make sense to me, dead people or manual loading of a rifle.

It's this sort of stupid liberal type of statement that restricts our freedoms.

[Invader Zim]

The NRA is filled with extream rightwingers, supprise you?

Ban guns

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Guns are tools. Just because a right-winger uses a hammer doesn't mean we have to stop hammering nails. And like all tools care should be taken in their responsible use.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:13 PM
The NRA is filled with extream rightwingers, supprise you?

Ban guns
Yes, how else are you going to steal the means of production if you end up with a bullet upside you head from it's owner ?

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:13 PM
The NRA is filled with extream rightwingers, supprise you?

Ban guns
The lefties prefer the dynamite vest and sneaking into a cafe approach to violence.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Nobody should have the right to own a gun. Guns can only be used for one purpose.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:57 PM
Nobody should have the right to own a gun. Guns can only be used for one purpose.
Hunting, sports shooting, protecting your family, etc...

But like I said, go ahead and get rid of your guns, it'll just make your 'revolution' less likely. It's much safer to shoot revolutionists that are armed with sticks and pitch forks instead of guns.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Generally revolutionaries don't abide by the law, if they did they'd be kinda ineffective.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:18 PM
Generally revolutionaries don't abide by the law, if they did they'd be kinda ineffective.
So we need to disarm so that we can be either forced to submit or slaughtered by the wanna be commie revolutionists? It's funny how the communists way of peace and harmony goes in lots of circles and in many cases ends up in violence. Kinda reminds me of the quasi commie nations of the past and future.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sick of you liberals who want to ban guns. The UK government banned handguns and now we can't protect ourselves.

Why oh why can't responsible citizens own the firearms they want? because it offends your hippy sensibilities. Good grief.

[cubist]

nox, that said before that, if you shot a intruder he could sue you anyway, fuckin shitty legal system. develope judge dread style guns i suppose, i think co ncealable machine guns like uzi's should be ilegal they serve no purpose to decent people

[Monty Cantsin]

"Yeah that makes sense since the country is on the edge of revolution"

WHAT THE?

[Big Mike]

Noxion,
If guns are "tools" then what's the job???? Guns are not tools ... guns are weapons.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:12 AM
I'm sick of you liberals who want to ban guns. The UK government banned handguns and now we can't protect ourselves.

Why oh why can't responsible citizens own the firearms they want? because it offends your hippy sensibilities. Good grief.
And fat stupid neighbours cant shoot people when the neighbours cat takea a piss in the garden.

I totaly aggree wit the term guns are only dangoures in the hands of dangoures men adn idiots, sicne there a two many of the both there needs to be restricitons not bannings.

[Abby Normal]

As an authoritarian I support gun control. Wouldn't want to arm the mob, would we? :P

For any Commies who support gun control (if there are any): How do you expect to start a revolution with no weapons?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion,
If guns are "tools" then what's the job????

Hunting, Executions, and defending the revolution as there shouldn't be a professional army.


I totaly aggree wit the term guns are only dangoures in the hands of dangoures men adn idiots, sicne there a two many of the both there needs to be restricitons not bannings.

I don't believe people are as stupid as you make out... It's just in this world of 6 billion people the idiots stand out like a sore thumb.

Truly stupid people won't pass the firearms proficency test.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 27 2004, 12:45 PM


For any Commies who support gun control (if there are any): How do you expect to start a revolution with no weapons?
A group of armed people arent the start to a revolution, critical thought is the first start. Anyway in 1st world countries the main mass of revolution i believe will be peacefull, with little militia.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 27 2004, 12:27 PM
Noxion,
If guns are "tools" then what's the job???? Guns are not tools ... guns are weapons.
Erm...so ? Almost anything is a potential weapon.

[DaCuBaN]

For any Commies who support gun control (if there are any): How do you expect to start a revolution with no weapons?

A revolutionary is considered to be a criminal in the eyes of the establishment he seeks to overthrow. With this in mind the legality of his weapon is of little or no consequence.

I do not support gun controls in any form... I find it intruiging that people would consider it 'liberal' to be of this viewpoint though...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not support gun controls in any form... I find it intruiging that people would consider it 'liberal' to be of this viewpoint though...

It's the clutchy-throaty, oh-my-god-what-poor-people, nanny-state type liberalism that is almost diametrically opposed to true libertarianism.

We have too many of them in the UK and I hate them with a passion.

[DaCuBaN]

These people are not liberals they are reactionaries. They see something they don't like and try to jump on it until it goes away.

Average IQ somewhere equivelant to what you would find in the average turnip.

I agree the UK is infested with these 'types', though how we begin a remedy is beyond me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought Swedes were pretty smart...

[Big Mike]

Try hammering a nail with a rifle barrel .... or building a house with a tank.

The analogy that "guns are tools" is stupid.

There should always be some kind of control on what kind of weapons are being sold to whom ... but I'm completely against a ban on weapons.

I NEVER want the only person with a gun to be a government official. Does that make me liberal or conservative? My guess is that this issue has no real bais in ideology ... both sides respect the gun.

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

[DaCuBaN]

Tool - Something used in the performance of an operation

The person holding it is the killer, the weapon is what facilitates them. Hence it is quite valid to call a gun (or any weapon) a tool.

Ye tool ;)


I thought Swedes were pretty smart...

Well Saab made decent automobiles, but they sold the company to General Motors, who've done nothing to better what they did at Trollhatten, Sweden

So I gues there are smart swedes and dumb swedes. Just like everyone else really :D

Still... You lost me with that remark :blink:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Swedes and turnips are vegetables...

[BuyOurEverything]

Try hammering a nail with a rifle barrel .... or building a house with a tank.

Try hammering a nail with a fork... or building a house with a condom. I guess we should ban those too eh?

Guns are used by farmers to kill injured livestock, as well as shoot intruding animals. They're very important. Guns are used for hunting, which is a very usefull purpose unless you're advocating state sanctioned vegetarianism.

[cubist]

no no no neonate, the point is a rifle isn't used in "a drive by" generally people don't shoot each other with rifles, they prefer pistols and sawn offs and uzi's

[MrGunRights]

Here's somewhat of a related quote to the discussion

"Limit purchases to one gun a month? It's the camel's nose in the tent. Look at Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin--every one of these monsters, on seizing power, their first act was to confiscate all firearms in private hands..." -Charlton Heston

For most of the ideals represented on this forum to actually become reality, a ban of weapons in private citizens' hands would be necessary to ensure the stability of the state.

In another thread, someone quoted Frank Zappa as saying something like communism will never work because people like to own stuff. I happen to believe that his statement is 100% true.

And when citizens wish to have the right to lay claim to a piece of property (not just land in this case), which inevitably will happen, their only choice will be to take up arms. Their only other option is to lived suppressed in their strive for owning private property (many of you may call this greed).

In socialism and communism, the state wields power, while in a laissez-faire capitalist society, it's private sector wields power. Therefore, practically speaking, of course, it would make sense to ban weapons in a socialist or communist country, but would not make sense to do so in a laissez-faire capitalist society.

Of course, I believe the right to bear arms should be absolute and inalienable in every society, yet on a practical level, it seems the majority of you would want to rule against my opinion. If this is an incorrect assumption, please do correct me.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:48 AM
no no no neonate, the point is a rifle isn't used in "a drive by" generally people don't shoot each other with rifles, they prefer pistols and sawn offs and uzi's
Excactly so we ban automatics to the general public.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by comrade neonate+May 31 2004, 12:35 PM--> (comrade neonate @ May 31 2004, 12:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 11:48 AM
no no no neonate, the point is a rifle isn't used in "a drive by" generally people don't shoot each other with rifles, they prefer pistols and sawn offs and uzi's
Excactly so we ban automatics to the general public. [/b]
Automatic weapons have no use for self defence. They are for the military purpose of laying down "suppressing fire". Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols are suitable for self denfence, though.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 1 2004, 09:04 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 1 2004, 09:04 AM)
Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 31 2004, 12:35 PM

[email protected] 29 2004, 11:48 AM
no no no neonate, the point is a rifle isn't used in "a drive by" generally people don't shoot each other with rifles, they prefer pistols and sawn offs and uzi's
Excactly so we ban automatics to the general public.
Automatic weapons have no use for self defence. They are for the military purpose of laying down "suppressing fire". Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols are suitable for self denfence, though. [/b]
But how many of the publice know when its self defence, when its needed and when to walk away.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In another thread, someone quoted Frank Zappa as saying something like communism will never work because people like to own stuff. I happen to believe that his statement is 100% true.

And when citizens wish to have the right to lay claim to a piece of property (not just land in this case), which inevitably will happen, their only choice will be to take up arms. Their only other option is to lived suppressed in their strive for owning private property (many of you may call this greed).

In socialism and communism, the state wields power, while in a laissez-faire capitalist society, it's private sector wields power. Therefore, practically speaking, of course, it would make sense to ban weapons in a socialist or communist country, but would not make sense to do so in a laissez-faire capitalist society.


Don't turn this into another communism vs capitalism debate; that's not the title of the thread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by comrade neonate+May 31 2004, 12:35 PM--> (comrade neonate @ May 31 2004, 12:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 11:48 AM
no no no neonate, the point is a rifle isn't used in "a drive by" generally people don't shoot each other with rifles, they prefer pistols and sawn offs and uzi's
Excactly so we ban automatics to the general public. [/b]
Why?

[h&s]

Back to the subject of guns.
Why does anyone need a weapon designed specifically for killing fellow human beings?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 1 2004, 01:37 PM
Back to the subject of guns.
Why does anyone need a weapon designed specifically for killing fellow human beings?
Because one of your fellow human beings might decide to kill you. Guns are the best defence against an attacker.

[MrGunRights]

I'm not trying to make this a capitalism vs. communism debate. All I am simply saying is that in order for your society to operate successfully, the public must be disarmed. A right to bear arms would only exist for the government.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:37 PM
I'm not trying to make this a capitalism vs. communism debate. All I am simply saying is that in order for your society to operate successfully, the public must be disarmed. A right to bear arms would only exist for the government.
Yeah, that's smart. Lefty thinking to the T. Only give power to the people that control you.

[BuyOurEverything]

Why does anyone need a weapon designed specifically for killing fellow human beings?

To defend themself against other human beings... obviously.


I'm not trying to make this a capitalism vs. communism debate. All I am simply saying is that in order for your society to operate successfully, the public must be disarmed. A right to bear arms would only exist for the government.

Why? That's ridiculous.


Guns are the best defence against an attacker.

Not neccessarily. If a tweaked out meth addict is trying to rob you at gunpoint, an untrained individual pulling out and waving around a gun probably isn't going to help the situation. They are good in certain situations, but they're not the be all and end all of self defense, especially if you don't know how to use them in a combat situation, like most people.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:18 PM

Why does anyone need a weapon designed specifically for killing fellow human beings?

To defend themself against other human beings... obviously.


I'm not trying to make this a capitalism vs. communism debate. All I am simply saying is that in order for your society to operate successfully, the public must be disarmed. A right to bear arms would only exist for the government.

Why? That's ridiculous.


Guns are the best defence against an attacker.

Not neccessarily. If a tweaked out meth addict is trying to rob you at gunpoint, an untrained individual pulling out and waving around a gun probably isn't going to help the situation. They are good in certain situations, but they're not the be all and end all of self defense, especially if you don't know how to use them in a combat situation, like most people.
If a gun doesn't stop someone strung out on meth then your not using the right caliber ;)

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If an unarmed mugger is approaching you from a distance, a gun might be an appropriate tool, but if a mugger with a gun pops up behind you in the middle of the night, pulling out a gun would probably scare him into shooting you.

[MrGunRights]

QUOTE
I'm not trying to make this a capitalism vs. communism debate. All I am simply saying is that in order for your society to operate successfully, the public must be disarmed. A right to bear arms would only exist for the government.



Why? That's ridiculous.

As stated in my previous post...

For most of the ideals represented on this forum to actually become reality, a ban of weapons in private citizens' hands would be necessary to ensure the stability of the state.

In another thread, someone quoted Frank Zappa as saying something like communism will never work because people like to own stuff. I happen to believe that his statement is 100% true.

And when citizens wish to have the right to lay claim to a piece of property (not just land in this case), which inevitably will happen, their only choice will be to take up arms. Their only other option is to lived suppressed in their strive for owning private property (many of you may call this greed).

In socialism and communism, the state wields power, while in a laissez-faire capitalist society, it's private sector wields power. Therefore, practically speaking, of course, it would make sense to ban weapons in a socialist or communist country, but would not make sense to do so in a laissez-faire capitalist society.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:35 PM
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If an unarmed mugger is approaching you from a distance, a gun might be an appropriate tool, but if a mugger with a gun pops up behind you in the middle of the night, pulling out a gun would probably scare him into shooting you.
If someone gets close to you with a gun pulled then you would not want to pull your gun unless absolutely necessary. A gun would come in handy if you heard a window break in your home at 2AM. Or the mugger with the gun starts trying to rape your wife.

I have been robbed at gun point on three diferent occassions. It was when I was younger and lived in Atlanta. All three times the person was obviously on drugs and did things so stupid that it would of been easy to shoot him. Unfortunately I wasn't packing :(

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree with your first two points, but the third one is just stupid. No sane person would try to shoot a mugger while he was raping their wife.


As stated in my previous post...

For most of the ideals represented on this forum to actually become reality, a ban of weapons in private citizens' hands would be necessary to ensure the stability of the state.

In another thread, someone quoted Frank Zappa as saying something like communism will never work because people like to own stuff. I happen to believe that his statement is 100% true.

And when citizens wish to have the right to lay claim to a piece of property (not just land in this case), which inevitably will happen, their only choice will be to take up arms. Their only other option is to lived suppressed in their strive for owning private property (many of you may call this greed).

In socialism and communism, the state wields power, while in a laissez-faire capitalist society, it's private sector wields power. Therefore, practically speaking, of course, it would make sense to ban weapons in a socialist or communist country, but would not make sense to do so in a laissez-faire capitalist society.



You obviously don't understand what socialism or communism, and the fact that you quote Frank Zappa in a political discussion is somewhat unsettling.

Anyways, using your logic why wouldn't it be neccessary to ban guns in a capitalist state? If someone feels they have a right to someone else's 'property,' wouldn't they take up guns? You're saying that it is neccessary to ban guns from the public in order to protect property (the founding principle of capitalism) and then trying to say that applies to socialism, not capitalism.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:51 PM
I agree with your first two points, but the third one is just stupid. No sane person would try to shoot a mugger while he was raping their wife.


As stated in my previous post...

For most of the ideals represented on this forum to actually become reality, a ban of weapons in private citizens' hands would be necessary to ensure the stability of the state.

In another thread, someone quoted Frank Zappa as saying something like communism will never work because people like to own stuff. I happen to believe that his statement is 100% true.

And when citizens wish to have the right to lay claim to a piece of property (not just land in this case), which inevitably will happen, their only choice will be to take up arms. Their only other option is to lived suppressed in their strive for owning private property (many of you may call this greed).

In socialism and communism, the state wields power, while in a laissez-faire capitalist society, it's private sector wields power. Therefore, practically speaking, of course, it would make sense to ban weapons in a socialist or communist country, but would not make sense to do so in a laissez-faire capitalist society.



You obviously don't understand what socialism or communism, and the fact that you quote Frank Zappa in a political discussion is somewhat unsettling.

Anyways, using your logic why wouldn't it be neccessary to ban guns in a capitalist state? If someone feels they have a right to someone else's 'property,' wouldn't they take up guns? You're saying that it is neccessary to ban guns from the public in order to protect property (the founding principle of capitalism) and then trying to say that applies to socialism, not capitalism.
I am sure your wife would like to hear that. If your married that is.

[BuyOurEverything]

I am not, however think your wife would be comforted to hear that if she were ever being raped, you would start firing your gun frantically in her direction.

"Oh sorry honey, it looks like I slipped and shot you in the back of the head, but at least I killed the rapist!"

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:06 PM
I am not, however think your wife would be comforted to hear that if she were ever being raped, you would start firing your gun frantically in her direction.
Gun control is the ability to blow the guys head off without hitting your wife =]

But, if you think you, while armed, could sit and watch your wife get raped then more power to you. Just stay away from my daughters <_<

[BuyOurEverything]

I didn&#39;t say I&#39;d sit back, I said I wouldn&#39;t shoot at them with my gun, that&#39;s horribly unsafe, I don&#39;t care how good a shot you are. A guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night and rapes your wife, you&#39;re going to be pretty shaken up.

I&#39;d probably use a knife, a baseball bat, or something of that nature. Or just tackle him.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:14 PM
I&#39;d probably use a knife, a baseball bat, or something of that nature. Or just tackle him.
And what if he has a gun ?

[MrGunRights]

You obviously don&#39;t understand what socialism or communism, and the fact that you quote Frank Zappa in a political discussion is somewhat unsettling.

Anyways, using your logic why wouldn&#39;t it be neccessary to ban guns in a capitalist state? If someone feels they have a right to someone else&#39;s &#39;property,&#39; wouldn&#39;t they take up guns? You&#39;re saying that it is neccessary to ban guns from the public in order to protect property (the founding principle of capitalism) and then trying to say that applies to socialism, not capitalism.

The fact that Frank Zappa said it is irrelevant. It is common sense and human nature- people like to own stuff. I don&#39;t think there is any refuting that.

As for banning guns in a capitalist state, there would be no reason whatsoever. Laissez-faire capitalism is a rights based system. That is the reason its advocates push for the system so adamently. To ban guns would infringe on a property, therefore making the system void. The reason that gun rights make sense in capitalism, is because you have that right to property, a direct corolarry of one&#39;s right to life. The gun protects both from crimnals and a potenially oppressive state. In communism, one has no right to such things. So when the government comes along to force the "sharing" of property, an armed public would rebel at some point, therefore coinciding with human nature. The government initiates no force in capitalism, but it does in communism. And force is only fought with more force. So, for communism to work, the government must have the upper hand in weaponry by banning guns from the private sector.

[gaf]

i ll push the red button and get off with this cheat........nihil without a weapon