How does everyone feel about gun control?

[Synitik]

I believe with the way the world is today, and the way the world is turning. Along with mankind's past history. That self defense is a human right. But I would like to know everyone else's stance on gun control

I personally thing current laws although some are somewhat understandable, I believe that most laws in the US concerning firearms are completely ludacris.

Did you know that the warrant for waco was based on "Speculation" of an unregistered machine gun? Which carries a $200 transfer tax. 88 people died over gun parts and a tax.

But anyways... what's your thoughts?

[bed_of_nails]

How about how ol' Don Rummie decided to remove the background check used to catch 99% of all gun problems?

Now anyone can buy a gun!

[Commie Girl]

I am totally in favour of gun control

[RedLenin]

I am 100% pro-gun control. We need to enforce gun control on the state. Once the state has no weapons, then we can think about getting rid of them permanently but until then...*click* *click*

[Anarchist Freedom]

um NO i do not support gun control. How do you plan to get the guns for the revolution when you have to deal with a shitload of paper to get one? obviously background checks are good. But the limits we put on guns is outrageous.

[OleMarxco]

I am 99% ANTI-Gun Control. DEAL with it. Civilians with guns? FUCK IT! Aside from the revolutionaries who will use guns to overthrow the system, random citizens who might just aswell be insane materialists who "protect" themselves and their capitalistic turf by KILLING someone else for.....THINGS...STUFF...to protect their "life"....which is their apartment. Like in Fight Club, the Narrator say in answer to who he might have believed destroyed his condo: "I loved every figure in there, every STICK of furniture was a part of ME and MY personality! THAT CONDO WAS MY LIFE!" and I suspect people like that would've had GUN-CONTROL to kill people from "stealing it", allright......

[hochiminicooper]

At the time for revolution the revolutionaries will find their weaponry with or without gun control.

[bed_of_nails]

Yes I can see it now...

(Dream sequence)

An armed group of angry factory workers decide to go and confront the local National Guard...

Wait!

What are these workers armed with?!?!

In the hands of the workers you can see bricks and stones. The National Guard unleash fire and everything is over in about 30 seconds.

Guns are necessary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On the issue of civilian firearm ownership - I am totally in favour. Firearms are necessary tools in defence of one's home and community. The right to own a firearm should be the right of every responsible citizen.


Did you know that the warrant for waco was based on "Speculation" of an unregistered machine gun? Which carries a $200 transfer tax. 88 people died over gun parts and a tax.

Waco is a scary place, I would be glad to see the feds lay the smack down on those fundy fanatics.

[bed_of_nails]

Also, most people who try and defend their homes with a gun end up getting it used against them.

I am for gun-control to an extent. I dont believe people need assault rifles to defend their house.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, most people who try and defend their homes with a gun end up getting it used against them.

Care to substantiate that? Or is that a typical baseless liberal lie?


I am for gun-control to an extent. I dont believe people need assault rifles to defend their house.

People do need assault rifles to defend themselves if their enemies have assault rifles.

[comrade_mufasa]

I dont know if this is a quote from someone or I just heard it said once:
"It is disturbing when puppets of the state (the police and the military) can hold a weapon and look like saviors, but when a civilian holds a weapon they are criminals."

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want. Have you ever noticed that those hillbilley kids that go hunting with thier faimly on the weekends are never the ones who accidently kill there friend becouse they didnt know how to use a gun. It is those kids who take thier dad's "security" gun (even the dad should not be trusted to fire it) out of the closet and shoots his friend becouse he didnt know where the saftey is or how to check if its loaded. The NRA is completly right when they say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people".

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:38 AM
I dont know if this is a quote from someone or I just heard it said once:
"It is disturbing when puppets of the state (the police and the military) can hold a weapon and look like saviors, but when a civilian holds a weapon they are criminals."

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want. Have you ever noticed that those hillbilley kids that go hunting with thier faimly on the weekends are never the ones who accidently kill there friend becouse they didnt know how to use a gun. It is those kids who take thier dad's "security" gun (even the dad should not be trusted to fire it) out of the closet and shoots his friend becouse he didnt know where the saftey is or how to check if its loaded. The NRA is completly right when they say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people".
You are the only person I have ever known who could voice a good reason against gun control. That was very impressive.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 15 2005, 11:51 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 15 2005, 11:51 PM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 04:38 AM
I dont know if this is a quote from someone or I just heard it said once:
"It is disturbing when puppets of the state (the police and the military) can hold a weapon and look like saviors, but when a civilian holds a weapon they are criminals."

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want. Have you ever noticed that those hillbilley kids that go hunting with thier faimly on the weekends are never the ones who accidently kill there friend becouse they didnt know how to use a gun. It is those kids who take thier dad's "security" gun (even the dad should not be trusted to fire it) out of the closet and shoots his friend becouse he didnt know where the saftey is or how to check if its loaded. The NRA is completly right when they say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people".
You are the only person I have ever known who could voice a good reason against gun control. That was very impressive. [/b]
:D Thank you.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 16 2005, 04:51 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 16 2005, 04:51 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 04:38 AM
I dont know if this is a quote from someone or I just heard it said once:
"It is disturbing when puppets of the state (the police and the military) can hold a weapon and look like saviors, but when a civilian holds a weapon they are criminals."

I am anti-gun control. Not becouse gun control makes it harder for revolutionaries to get wepons, becouse getting guns is never a problem, but becouse sane people who know what they hell they are doing and teach there kids that guns are Dangerous should be allowed to buy any gun they want. Have you ever noticed that those hillbilley kids that go hunting with thier faimly on the weekends are never the ones who accidently kill there friend becouse they didnt know how to use a gun. It is those kids who take thier dad's "security" gun (even the dad should not be trusted to fire it) out of the closet and shoots his friend becouse he didnt know where the saftey is or how to check if its loaded. The NRA is completly right when they say "Guns dont kill people, people kill people".
You are the only person I have ever known who could voice a good reason against gun control. That was very impressive. [/b]
I got one for you too in the USA.

Simple math:

210 to 240 million guns in the USA. Let's say 200 million.

A cheap shotgun is $250, a reliable cheap handgun $350, a cheap hunting rifle $400. Then match rifles and pistols start at $1500, ......, you get the picture.

If the government buys them back for just $100 dollars each that is $20 Billion dollars.

Or


The government can just take them for free, but then that is stealing.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:08 PM
I am 99% ANTI-Gun Control. DEAL with it. Civilians with guns? FUCK IT! Aside from the revolutionaries who will use guns to overthrow the system, random citizens who might just aswell be insane materialists who "protect" themselves and their capitalistic turf by KILLING someone else for.....THINGS...STUFF...to protect their "life"....which is their apartment.
In other words, 99% of the population.

A disarmed population is an enslaved population. I amire your consistency.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 16 2005, 02:00 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 16 2005, 02:00 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 10:08 PM
I am 99% ANTI-Gun Control. DEAL with it. Civilians with guns? FUCK IT! Aside from the revolutionaries who will use guns to overthrow the system, random citizens who might just aswell be insane materialists who "protect" themselves and their capitalistic turf by KILLING someone else for.....THINGS...STUFF...to protect their "life"....which is their apartment.
In other words, 99% of the population.

A disarmed population is an enslaved population. I amire your consistency. [/b]
No no no.

I get it.

Revolutionaries are NOT civilians. Revolutionaries are not like regular people, like civilians. That is why they should have guns.

Then it makes 100% sense. You see revolutionaries are a special class of people that should be excluded from gun control. Don't you see?

[Anarchist Freedom]

I believe that it liberals take gun control to far. when you make guns to hard to get for the public. The criminals will still have there guns and they will be able to shoot you while you defend your life with a knife.

[Zingu]

I'm against gun control....as long as it is guarenteed that we'll outgun the reactionary southern rednecks when the revolution begins! :lol:

Little does the "Million Mummy March" know, that it is actually supporting a movement for total state tyranny! ;)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:00 PM
I'm against gun control....as long as it is guarenteed that we'll outgun the reactionary southern rednecks when the revolution begins! :lol:

Little does the "Million Mummy March" is actually supporting a movement for total state tyranny! ;)
What kind of philosophy is that? That is a culture of violence and vengance. I don't think you will get compassion and justice from violence and vengance.

[OleMarxco]

Gun control ownership should require sanity tests :redstar2000:


Originally posted by "Teh Thread Starter"
88 people died over gun parts and a tax.

Interesting number....... :o
Free AK-47's to the revolutionaries!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by OleMarxo+May 20 2005, 06:50 PM--> (OleMarxo @ May 20 2005, 06:50 PM) Gun control ownership should require sanity tests :redstar2000:


"Teh Thread Starter"
88 people died over gun parts and a tax.

Interesting number....... :o
Free AK-47's to the revolutionaries! [/b]
The AK-47 since it was introduced has never been responsible for justice and compassion.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Are you still with me?

Can someone with an AK-47 and natural ability to use it? Are these people likely to make systems of justice and compassion?

[RedLenin]

Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:18 AM
Are these people likely to make systems of justice and compassion?
Is capitalism a system built on justice and compassion? One thread you're raving about how we should bomb the crap out of the Middle East and beat the terrorists to a pulp, defending the coporate goon squads there, and now you are being the peace dove's little angel.

I will agree with the Maoists in one area;

"Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun."
-Mao Zedong

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 22 2005, 05:44 AM--> (Zingu @ May 22 2005, 05:44 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 04:18 AM
Are these people likely to make systems of justice and compassion?
Is capitalism a system built on justice and compassion? One thread you're raving about how we should bomb the crap out of the Middle East and beat the terrorists to a pulp, defending the coporate goon squads there, and now you are being the peace dove's little angel.

I will agree with the Maoists in one area;

"Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun."
-Mao Zedong [/b]
What ever is wrong with capitalism, it does not prove communism to be workable, stable, or more just.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 02:46 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 02:46 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you? [/b]
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 02:49 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 24 2005, 02:49 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:46 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example. [/b]
Snide remarks don't prove anything. Military leadership does not = compassion and justice.

You still have this problem.

The revolution must be violent. That is very clear. That is the Marxist theory. If the revolution is going to be violent, then the people are violent. Your not going to get compassion and justice from violent people. So now what?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 03:04 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 03:04 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:46 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example.
Snide remarks don't prove anything. Military leadership does not = compassion and justice.

You still have this problem.

The revolution must be violent. That is very clear. That is the Marxist theory. If the revolution is going to be violent, then the people are violent. Your not going to get compassion and justice from violent people. So now what? [/b]
You forgot to read the other part of my post then.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 03:07 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 24 2005, 03:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:46 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example.
Snide remarks don't prove anything. Military leadership does not = compassion and justice.

You still have this problem.

The revolution must be violent. That is very clear. That is the Marxist theory. If the revolution is going to be violent, then the people are violent. Your not going to get compassion and justice from violent people. So now what?
You forgot to read the other part of my post then. [/b]
What are you talking about? MY US President? If you live on the border, then they are YOUR presidents too.

Either way you got violent people don't you? The revolution is going to be violent. That is the communist theory.

Why don't you read your post again. See if it makes sense to YOU too. If it doesn't then why should it make sense to me?

[Hiero]

You have to joking.

What prove is that someone who used violence as a political tool, which has been used for thousands of years since the first states were formed, can be violent and not have compassion.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 03:14 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 03:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:46 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example.
Snide remarks don't prove anything. Military leadership does not = compassion and justice.

You still have this problem.

The revolution must be violent. That is very clear. That is the Marxist theory. If the revolution is going to be violent, then the people are violent. Your not going to get compassion and justice from violent people. So now what?
You forgot to read the other part of my post then.
What are you talking about? MY US President? If you live on the border, then they are YOUR presidents too.

Either way you got violent people don't you? The revolution is going to be violent. That is the communist theory.

Why don't you read your post again. See if it makes sense to YOU too. If it doesn't then why should it make sense to me? [/b]
I will never concider such nefarious scum that support the party that voted against the Civil Rights Act democratic, or even human. They are not my president and I laugh at their miseries.

Lets look at this though. They were killers in war, and apparently you support their actions as "peacemakers" and "mother teresas".

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 03:46 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 24 2005, 03:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:46 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 04:49 AM
Well, compassion and justice will not be easy to use when we are getting shot and bombed by reactionaries. We need assult rifles for revolutionary self-defense. We will use non-violence until the reactionaries come and try to kill us. At that point, violence becomes justified to defend ourselves.

Marx says the revolution will be violent. Unless your born killers, then you really don't have much a chance against the bouguise? So which one are you? A warrior or a Mother Teresa? Warriors don't make good progressive intellectuals or build systems of compassion and justice. That is a problem isn't it? If your a Mother Teresa, your dead when the bouguise come after you. If your a warrior able to fight back, then your not much of a compassionate intellectual are you?
You arent a sharp one, are you?

There are some of both. People who take up arms in necessity can also be good leaders.

Look at your US presidents. Bush 1 and 2(haha!) and Reagan for example.
Snide remarks don't prove anything. Military leadership does not = compassion and justice.

You still have this problem.

The revolution must be violent. That is very clear. That is the Marxist theory. If the revolution is going to be violent, then the people are violent. Your not going to get compassion and justice from violent people. So now what?
You forgot to read the other part of my post then.
What are you talking about? MY US President? If you live on the border, then they are YOUR presidents too.

Either way you got violent people don't you? The revolution is going to be violent. That is the communist theory.

Why don't you read your post again. See if it makes sense to YOU too. If it doesn't then why should it make sense to me?
I will never concider such nefarious scum that support the party that voted against the Civil Rights Act democratic, or even human. They are not my president and I laugh at their miseries.

Lets look at this though. They were killers in war, and apparently you support their actions as "peacemakers" and "mother teresas". [/b]
So then where or who is "There are some of both".

Who are these people who are 'both'. Who are these people who are violent and effective leaders, and then also just and compassionate?

Where are they? None of these people who have these 'both' qualities have every established any kind of socialism that is workable and stable.

What you got are just thugs who start revolutions. They are not compassionate intellectuals.