Right to bear arms, for or against?

[Matt_from_California]

What is your opinion on the public owning firearms? Do you think that people in general can be responsible enough to safely handle and use guns? Do you think there should be strict control over them? Lax control over them? Or do you think they should be banned completly and that only the government should be allowed to possess them?

[theraven]

my view on guns:

it is a right eveery american should have. i believe firmly that we should revamp our education system and that all male citizens shoudl be part of a local milita in which they are trained in the proper use, handling and safety of fire arms, as well as the abitly to use them in the common defense. all citizesn would therefore have standard military equitment of his own, however only hand guns may be openly carried in public except in times in which your milita is being called out.

basicly some varatin of the swiss system.

[KC]

Arm the workers.

[Zingu]

We don't need no stinking politician or law telling us if we can do this or not.

We'll decide if we want to bear arms or not. Its called self-determination.






And, yes, arm the proles.

[VonClausewitz]

I'm for it, but with certain conditions -

Legally, no guns are allowed to be owned by the mentally unstable, children, people likely to play at che guevara, religious fanatics of any type, the police forces, except obviously for special response teams, anyone with a criminal record for violent/robbery crimes. (And then, in the case of police, not assault rifles and rocket launchers and all manner of artillery like the american police forces. the odd longrifle and SMG is good enough.)

This way, the best part of a country's armed abilities are kept where it's supposed to be - in the hands of trained professionals, soldiers, sailors, airmen, special constables.

[chaval]

i think it is my inaliable right as a human being to own an M-60 and an RPG; mankind's glorious inventions

[encephalon]

The first step towards controlling anyone is to take away their ability to fight back.

[Horatii]

i think it is my inaliable right as a human being to own an M-60 and an RPG; mankind's glorious inventions

It's interesting that instead of attempting to correct social dysfunctions, we as the human race have merely invented more efficient ways to kill each other!



What is your opinion on the public owning firearms? Do you think that people in general can be responsible enough to safely handle and use guns? Do you think there should be strict control over them? Lax control over them? Or do you think they should be banned completly and that only the government should be allowed to possess them?

I think the founding fathers of America (bourgoise revolutionaries or not...) would have gawked at the idea that firearms would or could become illegal. Though they had little or no knowledge of the destructive capabilities of modern machinery, the inability to fight "injustice" in shapes and forms would have made them gawk!

Before anyone jumps on the Stormfront bandwagon, I realize that the founding fathers were Bourgoise slave-owners. However, I think their adovcation and subsequent use of firearms against what they viewed as an illegitemate authority shows their relatively progressive nature.

Removing firearms from citizens is merely a method of power consolidatation and should be rights to kill and die for.

[red team]

You can kill people if you collect enough sea water. Simply separate the Chlorine from the Sodium and you got the weapon of choice for anti-infantry in WW 1.

[overlord]

commies love guns, under the following conditions:

1)they are all the same gun
2)all mititias are appointed commisars and thus are under state control

Kinda defeats the purpose?

[patrickbeverley]

Against.

What the hell gives people the right to end each others' lives? Alright, murder is illegal, but having a law against killing and then allowing people to freely own guns is like having a law against taking drugs but allowing people to buy all the coke they want. If you want the citizens of your country not killing each other, how about you start by making it a little harder for them to do it?

Note the avatar, by the way, I am a pacifist in most situations, and may I say, for the record, that I support not only Nuclear Disarmament but total disarmament - all firearms should be destroyed with all deliberate speed.

[Delirium]

Everyone should be armed and trained in the use of modern firearms. The working class must be able to defend itself.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:30 PM
Against.

What the hell gives people the right to end each others' lives? Alright, murder is illegal, but having a law against killing and then allowing people to freely own guns is like having a law against taking drugs but allowing people to buy all the coke they want. If you want the citizens of your country not killing each other, how about you start by making it a little harder for them to do it?

Note the avatar, by the way, I am a pacifist in most situations, and may I say, for the record, that I support not only Nuclear Disarmament but total disarmament - all firearms should be destroyed with all deliberate speed.
becase we all know war and violince didn't exist pre gun poer :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:54 AM
i believe firmly that we should revamp our education system and that all male citizens shoudl be part of a local milita in which they are trained in the proper use, handling and safety of fire arms
Why only male?


If every worker, both male and female, had a gun and knew how to use it, the ruling classes would not be as quick to exploit them.

[theraven]

Originally posted by xphile2868+Apr 20 2006, 02:35 PM--> (xphile2868 @ Apr 20 2006, 02:35 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 04:54 AM
i believe firmly that we should revamp our education system and that all male citizens shoudl be part of a local milita in which they are trained in the proper use, handling and safety of fire arms
Why only male?


If every worker, both male and female, had a gun and knew how to use it, the ruling classes would not be as quick to exploit them. [/b]
because historically males made up the military. I wouldn't really be opposed to a parellele female group, but i am not a fan of a co-ed military.

[Dark Exodus]

I support the right to gun ownership.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:50 PM
commies love guns, under the following conditions:

1)they are all the same gun
2)all mititias are appointed commisars and thus are under state control

Kinda defeats the purpose?

Stop trolling.

[LoneRed]

when the capitalists attack us, we should be able to fight back. thats whether or not they ALLOW us to arm ourselves

[encephalon]

What the hell gives people the right to end each others' lives? Alright, murder is illegal, but having a law against killing and then allowing people to freely own guns is like having a law against taking drugs but allowing people to buy all the coke they want. If you want the citizens of your country not killing each other, how about you start by making it a little harder for them to do it?


Not quite the same thing. Ot at all. Do you expect a person to liberate himself or herself with sweet talk? Shall we "buy our freedom" like the russian serfs were supposed to do? Do you think the slaves would have been freed with peace rallies? The question isn't whether guns are good or bads; the question is who's willing to use them to assert their position in society--or change it.


Note the avatar, by the way, I am a pacifist in most situations, and may I say, for the record, that I support not only Nuclear Disarmament but total disarmament - all firearms should be destroyed with all deliberate speed.

I'm sure most bourgeoisie governments will agree with you. That is, until the people are disarmed.

[RedAnarchist]

Pacifism is nothing but a fluffy, liberal concept. You cannot defeat capitalism by simple words. The capitalist would love us to be nothing more than a "loud voice", but if we have weapons, we become a real threat to capitalism and have a much better chance of ridding the world of them.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

listen, i think we are all pretty liberal when it comes to rights of the people, but to what extent? i do think everyone should be entitled to do whatever the fuck they want and suffer the consequences if they do something "wrong", but i also believe there should be restrictions on the rights of society as a whole, because sure some guy here said anyone should own an RPG ( :lol: ) which is ok anyone should have it if they want it, but god i hope your a sane person, because i surely don't want that in the hands of some wacko ass people, but yet again if you think people should own an RPG if they wanted to what else do you think they should own? a tank?an apache helicopter?a spaceshuttle? :rolleyes:

[red team]

Small arms or even high explosives isn't going to do you any good against the power of the organized security forces of the state. You'll die with your assault rifle in hand while nerve gas from a chemical shell seeps through your skin.

[TC]

Its useful to have workers armed in indepedent militias so that they can keep the government in check and to reduce the risk of both military coups and invasion as in Cuba and Venezuela and the DPRK. That helps to create a climate that ensures that the state's professional forces are inferior to the general workering class forces so as to prevent counter-revolution from above (as in the Soviet Union) and it empowers people.

Whats not useful is having a bunch of individual, mostly rightwing and criminal elements having personal weapons. That just cultivates a macho, anti-social political climate.

[cyu]

i am not a fan of a co-ed military

Just curious, why not? What about gays in the military?

[RevMARKSman]

I'd have to say yes to arms, because if anything goes wrong, people have the right to defend themselves. Otherwise, the government could take over and make a good communist nation into a dictatorship. Again, to keep people from becoming masochistic (or paranoid, depending on what kind of person you are), this society should be built on trust--trusting in each other, living for each other, working for the benefit of the world rather than ourselves while still maintaining our own beliefs and rights as people (namely to vote in a democratic system and to choose whatever occupation and education we want).

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:50 PM

i am not a fan of a co-ed military

Just curious, why not? What about gays in the military?
becuase men and women have sexual tension. this does not make for good bonding of a unit. same with gays. gays its a bit more debatble, but simply put its better for a unit that theres no sexual tension, no competiotn for attraction..

[TC]

lol so would it be okay to mix men and women in military units if they were all married or all ugly?


Communist forces have consistently used mixed sex militaries for a century, clearly its not a disadvantage.

[red team]

Oh come on! I thought you libertarian survivalists are all macho individualist Rambos! :lol:

Triumph of the will and all that crap! :lol:

Some iron discipline you "tough" guys have when you can't even control your own dicks! :lol:

[theraven]

lol so would it be okay to mix men and women in military units if they were all married or all ugly?

no, unless they were all asexual


Communist forces have consistently used mixed sex militaries for a century, clearly its not a disadvantage.

evidence?


Oh come on! I thought you libertarian survivalists are all macho individualist Rambos! laugh.gif

Triumph of the will and all that crap! laugh.gif

Some iron discipline you "tough" guys have when you can't even control your own dicks! laugh.gif

no your thinkiing of facists perhaps.

[вор в законе]

It depends on who carries the gun.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 20 2006, 07:09 PM
Small arms or even high explosives isn't going to do you any good against the power of the organized security forces of the state. You'll die with your assault rifle in hand while nerve gas from a chemical shell seeps through your skin.
Exactly.

[encephalon]

i build nukes in my basement.. and I don't even have a basement! And thus, my relation to Iraq is sealed.

[encephalon]

capitalists can't nuke workers, in any case. Then they would have to work.

[encephalon]

becuase men and women have sexual tension. this does not make for good bonding of a unit. same with gays. gays its a bit more debatble, but simply put its better for a unit that theres no sexual tension, no competiotn for attraction..

I'm straight, but I have sex with men on a regular basis.

[VonClausewitz]

capitalists can't nuke workers, in any case. Then they would have to work.

I just have to go OT to say that that is The Single Most Stupid Thing I've heard all week.

With regards to mixed sex armies; it's historically been all male, but since when has history been the best thing to judge things by ? Mixed armies work insofar as all the different needs of women are incorporated into the existing systems that are made to be efficient for men. This is why in most advanced armies, women are kept out of frontline units - not because it's sexist and evil, but because the systems don't exist to support the different gender (medical needs etc). If you can reliably set up those kinds of logistics and other bits, then fine, mixed-sex armies could be a possibility.

[вор в законе]

I just have to go OT to say that that is The Single Most Stupid Thing I've heard all week.

encephalon is absolutely correct. The capitalists wont use nukes against the proletarian during a revolution because they will :

a) lose their workforce
b) lose their Capital (factories, buildings, infrastructure)

[VonClausewitz]

A capitalist can be a part of the workforce aswell, is what I was thinking. It's an economic view, not a separate race. If you mean that government is unlikely to nuke rebels in their own country, then you are of course correct. The 'capitalists' are more likely to use smaller things against you though - Tanks, Artillery, Aerial bombardment.

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

What the hell gives people the right to end each others' lives?
Why gives you the right to end someone else's life? Someone trying to end yours.

If you want the citizens of your country not killing each other, how about you start by making it a little harder for them to do it?
Making guns illegal will stop people killing each other. Like the war on drugs ended all drug abuse.
LoneRed

when the capitalists attack us, we should be able to fight back. thats whether or not they ALLOW us to arm ourselves
Fair enough, but what do you define as an "attack"? I've seen all sorts of dubious definitions here.
xphile2868

The capitalist would love us to be nothing more than a "loud voice", but if we have weapons, we become a real threat to capitalism and have a much better chance of ridding the world of them.
The majority of you would be a threat to pretty much everyone- including each other.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:53 AM

becuase men and women have sexual tension. this does not make for good bonding of a unit. same with gays. gays its a bit more debatble, but simply put its better for a unit that theres no sexual tension, no competiotn for attraction..

I'm straight, but I have sex with men on a regular basis.
that would make you bi



With regards to mixed sex armies; it's historically been all male, but since when has history been the best thing to judge things by ? Mixed armies work insofar as all the different needs of women are incorporated into the existing systems that are made to be efficient for men. This is why in most advanced armies, women are kept out of frontline units - not because it's sexist and evil, but because the systems don't exist to support the different gender (medical needs etc). If you can reliably set up those kinds of logistics and other bits, then fine, mixed-sex armies could be a possibility.


thats of cours a seperate issue, however my probelm would be more with unit cohesiveness and just the whole added demisnion that sexual tension causes.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I'm straight, but I have sex with men on a regular basis.


that would make you bi

lmao, yeah that would make him bisexual, lmao funny the way he puts it, im str8 but i have sex with man, ahhahaha

anyway, iv been kinda out of this thread so whats this all i hear about woman and men in the army or something, woman don't serve as soldiers sorry, it's just how it is, it's nature, im sure there are a couple of tough in hormone excess woman out there, but that's sureley not even 1 % of the female population, so men are for war, sometimes things are only naturally meant for one kind, and war rightfully so belongs to men...we live in a time where equality of the sexes is more and more acceptable and i agree with it, but i think it should have it's limit..and soldiers etc should be one of them.. physically you can't compare a woman to a man, even like i said a tough "in hormonal excess" female ...

[Craig]

It is the right of all human beings to have access to all necessary tools of self-defense.

No further discussion is needed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have absolutely no problem with sane upstanding individuals posessing firearms.


anyway, iv been kinda out of this thread so whats this all i hear about woman and men in the army or something, woman don't serve as soldiers sorry, it's just how it is, it's nature,

Tell me, have you ever heard of an Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html) fallacy or an Appeal to Nature (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html) fallacy?


im sure there are a couple of tough in hormone excess woman out there, but that's sureley not even 1 % of the female population, so men are for war, sometimes things are only naturally meant for one kind, and war rightfully so belongs to men...

Bullshit. There is nothing inherent to female physiology that prevents them from being effective fighters. The idea of females as peaceful motherly types is a cultural phenomenon.


we live in a time where equality of the sexes is more and more acceptable and i agree with it, but i think it should have it's limit..and soldiers etc should be one of them.. physically you can't compare a woman to a man, even like i said a tough "in hormonal excess" female ...

You still haven't demonstrated why females can't be as good soldiers as men.

[red team]

There is absolutely no reason why women could not be trained to be as physically and mentally tough as men.

As an example from ancient civilization, I present to you the most liberal state in regards to women before industrialization.

The women of Sparta were no weenies: Sparta (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM)


Paradoxically, this soldier-centered state was the most liberal state in regards to the status of women. While women did not go through military training, they were required to be educated along similar lines. The Spartans were the only Greeks not only to take seriously the education of women, they instituted it as state policy. This was not, however, an academic education (just as the education of males was not an academic education); it was a physical education which could be grueling. Infant girls were also exposed to die if they were judged to be weak; they were later subject to physical and gymnastics training.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 22 2006, 03:21 AM
There is absolutely no reason why women could not be trained to be as physically and mentally tough as men.

As an example from ancient civilization, I present to you the most liberal state in regards to women before industrialization.

The women of Sparta were no weenies: Sparta (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM)


Paradoxically, this soldier-centered state was the most liberal state in regards to the status of women. While women did not go through military training, they were required to be educated along similar lines. The Spartans were the only Greeks not only to take seriously the education of women, they instituted it as state policy. This was not, however, an academic education (just as the education of males was not an academic education); it was a physical education which could be grueling. Infant girls were also exposed to die if they were judged to be weak; they were later subject to physical and gymnastics training.
right, and I have no probelm with women being trained in the military. my probelm is with mixed units and so on. the spartan men were the soliders, their women were trained to be able to fight if they ahd to while the men were away.

[OkaCrisis]

Ideally, there would be no guns.

Since we certainly do not live in an ideal society, and restrictions to gun ownership necessarily create a class divide, that divide should be abolished. All people should own a gun. Period.

Or, perhaps as NoXion put it, "sane, upstanding individuals". But then, who's to decide?

[red team]

:P You might as well have the right to own surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank missiles, land mines, grenades, plastic explosives and RPGs while your at it because that's what it will take to arm a guerilla army (or militia for you right-wingnuts). I don't think any of these items will be legal anytime soon. Care to wonder why? Any nut case (including religious terrorists with a grudge) with an axe to grind could use an anti-aircraft missile to blow something out of the sky.

Furthermore, these weapons aren't hard to get when the situation calls for it. When society reaches a crisis situation and the populace starts revolting, they can simply raid the army depots. Nevermind, that by that time the entire society would be in revolt including the army and police. The armed forces of the state isn't immune to political splits. In an advanced industrial country, you're better off relying on the political split of the state armed forces than relying on disorganized small teams of non-professionals with small arms.

Wars, including revolutions and civil wars aren't won by simply force of arms. The political situation affecting the support and morale of the respective combatants also comes into play.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ideally, there would be no guns.

And it would also rain rose petals and dogs would piss lemonade. But we live in the real world.


Or, perhaps as NoXion put it, "sane, upstanding individuals". But then, who's to decide?

The community as a whole decides the standards which one must meet in order to own firearms.