Guns in the USA.

[Andy Bowden]

What are peoples views on gun ownership in the USA?

I believe there is no reason why, in a first-world country, which has the most powerful army in the history of humanity there is a need for guns held in houses to protect the citizens of the USA from outside invasion.

There is an argument though that gun ownership should be kept in order to defend yourself from a possible tyrannical govt - but wouldn't the best idea here to have an organised millitia, independent from govt hold the guns - so not letting nutcases carry out another Columbine again, while securing a means to defend the people from any possible tyrannical govt?

[Publius]

You need to train with guns if you plan on revolting and hitting anything.

You would let the prime murderer of the 20th century, the state, take away the means to defend yourself from it?

Would you give a gun to your would-be murderer 'for your own safety"?

[Andy Bowden]

you would let the prime murderer of the 20th century, the state , take away the means to defend yourself from it?

No, have an organised millitia which is independent from the state. One of the principles Marx put forward for Socialism was a workers' millitia, democratically run by the workers themselves instead of a standing army.

How exactly can you defend yourself from the state, which has a powerful military machine at it's disposal if you are not in an organisation of some kind?

[C_Rasmussen]

I think its alright to own a gun but only in your own home for your own protection from criminals. If you call the cops that would be a bad idea because A. the cops take quite a while to get to your house and B. when the criminal gets out he'll be out for you so a gun is the best way to go about it IMO.

[Andy Bowden]

I've heard Americans say gun ownership is good because they can use it to defend themselves from criminals - but criminals can buy guns too!

This makes it much easier for violent crime to be carried out, compared to countries with little or no guns.

[C_Rasmussen]

Err well the way I see it is domestic crimes (like theft and such not spousal abuse) would go down due to the fact that people that want to commit crimes would be a bit wary for they would think that maybe whoever they were planning to rob might have a gun.

[Bannockburn]

There is an argument though that gun ownership should be kept in order to defend yourself from a possible tyrannical govt - but wouldn't the best idea here to have an organised millitia, independent from govt hold the guns - so not letting nutcases carry out another Columbine again, while securing a means to defend the people from any possible tyrannical govt?

That is an argument, that the right of gun ownership is the protection not so much from external invasion, but from internal corruption, and occupation i.e. the government. Now, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it but Hobbes Leviathan – the pretext to the modern state gain a monopoly of the military. Granted this was recognized by the American founding fathers that gave them the right of organized militia to revolt. Implicitly there are independent militia out in the United States – it’s called the citizenry.


How exactly can you defend yourself from the state, which has a powerful military machine at it's disposal if you are not in an organisation of some kind

This is a good question – something that needs to be answered. A lot of literature has a romantic ideal of revolution. The people will become enlightened and take their lives back in the spirit of self-sufficiency and cooperation. This will of course be against a modern technologically advanced military. The question remains, in the case of the United States is 300 million lives able to stop the United States military? I don’t know about you – I do know how to shoot a gun, but I have no idea how to stop a tank rolling down the street.


I've heard Americans say gun ownership is good because they can use it to defend themselves from criminals - but criminals can buy guns too!

This makes it much easier for violent crime to be carried out, compared to countries with little or no guns.

This is garbage for the most part. Criminals can’t buy guns legally, but they certainly can get there hands on them. However, with US crime rate, very little of it is due to guns, and if it is – its hand guns. Moreover, if you take the weight of the amount and supply of guns in the United States compared to gun use with violent crime its such a low number that its on par per capita with countries that are culturally and socially comparable to them – Canada for example.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 23 2005, 07:25 PM
I've heard Americans say gun ownership is good because they can use it to defend themselves from criminals - but criminals can buy guns too!

This makes it much easier for violent crime to be carried out, compared to countries with little or no guns.
This falsely assumes that banning guns will prevent criminals from getting them. It doesn't. They can be bought on the black market. They can be made at home.

[YKTMX]

I don't actually think that "banning" guns would actually immediately reduce gun deaths in the US. If you look at countries that have the most murders, then there is a close correlation with economic inequality. Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, the U.S. What do they all have in common? Weak welfare states and high levels of economic inequality. The fact that the U.S. is a highly racist society doesn't help either.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:21 PM
I don't actually think that "banning" guns would actually immediately reduce gun deaths in the US. If you look at countries that have the most murders, then there is a close correlation with economic inequality. Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, the U.S. What do they all have in common? Weak welfare states and high levels of economic inequality. The fact that the U.S. is a highly racist society doesn't help either.
True and the part about the US being racist hold true only in the Bible Belt states in the south where the KKK resides.

[YKTMX]

Of course "overt" racism is worse in the South but it would be a mistake to discount large scale "structural" racism in the rest of the country.

Note the recent patterns of "reverse migration", whereby African Americans move back to the south from the north, apparently fleeing the racism and crime of the north.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:31 PM
Of course "overt" racism is worse in the South but it would be a mistake to discount large scale "structural" racism in the rest of the country.

Note the recent patterns of "reverse migration", whereby African Americans move back to the south from the north, apparently fleeing the racism and crime of the north.
I haven't really been paying much attention to it but I can see why maybe they're leaving. Its probably MAINLY due to the crime (and a small part due to racism) in the big cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, Detroit and other places.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:21 PM
What do they all have in common? Weak welfare states and high levels of economic inequality.
You mean givng people different salaries causes them to go around shooting each other ?

As for the welfare state, I'm not surprised it's presence reduces crime; the government does all the stealing for them.

[YKTMX]

You mean givng people different salaries causes them to go around shooting each other ?


Not really. The point is that in countries with good welfare states (France, Germany, Sweden etc) you can be poor but non-violent.

The paucity of social provision in the U.S. means the poor and excluded are forced to crime, which means you get thousands of drug murder every year.


I'm not surprised it's presence reduces crime; the government does all the stealing for them.

Good.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:31 PM

I'm not surprised it's presence reduces crime; the government does all the stealing for them.

Good.
Open advocate of theft ?

I love an honest man.

[YKTMX]

Theft happens everytime a worker get his paycheck - it's a daily occurence.

I'd like to see some REAL thieving.

[Publius]

Theft happens everytime a worker get his paycheck - it's a daily occurence.

I'd like to see some REAL thieving.

It can't be theft if you agree to it.

If I give you something, or sell you something, I can make no claim that you stole it from me.

Actually I could, but I would be wrong.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:52 AM
You need to train with guns if you plan on revolting and hitting anything.

You would let the prime murderer of the 20th century, the state, take away the means to defend yourself from it?

Would you give a gun to your would-be murderer 'for your own safety"?
You never answered the question.

Quit pretending you support the revolution and voice your mind for once.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:47 PM





You never answered the question.

Quit pretending you support the revolution and voice your mind for once.

Alright.

I support a liberalization of gun laws. All except children, convicted criminals, and the mentally unfit should be able to purchase them as they see fit.

Voluntary registration, voluntary training, but private citizens can decide whether or not they want guns on their premisis.

Strict enforcement of gun laws, in regards to negligance.

I don't particularly want more guns on the streets, but the government has no say in that matter.

If people don't want guns in the streets, they won't buy guns or move to and shop from areas that don't allow them.

People could live in privately owned communities that banned guns, if that made them feel better.

I really don't think there would be a drastic change if these policies were inacted.

Most people still wouldn't use guns, crime would remain largely the same, and their effects would be minimal.

But it's an issue of rights.

[Clarksist]

Guns should be allowed to the people. If you have a history of mental illness, then no. But if you prove to not be a potential murderer... then yeah you should have a gun.

What are we gonna strike the government with? Wrenches?

[Stoker]

In my humble opinion Michael Moore was right on target when he strongly suggested or identified "FEAR" as being the root of the issues surrounding weapons and the U$ psyche in Bowling for Columbine. The U$ is a trigger happy nation, they not only drool over bombing the shit out of nations such as Iraq to maintain their glutinous and power hungry life style but also take, rape and steal from their own to accomplish this american dream. Guns are as natural to the U$ people as taking a good piss the morning after sucking back a dozen coors lite at a local NRA rally. Banning or controlling guns would be like asking them to NOT eat fast food any more. Not going to happen! It's part of the american dream to keep and bare arms. Until the american people realize they can co-exist with all nations on this planet without having to kill or dominate to obtain success, nothing will change.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I maintain the right to bare arms. *Rolls up sleeves*

Seriously, there is no reason why sane law-abiding citizens should not be allowed firearms.

Those pussified liberals who are against guns can go suck it.

[red_orchestra]

In canada it is totally illegal to have guns for personal protection! However, you can own a firearm..
My belief is that bill C68 (that makes certain guns illegal) is a waste of time and money as it gets rid of all the really nice ones (AK's, autos, FNFAL types). Gun related murders are few between in this country.
Remember, the root of the problem with guns in the US isn't the guns themselves...it is a culture of hatred that causes the problem. Anyone can own an AK47 that is fully automatic...but by itself the gun mearly a tool. And if that tool get into the hands of an artist then it is a thing of beauty, but if a criminal decides to use it...then it is a devistating weapon.

Michael Moore is also a shooter, he isn't antigun as he is reallistic with his approach to guns and gun safety.

[dopediana]

this is always a really weird issue to sort out. on worldly terms, having a gun at one's disposal makes it really easy for it to get out there and stir the shit. yet, not having a gun can leave a person a little helpless, especially if the situation involves a war-torn area/third world country. of course, circumstancially speaking, if you live in the US chances are you don't really need a gun. it's not like there's a local militia in every area that's getting ready to rise up against the govt. this is such a subversive land, so my verdict for america is to make it impossible for others to use your own personal firearm and to run really strict background checks on who wants to own a gun. but when the time comes, "kill a nazi, can't be choosy, pick your guns, i'll use my uzi."

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:24 PM
but when the time comes, "kill a nazi, can't be choosy, pick your guns, i'll use my uzi."
Uh, where from ? Nazis are usually big fans of gun-grabbing.

[LSD]

Uh, where from ? Nazis are usually big fans of gun-grabbing.

You shoot them before they get into power.

DUH!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:33 PM

Theft happens everytime a worker get his paycheck - it's a daily occurence.

I'd like to see some REAL thieving.

It can't be theft if you agree to it.

If I give you something, or sell you something, I can make no claim that you stole it from me.

Actually I could, but I would be wrong.
Well there is a choice, just heavily influenced. Choose to take less than what your work is worth and keep your job and out of shit with the tax-man, or lose your job and be in shit.

If someone is robbing you, but you hand something over instead of being shot, you didn't just "give" it, it was stolen. There is a choice I concede, however when the alternatives are more unpleasant than simply giving in people will.


The idea of restricting guns has many of the same problems of restricting nuclear weapons. If the bad guys have them you want them. Only everyone is a bad guy from a certain point of view, and no-one wants to leave themselves without.

Although you can get handguns in the U.K. (illeagally), they are not used nearly as much as before the snowflake appeal. Maybe this won't work for the above stated problem in the U.S. because the problem is far more entrenched there, but I don't think relaxing regulations will help at all.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 12:17 AM
You shoot them before they get into power.
That's generally referred to as :

A) Murder

B) sinking to their level.

[LSD]

A) Murder

Self-defence.

If Nazis are trying to take over your country you are more than justified in stopping them by any means nescessary.


B) sinking to their level.

Say WHAT?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pre-emptive offence can not be called self defense. It may be required or neccesary, but it ain't right.

[LSD]

It may be required or neccesary, but it ain't right.

If it's "required or nescessary" then, by definition, it's right.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 01:45 PM

It may be required or neccesary, but it ain't right.

If it's "required or nescessary" then, by definition, it's right.
I disagree there. Of course if you only killed the "bad people" it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but these things are not straightfoward, and as evil as as the nazis might be, you can't carry out genocide on them. There has to be a better way, not that I am saying I know what it is.

[LSD]

as evil as as the nazis might be, you can't carry out genocide on them.

Genocide is defined as the extermination of a people, not the killing of political ideologues.

It's definitionally impossible to "commit genocide on Nazis". Nazis are not a "people".


There has to be a better way, not that I am saying I know what it is.

Well, that's the point isn't it?

We all wish there was another way. But if Nazis are on the verge of power, do you really have a choice?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 02:09 PM

as evil as as the nazis might be, you can't carry out genocide on them.

Genocide is defined as the extermination of a people, not the killing of political ideologues.
Political ideologues are people too.

You could just imagine a nazi's response : "We didn't kill people, only Jews and Bolsheviks."


It's definitionally impossible to "commit genocide on Nazis". Nazis are not a "people".

Yes, they are. As are communists.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 01:29 PM
Self-defence.

If Nazis are trying to take over your country you are more than justified in stopping them by any means nescessary.


Does this mean I'm justified in stopping every communist by any means necessary ? You're trying to take over the country too, after all and you do adovcate the initiation of force, just like the nazis.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 29 2005, 07:16 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 29 2005, 07:16 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 01:29 PM
Self-defence.

If Nazis are trying to take over your country you are more than justified in stopping them by any means nescessary.


Does this mean I'm justified in stopping every communist by any means necessary ? You're trying to take over the country too, after all and you do adovcate the initiation of force, just like the nazis. [/b]
That is the point I was trying to make. Think back to early politics lessons, anyone ever get taught left/right wing differences on a wheel? At the top the extremes of each meet and are supposed to be the same? It was taught that fascism and communism are essentially the same up until universtity level over here. That is as far as many people's education goes. The attitude we have is what is also holding us back.

Not all of us advocate violence

[Le Libérer]

I believe the US will be smitten. It wont be thru wmds, it will be economically. Put the hurt on where it the hurt is. Money and Oil. I read somewhere recently that China is trying to buy US oil companies now. Gates has converted his assests to Euro. Watch the giant fall. Good riddance.

But getting back to the gun issue, I love what Edie Izzard says about guns. I love it so much its in my signature. You go Eddie.

[LSD]

Does this mean I'm justified in stopping every communist by any means necessary ?

No.


You're trying to take over the country too, after all and you do adovcate the initiation of force, just like the nazis.

That's your definition, not ours.

But you're right, a communist revolution would be "bad news" for you and your fellow capitalist exploiters.

I imagine that when a revolution seems near, many communists will indeed be "gunned down" in the streets.

[Guerrilla22]

The US government loves guns because dark skinned people use them to kill each other.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:45 AM
The US government loves guns because dark skinned people use them to kill each other.
So do light skinned people. Don't be racist.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm not being racist. It's the truth, the US government makes sure they flood the inner city with inexpensive handguns so that the "undesirables" will off each other.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Proof?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:53 AM
I'm not being racist. It's the truth, the US government makes sure they flood the inner city with inexpensive handguns so that the "undesirables" will off each other.
It that the reason for the bans on "saturday night specials" ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 03:25 AM
That's your definition, not ours.

But you're right, a communist revolution would be "bad news" for you and your fellow capitalist exploiters.


You're kidding, right ? You've admitted your intentions in explicit detail (i.e. that "coercion" quote of yours has been immortalised in my signature).


I imagine that when a revolution seems near, many communists will indeed be "gunned down" in the streets.

We shoot thieves who try to steal our property, why shouldn't communists with similar intentions get the same treatment ?

[LSD]

We shoot thieves who try to steal our property, why shouldn't communists with similar intentions get the same treatment ?

Again, I'm sure you'll try. That's how it works whenever there's a major social upheavel. The benneficiaries of the old order desperately try to prevent the change. Often they kill to preserve it.

I expect nothing different from capitalism.


You're kidding, right ? You've admitted your intentions in explicit detail (i.e. that "coercion" quote of yours has been immortalised in my signature).

You're a moron if you really think that any society can exist entirely free of coercion.

Certainly capitalism doesn't fit that bill!

Communism is a voluntary society in which many interact and share and make collective decisions with no regard to antiquated pseudo-religious notions of "property" and "capital".

I would contend that it is less coercive than capitalism, but every society is coercive. It has to be, otherwise you have complete chaos.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 08:36 PM
Again, I'm sure you'll try. That's how it works whenever there's a major social upheavel. The benneficiaries of the old order desperately try to prevent the change. Often they kill to preserve it.

I expect nothing different from capitalism.


You're admitting that you're a thief, then ?


You're a moron if you really think that any society can exist entirely free of coercion. Certainly capitalism doesn't fit that bill!

Sorry, but "I have to work or starve, therefore I'm coerced" isn't coercion, as reality offers you no alternative. Even if you do set up a system that offers a "right to food", someone must still produce it, or you'll starve. I have suggested that no one should be entitled to the work of others without their consent, but you believe they should. By doing so, you are recommending slavery, which is coercive.


Communism is a voluntary society

Violent Revolutions ? Property siezure ? It doesn't sound very voluntary to me.


in which many interact and share and make collective decisions with no regard to antiquated pseudo-religious notions of "property" and "capital".

Or "consent" either, by the looks of things.

[LSD]

I have suggested that no one should be entitled to the work of others without their consent, but you believe they should.

Honestly, are you just being obtuse for the sake of it?

Why do you insist on assuming a lack of consent?

Since any communist society is predicated on a strong majority wanting it to work, by definition they are consenting to allow their work to be used by others.

If someone doesn't want to participate, they can get the hell out. But the point is that they will soon realize that communism actually offers them more than alternative models and so will voluntarily consent to participate.


Violent Revolutions ?

The revolution is different from communist society itself.

The revolution is to destroy the present social order. It is, unfortunately, needed because the capitalists will not give up without a fight. Believe me, if the capitalists were content to allow a peaceful revolution to occur, we'd be perfectly happy.


Property siezure ?

Damn right.

The present distribution of property is mainly based on accidents of history and luck of genetics. The rest is determined by luck, chance, and esoteric skills in exploitation.

Or are you honestly going to tell me that there's some "logic" to it! :lol:


It doesn't sound very voluntary to me

Once again, communism and communist revolution are two seperate things.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 10:22 AM
Why do you insist on assuming a lack of consent?

Since any communist society is predicated on a strong majority wanting it to work, by definition they are consenting to allow their work to be used by others.




Because you don't care about consent.

Hold on a minute- why don't you "get out" ? If people wanted to work voluntary for each other's benefit, then they could do that under capitalism. You would not allow me to practive capitalism under communism, however.


If someone doesn't want to participate, they can get the hell out. But the point is that they will soon realize that communism actually offers them more than alternative models and so will voluntarily consent to participate.

I doubt it. Even when socialism is bought in, it is usually accompanied by a mass-exodus of skilled labor.


Damn right.

The present distribution of property is mainly based on accidents of history and luck of genetics. The rest is determined by luck, chance, and esoteric skills in exploitation.

Was the paycheck you pick up last month earned by an "accident of history", "luck", "genetics", "esoteric skills" or "exploitation" ?


Once again, communism and communist revolution are two seperate things.

So I get my property siezed involuntarily, then I can "volunteer" to work with the people who siezed it or I can "get out" ?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 5 2005, 10:44 AM
Was the paycheck you pick up last month earned by an "accident of history", "luck", "genetics", "esoteric skills" or "exploitation" ?
The paycheck I picked up last week was definitley because of luck. If I wasn't lucky enough to live in the west, an hour of my work wouldn't almost get me a decent meal. Hell.... if i wasn't white i may not have got the job in the first place.

Don't tell my the paycheck was for my productive value! :lol:

I that case I should have been payed alot more.

[LSD]

If people wanted to work voluntary for each other's benefit, then they could do that under capitalism.

No they couldn't.

The bourgeois would never permit it in the long run, they would probably not even allow it to start in any serious way.

The system is so designed that you have to work for a profit, you have to "buy" commodities, tools, equipment, pay taxes, "buy" land, resources, labour....


Was the paycheck you pick up last month earned by an "accident of history", "luck", "genetics", "esoteric skills" or "exploitation" ?

We're talking about the distribution of serious property, not petty cash.

The paycheck I "picked up" was enough to get me by, not serious capital.


So I get my property siezed involuntarily, then I can "volunteer" to work with the people who siezed it or I can "get out" ?

Damn right.

Again, are you arguing that the present distribution of property is somehow "logical"? :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:01 PM
The paycheck I picked up last week was definitley because of luck. If I wasn't lucky enough to live in the west, an hour of my work wouldn't almost get me a decent meal.


It probably would, the meal would cost proportionally less.


Hell.... if i wasn't white i may not have got the job in the first place.

Stop changing the subject. Either you worked for the money or you didn't. You didn't get paid because you were "lucky".


Don't tell my the paycheck was for my productive value! :lol:

I that case I should have been payed alot more.

Then should work for someone who agrees.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 10:10 PM
No they couldn't.

The bourgeois would never permit it in the long run, they would probably not even allow it to start in any serious way.


Neither politicians or the so-called rich would have any say in it unless anyone was forced to join (you wouldn't be planning on doing that, would you ?), just like no-one bothered with the Twin Oaks commune.



Was the paycheck you pick up last month earned by an "accident of history", "luck", "genetics", "esoteric skills" or "exploitation" ?

We're talking about the distribution of serious property, not petty cash.

We're talking about property in general. The same rule applies regardless of the quantity or size.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 6 2005, 07:51 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 6 2005, 07:51 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 08:01 PM
The paycheck I picked up last week was definitley because of luck. If I wasn't lucky enough to live in the west, an hour of my work wouldn't almost get me a decent meal.


It probably would, the meal would cost proportionally less.


Hell.... if i wasn't white i may not have got the job in the first place.

Stop changing the subject. Either you worked for the money or you didn't. You didn't get paid because you were "lucky".


Don't tell my the paycheck was for my productive value! :lol:

I that case I should have been payed alot more.

Then should work for someone who agrees. [/b]
Ahahahahahahaha.


It probably would, the meal would cost proportionally less.

No it wouldn't. Rofl, you are so naive seriously. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be children at sweatshops don't you think?



Then should work for someone who agrees

:rolleyes:

[LSD]

Neither politicians or the so-called rich would have any say in it unless anyone was forced to join

You didn&#39;t even bother with <snip> this time. :P

Address my points&#33;

Cutting them out doesn&#39;t make them "disappear"&#33; :lol:


We&#39;re talking about property in general. The same rule applies regardless of the quantity or size.

No it doesn&#39;t.

Look, no one here&#39;s denying that the market exists. That if workers work a job, they get paid. It&#39;s how the system operates. It&#39;s the mechanism by which it forces workers to sell themselves.

But these petty payments are enough to get by, sometimes slightly more. But it&#39;s just a tool, it&#39;s not a serious role in property.

The distribution of property is still based on precisely those factors I listed.


Then should work for someone who agrees.

And when there is no such person?

[Publius]

The paycheck I picked up last week was definitley because of luck. If I wasn&#39;t lucky enough to live in the west, an hour of my work wouldn&#39;t almost get me a decent meal. Hell.... if i wasn&#39;t white i may not have got the job in the first place.

Don&#39;t tell my the paycheck was for my productive value&#33; :lol:

I that case I should have been payed alot more.

Since you and every other person who has ever worked in a capitalist system have produced something that someone else valued, I would say your paycheck was for productive value.

[Ultra-Violence]

I an American believe in gun ownership for one reason to overthrow the goverment. thats why the founding fathers(wich were all rich white slave owners) gaves us the right to arm our selves. so as soon as im old enogh im going to stock up and wiat for the revolution or kill little pink fiaries who are disciples of lord kromdore :P