The Revolution is Comming

[Bud Struggle]

The number one book on Amazon.com.

The Revolution: A Manifestio
By Ron Paul.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21uTrI2c%2BCL._AA_SL160_.jpg

It looks like the revolution is comming after all!

While I personally doubt that Libertarianism will take over America (let alone the world,) it's making a strong stand in America these days. Ron Paul didn't come close to becomming President, but his ideas are taking hold.

[Kami]

liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality

Unfortunately, Ron Paul forgets the latter.
That, and he's an isolationist arsehole. He even advocates withdrawal from the UN.

[Ultra-Violence]

Ron paul and his supporters are idiots nuff said

[RedAnarchist]

You can't have a revolution through parliamentary means, you can only have a reformation.

[Fedorov]

I think that the case of many with Ron Paul is that some ideas of his are interesting while a the others are ridiculous. I think its an easy way for American youth to label themselves rebels while still being "patriotic" and non-left. God forbid anyone is actually a commie.

[freakazoid]

That, and he's an isolationist arsehole. He even advocates withdrawal from the UN.

These are bad things? Yeah, the UN rocks, :rolleyes:

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

The Revolution is Comming

Quick, somebody get some tissues!

:blushing:

[JazzRemington]

The revolution is already here. Ron Paulites are forming gated communities and living their lives according to Ron Paul's teachings about staying on the gold standard and eliminating organized labor.

[Kami]

These are bad things? Yeah, the UN rocks, http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
It's not perfect, but it sure is better than the US having no one to answer to.
You're not telling me you actually advocate isolationism, are you? surely no one is quite that stupid.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

America's imperial interests exist independently of this or that international body.

The US was imperialist long before the setting up of the League of Nations, and would continue in that role as long as it remains a capitalist nation.

But I do agree with Kami; a US which has (at the very least) the most tiniest sense of responsibility to the international community is far better than a US which claims isolationism to rid itself of foreign criticism when conducting its imperialist acts.

[freakazoid]

You're not telling me you actually advocate isolationism, are you? surely no one is quite that stupid.

If my idea of what it means is correct then yes. Do you agree with the Iraq "war"?

[Kropotesta]

Ron Paul=LOL
nuff said.

[Kami]

If my idea of what it means is correct then yes. Do you agree with the Iraq "war"?
No. Do you agree with sitting back and letting Hitler invade europe? I do believe that was the result last time you tried this "isolationism" farce

[freakazoid]

No.

Well if you believe that isolationism is a farce then why not?


Do you agree with sitting back and letting Hitler invade europe? I do believe that was the result last time you tried this "isolationism" farce

1. Hitler and his allies was a clear and immediate danger to this country.
2. We were asked to help.
We didn't go, "This guy isn't good so lets go and invade them because we disagree with there policies."

[Kami]

Well if you believe that isolationism is a farce then why not?
Because it was the needless slaughter of thousands. what more reason do I need?

1. Hitler and his allies was a clear and immediate danger to this country.
2. We were asked to help.
We didn't go, "This guy isn't good so lets go and invade them because we disagree with there policies."
1. Shut it with your "this country". The internet isn't American, and neither are all its denizens.
2. Yes, you were asked to help. And you did. Thankfully ending your isolationism just in time.
As to america's habit of invasions; if not for international pressure, you guys'd probably be in Iran already.

[Vageli]

But I do agree with Kami; a US which has (at the very least) the most tiniest sense of responsibility to the international community is far better than a US which claims isolationism to rid itself of foreign criticism when conducting its imperialist acts.

While I am no proponent of isolationism myself, having an international community to answer to did absolutely nothing in terms of the Iraq War. The UN did NOT condone an invasion by the US military but the powers that be saw it fit nonetheless and the UN were left basically pointing to a big bully but having no power to do anything about it.

Getting out of the UN would be a benefit because it is essentially a powerless entity. It goes along with the Ron Paul mentality of dropping the non-essentials from government - dead weight, if you will.

[freakazoid]

Because it was the needless slaughter of thousands. what more reason do I need?

But clearly it was all for a good cause, because who is claiming that Saddam was really a good person? So those people didn't die in vain. How many civilians died while fighting Hitler?


1. Shut it with your "this country". The internet isn't American, and neither are all its denizens.

Yeah, the internet isn't American, and 2+2=4, so what is your point?


2. Yes, you were asked to help. And you did. Thankfully ending your isolationism just in time.

I don't know if it is isolationism seeing as how the whole part about him being a clear and immediate danger and being asked to help our allies. That and has America really been isolationist? Things like Vietnam and Iraq.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Quick, somebody get some tissues!

:blushing:



You beat me too it


( ho ho ho)

[pusher robot]

Because it was the needless slaughter of thousands. what more reason do I need?

1. Shut it with your "this country". The internet isn't American, and neither are all its denizens.
2. Yes, you were asked to help. And you did. Thankfully ending your isolationism just in time.
As to america's habit of invasions; if not for international pressure, you guys'd probably be in Iran already.

So: if the U.S. interferes with global events, it's being imperialist. If it doesn't interfere with global events, it's being isolationist. Sophistry. Just state your true opinion, which is that America is evil; nothing it does can be good.

[Kami]

So: if the U.S. interferes with global events, it's being imperialist. If it doesn't interfere with global events, it's being isolationist. Sophistry. Just state your true opinion, which is that America is evil; nothing it does can be good.
There's quite a difference between assisting a country that's being invaded (which isolationism would exclude) and invading a country of your own volition. Lack of isolationism does not automatically mean you have to invade anywhere; both are equally bad policies.
I don't think America is evil, any more than I think Britain, or Iraq is evil. It's done an awful lot of bad things recently, but that is the fault of the administration, not the country.

[pusher robot]

You're right, it's a false dichotomy. As an average American, I'm just tired of being heaped with abuse no matter what we do.

[Demogorgon]

So: if the U.S. interferes with global events, it's being imperialist. If it doesn't interfere with global events, it's being isolationist. Sophistry. Just state your true opinion, which is that America is evil; nothing it does can be good.

It is the manner of intervention that matters. Though talking about isolationism these days is a bit pointless. Were the US to adopt isolationism it wouldn't make much difference anyway because in a globalised economy you can't just cut off and America's economic strength would allow it to carry on more or less as before. Of course not invading other countries would certainly be an improvement regardless though one would wonder if a country like the United States could avoid throwing its weight around abroad if it wishes to keep itself top of the pile.

As for the manner of intervention abroad. There is good intervention and there is bad intervention. Providing aid to countries that require it: Good. Funding death squads: Bad. Opposing racist Governments: Good. Backing racist Governments: Bad. Cutting arms supply to countries who will obviously use them for genocide or foreign invasions: Good. Selling them these weapons: Bad. And so on.

[freakazoid]

How about toppling a horrible dictator?

[Jazzratt]

How about toppling a horrible dictator?

Well you've certainly sent that strawman hurtling to the ground. Your support for isolationism proves even further that your claim to be a leftist is just a pack of lies - we're internatonalists dumbfuck.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The United States cannot possibly be isolationist anymore now that it's integrated into the global economy. When you talk about "letting the chips fall where they may" in terms of military intervention, you're not talking about "isolationism". You're talking about "non-intervention".

And while people often bring up Adolph Hitler as a reason why nations sometimes need to intervene, it's conveniently overlooked that rampant militarism and a foreign policy of naked aggression throughout Europe was the root cause of World War One and therefore one of the root causes of the Nazis rise to power in the first place.

[freakazoid]

Well you've certainly sent that strawman hurtling to the ground.

What?


Your support for isolationism proves even further that your claim to be a leftist is just a pack of lies - we're internatonalists dumbfuck.

Just a pack of lies? I'm not the closet imperialist here, "dumbfuck". Hey look, I can cuss to, I am so cool. I'm supprised that you don't support the Iraq "war". Saddam clearly was not a good leader, and it is up to us ever so righteous people to come in and topple his government without being asked and to set up our own. How can you not support it? Saddam = bad, us = righteous. It is our duty to help others, whether it is asked for or not.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Because the war propagators were only making war to extract a profit? Because they lied to get this ball started? Because they're using the Iraqis under a puppet government? Because hundreds of thousands - possibly a million - died as a result of their occupation? Because the crux of Saddam's crimes had ended in the 1980s?

If you didn't know that I have to worry about where you're getting your information.

Non-interventionism is despicable. I support ending genocide. How about you?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The revolution is already here. Ron Paulites are forming gated communities and living their lives according to Ron Paul's teachings about staying on the gold standard and eliminating organized labor.

For external reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/usa

Isn't it amusing? Then again right-libertarians are all utopians. They need strong men like Pinochet to enforce their disastrous policies. Hey, look - it's the perceived Marxism of the right.:laugh:

[freakazoid]

If you didn't know that I have to worry about where you're getting your information.
I know that. But SURELY think of all the people we helped in Iraq.


Non-interventionism is despicable. I support ending genocide. How about you?
Yeah, I do. Didn't Saddam do things like that. Surely we helped so many peoples lives over there. Sure some people died but that is the cost of war. Sometimes in war people die, sometimes those people are civilians, that is the nature of war.

[Demant]

These are bad things? Yeah, the UN rocks, :rolleyes:
It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is the best organization this globe has ever hosted. Where would we be without it.

[pusher robot]

It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is the best organization this globe has ever hosted. Where would we be without it.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not!

[Demant]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not!
Then let me tell you. The reason I'm a socialist is not because I am poor, or because I feel more than a little sorry for the homeless in my own country. UN has done an impressive job for tens of millions of civilian refugees, has in some scale minored third-world-country-poverty and keeps trying make peace and democracy standard for all countries. That's more important than a few scandals. I would be thrilled to see UN get much more power. Sorry.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Non-interventionism is despicable. I support ending genocide. How about you?


Well, the problem as I see it with using the state as a method of ending genocide in foreign countries is that governments tend to be bankrupt when it comes to genuine altruism. When governments intervene in the affairs of other nations with guns blazing, they rarely (hell, IF EVER) go in to save innocent people from becoming unwilling participants in target practice. And even if they did, I bet they'd find other reasons to stick around. That's without even getting into the problems with ending the fundamental undercurrents of religious, ethnic, cultural, or any influences that perpetuate genocide at the point of a bayonnet.

I believe in ending genocide, as well. I'm just highly skeptical of the United States' ability to accomplish any lasting victory in this area, and I think that this skepticism is justified by looking at the last couple of decades.

[Dejavu]

Well, the problem as I see it with using the state as a method of ending genocide in foreign countries is that governments tend to be bankrupt when it comes to genuine altruism. When governments intervene in the affairs of other nations with guns blazing, they rarely (hell, IF EVER) go in to save innocent people from becoming unwilling participants in target practice. And even if they did, I bet they'd find other reasons to stick around. That's without even getting into the problems with ending the fundamental undercurrents of religious, ethnic, cultural, or any influences that perpetuate genocide at the point of a bayonnet.

I believe in ending genocide, as well. I'm just highly skeptical of the United States' ability to accomplish any lasting victory in this area, and I think that this skepticism is justified by looking at the last couple of decades.

X2. Well said!

[Dejavu]

A great counter to genocide or violent mass murders almost always perpetuated by states is allowing the populace to arm itself. In the 20th century alone, various states are responsible for the murder of nearly 200,000,000 people and often this was achieved by disarming the populace and allowing the state to direct gun distribution.

[Dejavu]

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v46/179/112/18402350/n18402350_30906066_6744.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v46/179/112/18402350/n18402350_30906068_7450.jpg
http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v46/179/112/18402350/n18402350_30906038_7991.jpg
http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v46/179/112/18402350/n18402350_30906156_526.jpg

[redSHARP]

cool posters. but ron paul is still a fucking cock. he has been found rubbing elbows with right wing groups! Also, the UN is not perfect, but it gives a country a voice. Unfortunetly the UN is very political and has problems, but to drop out completely is a great way for the US to look even worse.

[freakazoid]

Do you visit www.a-human-right.com (http://www.a-human-right.com) ?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_warningtoevil.jpg

[Dejavu]

cool posters. but ron paul is still a fucking cock. he has been found rubbing elbows with right wing groups! Also, the UN is not perfect, but it gives a country a voice. Unfortunetly the UN is very political and has problems, but to drop out completely is a great way for the US to look even worse.

Which groups are you talking about?
Actually renouncing membership to the UN would be a good move I think. It no longer obligates the U.S. to go war over U.N. mandates ( and eliminates one of the many manufactured excuses for going to war for U.S. politicians). It would also create a legitimacy blow to the U.N. itself which I feel is a good thing for the world in general. If anything , it could , perhaps , improve the U.S. reputation abroad.

[Dejavu]

Do you visit www.a-human-right.com (http://www.a-human-right.com) ?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_warningtoevil.jpg

I go there every now and then.

[freakazoid]

Thought some of the pictures looked familiar.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A great counter to genocide or violent mass murders almost always perpetuated by states is allowing the populace to arm itself.

Your point being what exactly? Leftists aren't liberals; we're largely favorable of gun ownership. We're just not obsessed with pushing them in every school, bar, and smoke house.


Well, the problem as I see it with using the state as a method of ending genocide in foreign countries is that governments tend to be bankrupt when it comes to genuine altruism.

States, at the present moment, are also controlled by the capitalist class. Saving hides is unimportant (Sudan, Rwanda), unless there is a perceived profit consequence (Iraq).


I'm just highly skeptical of the United States' ability to accomplish any lasting victory in this area, and I think that this skepticism is justified by looking at the last couple of decades.

An honest answer.

[Dejavu]

Your point being what exactly? Leftists aren't liberals; we're largely favorable of gun ownership. We're just not obsessed with pushing them in every school, bar, and smoke house.
The point is self-evident. It wasn't to show that revolutionary socialists don't support gun control. I would hope for modern socialists the lessons have been learned from the past about not letting states confiscate your weapons. We are, then , largely in agreement. However, it doesn't follow that every single gun advocate is in favor of being armed 24/7 in every conceivable situation, rather, the option should be there just in case its deemed necessary. The stereotype is largely the result of liberal democrat media.


States, at the present moment, are also controlled by the capitalist class. Saving hides is unimportant (Sudan, Rwanda), unless there is a perceived profit consequence (Iraq). Well perks for several businessmen are certainly the result of what is in place. But it is merely an effect of what is inherently wrong with the state in the first place. The wars are still funded by wealth redistribution from which the states cannot weigh the true costs of war. The state heavily regulates the market and for certain businessmen they capitalize on the opportunity to gain favor from the controlling state which yields bad consequences including, but not limited to, screwing over other legitimate business which do not get handouts from the state.

[Demant]

Leftists aren't liberals; we're largely favorable of gun ownership.
Excuse me?

You just fell for his little trick. Please punch yourself and come to a better conclusion.

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

[Jazzratt]

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

Then you're a prat. And an authoritarian one at that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Excuse me?

You just fell for his little trick. Please punch yourself and come to a better conclusion.

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

Yeah, we can't have the proles getting ideas now can we? :rolleyes:

[pusher robot]

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

Why?

[Lector Malibu]

Excuse me?

You just fell for his little trick. Please punch yourself and come to a better conclusion.

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.


Are you out of your mind?

I don't like the idea of guns, I don't think most people do but if my door gets kicked in, well I'll just quote James Brown

I don't know kung Fu , but I know crazy

[freakazoid]

Why?

Because guns are eeeeiiiiiiviiiiilll. Oh and.... will somebody please think of the children yada yada yada. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Excuse me?

You just fell for his little trick. Please punch yourself and come to a better conclusion.

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

I support what you say completely. Nobody owning less than let's say--10 acres of land (to hunt of course ;)) should own a gun.

That should fend the "Revolution" off for another 500 years. :laugh:

[Plagueround]

Excuse me?

You just fell for his little trick. Please punch yourself and come to a better conclusion.

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

I used to think the same way so I won't rip you apart, but care to explain your position? I'm intrigued.

[Kami]

I support what you say completely. Nobody owning less than let's say--10 acres of land (to hunt of course http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif) should own a gun.

That should fend the "Revolution" off for another 500 years. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why gun ownership is a good thing.

[Vageli]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why gun ownership is a good thing.

Haha I forgot this was opposing ideologies, where he can say stuff like that (not directed to you, Kami).

[Bud Struggle]

Haha I forgot this was opposing ideologies, where he can say stuff like that (not directed to you, Kami).

OI--where free people can speak free thoughts. All you have to do is say the magic words to join the club: "I have doubts about Abortion on Demand." :laugh:

[redSHARP]

the UN war mandates can not be passed with out Security Council voting on it. The US has veto power, so there can never be a war with out our approval. I am sooo loving these posters! they are fucking creative as hell! however, many jews did resist nazi aggression. the jews have always been armed, this time they have US financial backing. by the way i am neutral on the whole israeli thing. i support both sides getting a fair deal. Also, the UN rarely uses it guns in anger, or at all. and most countries use the German style head gear from World War 1/2, even we do, it is an brilliant design.

[Comrade Rage]

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.
If stupidity could be used as fuel, we could keep you as a natural resource.

[Dejavu]

Then you're a prat. And an authoritarian one at that.

Wow. Gene, Jazz, and I agreeing ...we should celebrate!

[freakazoid]

Wow. Gene, Jazz, and I agreeing ...we should celebrate!

Lets all dance,

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-dancing-cat.jpg

[Demant]

... And that was when he realized, that he was the only one on the board thinking realistic, and to all's benifit, while the rest wanted an anti-democratic communistic system, whatever the cost.

Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Change is no good if it's for the worse. That's what's some of the young extreme-left should realize.

[Lector Malibu]

... And that was when he realized, that he was the only one on the board thinking realistic, and to all's benifit, while the rest wanted an anti-democratic communistic system, whatever the cost.

Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Change is no good if it's for the worse. That's what's some of the young extreme-left should realize.

Tell that to those who fought against the Nazi's in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943.

Or any other group that has had no choice but armed resistance.

[pusher robot]

... And that was when he realized, that he was the only one on the board thinking realistic, and to all's benifit, while the rest wanted an anti-democratic communistic system, whatever the cost.

Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Change is no good if it's for the worse. That's what's some of the young extreme-left should realize.

Do you think, possibly, there might be other differences between the United States and Scandivia that might account for both fewer guns and less crime? You are implicitly assuming that the sole cause of crime is guns. This assumption is not plausible.

[Forward Union]

The number one book on Amazon.com.

The Revolution: A Manifestio
By Ron Paul.



Yea? and Madonna Ft Justin Timberlake - "4 Minutes" Is the no1 single at the moment.

Popular sure doesn't mean right!

:D

[freakazoid]

Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Or, take a look at Virginia, then Washington DC which is right across the river. http://www.gunowners.org/sk0601.htm

Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.
Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas, as seen by the following comparison on the 25-year anniversary of the DC gun ban (in 2001): City Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,0001 Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,0002 (Arlington is just across the river from D.C.) Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,0003
Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment

Or take a look at Australia before the gun ban and after. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html


One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:


Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

Or take a look at England, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I
Welcome to the police state, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9_5aBU33E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1YIiXDprwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1aX6oOO9U
We are going to have one hell of a revolution without firearms.
Here is some more sights that talk about stats and stuff.
http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800guncon.htm

http://www.a-human-right.com/difference_s.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

Yea? and Madonna Ft Justin Timberlake - "4 Minutes" Is the no1 single at the moment.

Popular sure doesn't mean right!

:D

The only arbiter of "right" and "wrong" is popular decree. Just as it is totally fair that some (hardworking) people are rich and some (lazy) people are poor. Our reality makes the rules of fairness.

Do you have another judge? :D

[redSHARP]

gun control is fine the way it is. violence is american as apple pie and shitty soccer teams. so there is no easy way to answer it, but banning guns is not a good idea.

[Forward Union]

Or, take a look at Virginia, then Washington DC which is right across the river. http://www.gunowners.org/sk0601.htm


Or take a look at Australia before the gun ban and after. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
[/list] Or take a look at England, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I
Welcome to the police state, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9_5aBU33E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1YIiXDprwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1aX6oOO9U
We are going to have one hell of a revolution without firearms.
Here is some more sights that talk about stats and stuff.
http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800guncon.htm

:cursing:

That's an very good post.

I am not particularly familier with the NRA, I'd need to look into it. From what I understand, the subs go toward supporting republican party candidates who are pro-gun. Which I would strongly object to.

But I am 100% behind gun legalisation.

[Killfacer]

your all pro guns? what the hell. From what iv seen, for the past century they have brought America nothing but pain and suffering. Pro guns? Bizzare, here in merry old England we know having guns readily available leads to death. As for your posters, where you get them the NRA website? Winston Smith wasnt alowed guns because he lived under a dictarship, stupid poster, may i also point out that any communist who agree with that stupid 1984 poster; In the book the party was originally a revolutionary left group one suprisingly similar the USSR. Im shocked and stunned by people love of guns.

[Forward Union]

I, for one, am 100% against gun ownership.

Why?

[Forward Union]

Pro guns? Bizzare, here in merry old England we know having guns readily available leads to death.

The problem is you're not saying anything of substance, just spouting rethoric. As it stands now the two groups of people that own guns are; the State, and Criminals.

Also, In australia after the gun ban homicides went up 3.2% and assaults up 8.6% ...

I read a story about a shooting in my own town a few days ago. Some innocent guy got shot by a drug dealer. Does this mean we should oppose guns? Well, how? they're already illegal. If the innocent guy had a gun to it would have been a fair fight.

The government has disarmed us of our right to defend ourselves.


Winston Smith wasnt alowed guns because he lived under a dictarship,

And why would a dictatorship not want people to have guns?


In the book the party was originally a revolutionary left group one suprisingly similar the USSR.

Yes, and most communists oppose the USSR including the auther of that book; George Orwell who fought with the "Party of marxist unification" in spain 1936.

[Killfacer]

the situation may well be different in australia, i do not know much about it. I assume you dont have even 1% of the school massacres, multiple homocides and gun fights as there are in America.

Right to defend yourself? your comin out with poor excuses. Im not spouting rhetoric you are. Its bullshit. You want gun battles in the street do you? Vigilantes goin around shootin people, yeah genius you are.

A dictatorship in a fictional book doesnt want Winston Smith to have guns, but i dont see its relevance on real life. Using Orwells masterpeice for pro gun propaganda would no doubt disgust him.

Orwell was a communist in the loosest sense of the word, in Spain he had alot more in common with the working class spanish anarchists.

England is evidence that a gunless society can work without turning into an evil dictatorship, thus rendering all those stupid NRA poster obsolete.
Also Wat Tyler can you source some of your information please?

[freakazoid]

I am not particularly familier with the NRA, I'd need to look into it. From what I understand, the subs go toward supporting republican party candidates who are pro-gun. Which I would strongly object to.

I'm a little iffy on the NRA, they have at times seemed to support certain anti-gun legislation.

Two other great organizations is the GOA, Gun Owners of America. Which in my opinion is better than the NRA. And there is also the JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms.

And while they do largely back the Republicans, they have endorsed some Democrats, but very few.


From what iv seen, for the past century they have brought America nothing but pain and suffering.

Pro guns? Bizzare, here in merry old England we know having guns readily available leads to death.

cough propaganda though the media cough


Pro guns? Bizzare, here in merry old England we know having guns readily available leads to death.

Did you not look through what I had posted? Car ownership also leads to death, perhaps we should ban those to.


As for your posters, where you get them the NRA website?

http://www.a-human-right.com/ What would it matter even if I did get it from the NRA? Instead of focusing on where they are from why don't you look at the content.

[pusher robot]

I assume you dont have even 1% of the school massacres, multiple homocides and gun fights as there are in America.

I have to ask, in all earnestness - have you ever been to the United States?

[pusher robot]

http://www.a-human-right.com/ What would it matter even if I did get it from the NRA? Instead of focusing on where they are from why don't you look at the content.

Interesting note on Mr. Oleg Volk, who made those posters, incidentally:


Are you *that* paranoid?
Yes. I grew up in USSR and have seen what happens when citizens are reduced to the status of subjects. Moreover, proficiency with weapons is as practical a skill as giving CPR or using a fire extinguisher: in an emergency, these skills can save lives.

[Killfacer]

yes i have, full of nice people, generally pretty concervative compared to here but nice all the same. But i dont see how thats relevant. You gonna deny that there is an abnormal amount of shootings now?

Car ownership? Is this a joke? you think thats a viable reason for having guns legal? Are you some kind of idiot? Have you read what i said? i told you why i thought they were rubbish. Read it next time.

As for the NRA and all your other stupid organisations. They're just fairly rightwing pressure groups, looking out for their own interests and interfering with democracy.

Media propaganda? Care to allaborate or just gonna leave it at that? If you look at the global peace index you will see Americans dire peformance. Somewere near iran i think.

[freakazoid]

I assume you dont have even 1% of the school massacres

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/4919-7/before1934_7305.jpg



A dictatorship in a fictional book doesnt want Winston Smith to have guns, but i dont see its relevance on real life. Using Orwells masterpeice for pro gun propaganda would no doubt disgust him.

Do you have any idea who Hitler is? And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't disgust him.


Right to defend yourself? your comin out with poor excuses. Im not spouting rhetoric you are. Its bullshit. You want gun battles in the street do you? Vigilantes goin around shootin people, yeah genius you are.

http://current.com/items/87302871_machine_gun_shootout Thousands and thousands of people throughout the US and many also from other countries attended this event shooting fully-automatic firearms, and yet there where no shootouts, go figure. And are you saying people don't have a right to defend themselves?


Also Wat Tyler can you source some of your information please?

I already had if you would of read through my post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

... And that was when he realized, that he was the only one on the board thinking realistic, and to all's benifit, while the rest wanted an anti-democratic communistic system, whatever the cost.

What's so "anti-democratic" about ownership of firearms by individuals with no history of mental illness or violent crime?

I think you might find reformism more to your taste.


Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Now look at Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws, but which in 2006 recorded 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, versus 69 cases involving bladed weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#cite_note-9

Seems to me that in spite of the widespread avilability of firearms, most Swiss prefer to cut up people than ventilate them.

So the obvious conclusion is that the ready avilability of firearms does not necessarily contribute to an increase in firearms-related offences.

Want to try again, gun-grabber?


Change is no good if it's for the worse. That's what's some of the young extreme-left should realize.

So you think that violence should be sole domain of the State? You're not making many friends here.


your all pro guns? what the hell. From what iv seen, for the past century they have brought America nothing but pain and suffering. Pro guns? Bizzare, here in merry old England we know having guns readily available leads to death.

Yep. The fact that criminals, what with not having any respect for the law and all that, illegally acquire guns while law-abiding people have no (legal or relatively trouble-free) means of defending themselves, means that when armed criminals go against unarmed citizens, the citizens tend to have a high body count.

Had people the means to defend themselves, then armed criminals would be far less likely to "cut loose" as it would result in an increased likelyhood of suffering lead poisoning.


Im shocked and stunned by people love of guns.

You shouldn't be. The ability to defend oneself is one much sought after.

[freakazoid]

Car ownership?

Apparently you didn't get what I was getting at. And that would be that if guns should be banned because they kill people then by that same logic cars should also be banned because they to kill people.

Here is are some statistics from the US Department of Transportation

According to a preliminary report from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 43,200 died on the nation’s highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent. Fifty-five percent of passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2005 were unbelted

43,200 died! 2.68 million injured!!! just last year. How many people were killed and injured last year by firearms? Here you go, http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004). The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.
And if you take out suicide, which is always put in there to inflate the actual figures, the number drops to 12,704 deaths

And if you think that the self defense is a poor excuse,
http://nslog.com/2005/05/17/guns_as_self_defense_in_a_dashboard_widget

The study shows that guns are used in self defense about 2.5 million times a year or once every 13 seconds, on average. In other words, guns are used about 60 times more often to protect innocent life than to take a life. Over 1.9 million of those self defense cases involve handguns.

[freakazoid]

Media propaganda? Care to allaborate or just gonna leave it at that?

Yeah, propaganda. England doesn't want its subjects, er I mean citizens, to have firearms, so they put in the media about how bad things are with firearms in America because we have so loose gun laws. Which is a huge lie because a lot of states have some pretty draconian gun laws.

Forgot to talk about Switzerland, thanks for putting that in there NoXion, :D... wow, never thought I would of said that before lol, :p

[pusher robot]

yes i have, full of nice people, generally pretty concervative compared to here but nice all the same. But i dont see how thats relevant. You gonna deny that there is an abnormal amount of shootings now?

I will not deny that the United States suffers from an unusually high number of homicides, as compared to other industrialized nations, though I will also point out that it has fewer crimes than most. In other words, you are less likely to be a crime victim overall, but more likely to be a dead crime victim than elsewhere.

It's relevant because there are social dynamics at play here that can cause a simplistic numerical comparison to be very misleading. The fact is, there is a particular stratum of American society, which I will characterize as "gangbangers," that is orders of magnitude more prone to homicide than the general population. However, gangbangers occupy certain areas and tend to focus almost entirely on killing other gangbangers. So, for peaceful law-abiding citizens who avoid gang territory, the homicide rate is actually very low, comparable with other industrialized nations.

Now, understanding that there is this major problem with a particular stratum, how best to address the issue? The answer is not clear, but the method of banning guns has not worked where it was tried. Gangbangers do not respect gun bans sufficiently to actually follow them, and more draconian measures will simply not be tolerated by the rest of society for whom this is not much of a problem.

[Killfacer]

freakozoid, READ STUFF, i did not ask you too source did i, even where you quoted what i said i was asking somebody else. READ.

"Yeah, propaganda. England doesn't want its subjects, er I mean citizens, to have firearms, so they put in the media about how bad things are with firearms in America because we have so loose gun laws. Which is a huge lie because a lot of states have some pretty draconian gun laws."

That was actually you saying not alot. At least pusher robot isnt denying that there is a problem in America. Your also hinting at something weird. Myself and most brits dont WANT guns because look at what happens elsewhere. Its not a bright idea.

Next to what your saying about cars. its illogical, or so logical its stupid, either way its not correct. Cars are not use purposfully to kill people, fact. Guns have one use, to shoot and more often than not to kill. By your massively flawed logic we should ban everything which causes death. Lets all ban planes. Your logic is poor.

Only 12,000 deaths. oh sorry thats fine then. There is no problem i apologise. Your all banging on about the right to defend yourself. What happens here is that a crime is commited a gun point, nobody shoots anyone, the police get involved, arrest the man, usually without bloodshed, then he is sentanced to prison. Slighty better than shooting any criminal who may have a gun.

For left wing people to bang on about shit like this is just weird. Many criminals who you call "gangbangers" are working class blokes who, if born into different circumstances would be perfectly normal. Yet you talk about them as though they are an untouchable evil.

Next, anyone who assumes or even thinks that George Orwell would like guns is well and trully an idiot. Firstly, most Britains dont think guns should be readily available to the public. Secondly using someones book as propaganda for guns, despite not knowing the author's veiws on the subject is libel. Its out of order.

yes iv heard of Hitler. The same one that would of got into power whether people had guns or not? yes probably that one. The one who had massive popular support? Yeah that one. Yeah guns stop people liking hitler, sure mate.

You lot have to think about what your saying. "the ability to defend yourself is one much sought after". Here in Britain, i dont feel threatened enough in my own home or in the street to require a gun. Maybe countries without gunlaws such as yours are less ready to play with guns like toys.

Id also like to say that im not having a go at Americans. I know you get slagged off alot, specially by the left, but i personally dont have a problem with the majority of its citzens. Some of its laws on the over hand are ridiculous.

[pusher robot]

Your all banging on about the right to defend yourself. What happens here is that a crime is commited a gun point, nobody shoots anyone, the police get involved, arrest the man, usually without bloodshed, then he is sentanced to prison. Slighty better than shooting any criminal who may have a gun.

False dichotomy. In the vast majority of cases, defending oneself with a gun simply means deterring the crime by brandishing. No shots are fired and nobody is killed. I'd say that's slightly better than, say, being raped because deterrance is impossible, even though, hey! nobody got shot.



For left wing people to bang on about shit like this is just weird. Many criminals who you call "gangbangers" are working class blokes who, if born into different circumstances would be perfectly normal. Yet you talk about them as though they are an untouchable evil.


Of course they could behave in a civilized manner. They fact is they do not, and they acts they commit are undeniably acts of evil. Are you suggesting we ignore this reality because it conflicts with our wishes?


Here in Britain, i dont feel threatened enough in my own home or in the street to require a gun.

And what if perchance you did? It doesn't concern you that you don't have the option? Face it, your feelings are irrelevant. Even if you felt you absolutely needed a gun to save your life, you would no more have the privilege. Yours is the same mentality that says, "who cares about the rights of criminals? I'm not breaking the law!"

[Plagueround]

... And that was when he realized, that he was the only one on the board thinking realistic, and to all's benifit, while the rest wanted an anti-democratic communistic system, whatever the cost.

Want to know what's wrong with weapons? Look at USA. Then look at Scandinavia, where weapons are restricted and the system is socialistic to social-democratic. Then look back at USA, where a crime is committed every 1,3 seconds.

Change is no good if it's for the worse. That's what's some of the young extreme-left should realize.

My pledge to be nice to you has been revoked because you failed to do the same. How can you call 100% restriction on guns "anti-democratic"? Banning guns isn't democratic, it's authoritarian. As many others in this thread have pointed out, the murder problem in the United States is not a result of access to guns. It's childish and absurd to post this self-righteous internal monologue, especially when all it reveals is you haven't actually read up on the philosophies behind the revolutionary left.

[Killfacer]

Pusher Robot you missed one of my points. Either many Americans as citizens have something wrong with them or the laws they follow and are set down for them have something wrong with them. As the first one sounds a bit like eugenics ill stick with the second.

Are you also denying that people get shot unneccaserily? Im pretty sure they do. People who rob things sometimes get shot, which is stupid and wrong.

Finally your statement that i cant have a gun is irrelevant. I have never felt threatened enough to need a gun and if i did id been unlikely to use it unless my life depended on it (never). Your using a hypothetical in your argument. Its stupid. I dont want the option to own a gun because if i can then plenty of idiots can get them freely. Not something i want, something that would clearly make the streets alot more dangerous. yes if guns were legalised, id buy a gun. Which is stupid. also if your logic is true id be carrying knives around with me. I wouldnt carry a knife on me, would you?

Plagueground, the revolutionary left doesnt all agree that gun restriction is authoritarian.

Id also like to add that anyone who even vaguely supports the NRA is not left wing in the slightest, let alone revolutionary left.

[Zurdito]

No. Do you agree with sitting back and letting Hitler invade europe? I do believe that was the result last time you tried this "isolationism" farce

it wasn't the US's role to stop Hitler invading Europe, since when do communists appeal for an imperialist nation to "liberate" us? the US marched into Europe to serve its own interests and ensure the survival of capitlaism in the aftermath of WW2. There is no such thing as a "good" bourgeois war, true communists in WW2 called "defeat to both sides", they did not aoppeal for one empire to strengthen itself over naother using the self-justification of fighting for "democracy".

regarding the UN: who cares if the US leaves? the US does what it wants anyway, and the UN is simply a racket for its own leading mebers. Surely no-one still believes the UN has any power after the Iraq war fiasco? :lol:

if the US is in the UN its because it currently serves its interests to be in it. the moment it no longer serves its interests, it will leave. currently, the UN is used to give a veneer of respectability to imperialism. the UN's resolutions against Iraq and Iraq's supposed refusal of "weapons inspectors" were the main justifications for the war in the first place.

so regarding Ron Paul wanting to leave the UN: who cares?

[Zurdito]

Pusher Robot you missed one of my points. Either many Americans as citizens have something wrong with them or the laws they follow and are set down for them have something wrong with them. As the first one sounds a bit like eugenics ill stick with the second.

Are you also denying that people get shot unneccaserily? Im pretty sure they do. People who rob things sometimes get shot, which is stupid and wrong.

Finally your statement that i cant have a gun is irrelevant. I have never felt threatened enough to need a gun and if i did id been unlikely to use it unless my life depended on it (never). Your using a hypothetical in your argument. Its stupid. I dont want the option to own a gun because if i can then plenty of idiots can get them freely. Not something i want, something that would clearly make the streets alot more dangerous. yes if guns were legalised, id buy a gun. Which is stupid. also if your logic is true id be carrying knives around with me. I wouldnt carry a knife on me, would you?

Plagueground, the revolutionary left doesnt all agree that gun restriction is authoritarian.

Id also like to add that anyone who even vaguely supports the NRA is not left wing in the slightest, let alone revolutionary left.

I doubt any posters here "support the NRA", that is an awful straw man. I oppose the EU but I don't support UKIP, I oppose the Iraq war, so do the BNP, but that doesn't make me a fascist.

regarding gun control: how the hell do you propose to have a working class revolution if the working class can't own guns?

[pusher robot]

Pusher Robot you missed one of my points. Either many Americans as citizens have something wrong with them or the laws they follow and are set down for them have something wrong with them. As the first one sounds a bit like eugenics ill stick with the second.Well, there's a third option: there's something wrong with the environment they are raised in that causes them to do evil. Given that there is, in the United States, a wide variation of firearm regulation, and yet virually no demonstrated positive correlation between regulation and crime, I very much doubt it's the case that gun laws cause gang activity.



Are you also denying that people get shot unneccaserily? Im pretty sure they do. People who rob things sometimes get shot, which is stupid and wrong.

First of all, why is it stupid and wrong? Robbery is an act of violence. Do you simply not believe in the human right of self-defence?

Second of all, I'm not denying that people occasionally get shot "unneccesarily." (Was it an "unnecessary" shooting if it prevented you from being raped? If it prevented you from being coerced?) I'm simply telling you that it's far less common that the act of self-defence is, since you seemed unable or unwilling to make the distinction.


Finally your statement that i cant have a gun is irrelevant. I have never felt threatened enough to need a gun and if i did id been unlikely to use it unless my life depended on it (never).
What do you have to say about people who make the exact same arguements about criminal rights, or privacy rights, e.g., "I don't need/want that right, therefore let's get rid of it, otherwise it might inconvenience me!" You are being completely selfish in your reasoning.



Id also like to add that anyone who even vaguely supports the NRA is not left wing in the slightest, let alone revolutionary left.

Why do you think so?

[Killfacer]

Pusher Robot:

No guns laws dont cause gang violence and activity, they simply make the problem worse. Having guns readily available is always going to make it worse.

Next i dont beleive that robbery should warrant a death sentance, or even any kind of physical violence. The theif/robber than simply be aprehended late, negating violence. Dont you think there are better ways of stopping rape without fire arms? Tasers or mace spray for example? Your using emotive language to make me sound like a robot, yes i do beleive in the right to defend ones self but i do not beleive the use of extreme force (in this case shooting someone) is reguarly acceptable.

Next i think the NRA is bad because they are right wing supporters of the republicans. Im sorry if this veiw is wrong, my veiw on the NRA might be completely skewed because im from the UK. But they have always seemed right wing to me.

Can you allaborate on the thing you said about criminal law also. i dont think that the use of a gun is similar to the invasion of privacy or any criminal legislation, drawing a comparison seems stupid. It needs to be looked at in a case by case way, not just clumping it together in order to prove me wrong.

[pusher robot]

No guns laws dont cause gang violence and activity, they simply make the problem worse. Having guns readily available is always going to make it worse.

Gun laws only reduce the availability of guns for people who are already inclined not to use them illegally. What does a criminal care if there is a law against his having a gun? Nothing short of draconian measure would be effective, and draconian measures will simply not be tolerated because, as I said, for the majority of people, there is no problem.


Next i dont beleive that robbery should warrant a death sentance, or even any kind of physical violence.
I find this incomprehensible.

The theif/robber than simply be aprehended late, negating violence.
Let's not confuse theft and robbery. "Theft" just means "stealing." "Robbery" means "stealing by threatening the use of force."

Dont you think there are better ways of stopping rape without fire arms? Not really, guns seem the most effective.


Tasers or mace spray for example? Your using emotive language to make me sound like a robot, yes i do beleive in the right to defend ones self but i do not beleive the use of extreme force (in this case shooting someone) is reguarly acceptable.

Of course self-defense must be proportional, but I don't think it's unreasonable to stop such an intrusion of personal bodily integrity as rape with deadly force. Shooting somebody because they punch you in the face, probably unreasonable. Shooting somebody because they point a knife to your heart, probably not. And again, please remember that almost all of the time a crime is stopped with a gun, nobody is shot. The mere threat of letal retaliation is almost always enough to stop the attack. Which would you prefer, threatening to shoot somebody, or actually tasering them?


Next i think the NRA is bad because they are right wing supporters of the republicans. Im sorry if this veiw is wrong, my veiw on the NRA might be completely skewed because im from the UK. But they have always seemed right wing to me.

They tend to support republicans because republicans oppose restrictive gun laws. There's nothing more to it than that. They also support the democrats that oppose restrictive gun laws, but there are far fewer of those.
Furthermore, their political wing is just a small part of the organization. Much of their effort goes towards things like safety instruction, educational courses, and recreational events and facilities.


Can you allaborate on the thing you said about criminal law also. i dont think that the use of a gun is similar to the invasion of privacy or any criminal legislation, drawing a comparison seems stupid. It needs to be looked at in a case by case way, not just clumping it together in order to prove me wrong.

My point is that you disagree with strongly promoting the right to keep and bear arms because you personally don't feel any need to avail yourself of that right at the moment. As I said, that is a very short-sighted and selfish rationale. You show no concern whatever for people who might feel differently than you do, or indeed find themselves actually in situations where the curtailment of that right puts their lives in jeopardy.

Thus my analogy is to people who, say, don't care about the torture of terrorists detainees, since they personally probably will never be a terrorist detainee. It betrays an unwillingness or an inability to place yourself in someone else's position, to think abstractly about the principles at stake. Rights are not recognized out of convenience, indeed many are purchased at terrible cost.

[Killfacer]

Are you attempting to say that the free and ready availability of guns does not ever cause violence/murder?

next to what you found incomprehensable. First of all saying such is petty, instead you could of done i what i said and simply guessed the meaning whilst also asking the author to alaborate.

guns seem most effective, this is the problem with your blanket objection to gun laws. You seem to think that guns will stop crime. Nope. They increase crime, the availability of guns increases crime. You bring up rape as your main point, what about theft, adultry, fraud and the majority of petty crimes. When a gun is used to defend ones self against this, it is never likely to be for the better. A gun used to stop robbery will often lead to shots being fired, with the victim either gettin scared and shooting or the assailant shooting as soon as a gun is shown.

NRA generally support the republicans. Supporting one party because of ONE of its veiws doesnt seem a bright idea. Its not that much different from supporting the BNP (british national party, bunch of ex nazis and racists) and saying you do it because you think one of their tax laws is ok.

Next you just call me selfish which seems a bit harsh. I think most people agree major issues such as these deserve to be explored individualy not clumped together. You talk of this terrible cost, yes some times a gun may of been of help. But more often than not it would just make the situation worse.

Your love of guns is worrying. Do you not agree that a custodary punishment in which nobody is harmed is the best form of punishment?

Also i would rather taser someone than threaten to shoot someone. One is fatal, the other isnt. This is key. Threating death upon someone is bound to cause stupid reactions. Letting someone go then pressing charges doesnt lead to harm for anyone apart from a long sentance for the criminal.

I would also like to point out that this is likely to be an entirely cultural thing. The left wing in Britain would disagree with you (INCLUDING ORWELL GOD DAMNIT!), but it would seem elsewhere that the ownership of guns is a right. Maybe this is just the different veiws of different countries (if this is the case then there goes the international revolutoin!).

[freakazoid]

freakozoid, READ STUFF, i did not ask you too source did i, even where you quoted what i said i was asking somebody else. READ.

He had used stats that I had shown.


That was actually you saying not alot. At least pusher robot isnt denying that there is a problem in America. Your also hinting at something weird. Myself and most brits dont WANT guns because look at what happens elsewhere. Its not a bright idea.

What am I hinting at that is "wierd"? Oh, and most don't? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I


Next to what your saying about cars. its illogical, or so logical its stupid, either way its not correct. Cars are not use purposfully to kill people, fact. Guns have one use, to shoot and more often than not to kill. By your massively flawed logic we should ban everything which causes death. Lets all ban planes. Your logic is poor.

No, using YOUR logic would lead to the banning of cars. Guns are sometimes used to kill people, therefore we should ban them. Cars are sometimes used to kill people, therefore by YOUR logic we should ban them too. Shouldn't the fact that cars are not even used for killing and look at how many they do kill and injure bother you? Did you look at all the stats I showed?


Only 12,000 deaths. oh sorry thats fine then. There is no problem i apologise. Your all banging on about the right to defend yourself. What happens here is that a crime is commited a gun point, nobody shoots anyone, the police get involved, arrest the man, usually without bloodshed, then he is sentanced to prison. Slighty better than shooting any criminal who may have a gun.


You can go cower for your life and hope that the police get there in time to protect you, even though more than likely they will get there in time to draw the chalk lines. Because you see, what happens is that a crime is committed, you don't shoot because you can't defend yourself. And he either shoots you, because criminals DO NOT obey the law, or he bludgeons you to death. Then many minutes later the cops show up to draw a chalk line around your body. Why would you even want to have to rely on the cops? Do you like cops or something?


Next, anyone who assumes or even thinks that George Orwell would like guns is well and trully an idiot. Firstly, most Britains dont think guns should be readily available to the public. Secondly using someones book as propaganda for guns, despite not knowing the author's veiws on the subject is libel. Its out of order.

Thats why he fought with firearms, because he actually despises them. Actually from all that I have read from him nothing even hints at him not liking firearms, in fact it would point to the opposite. From what little I have read through this book of mine, http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Everymans-Library-Classics-Contemporary/dp/0375415033/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210375826&sr=1-1 he never says anything bad about them. And from here, http://www.orwelltoday.com/guncontrol.shtml it actually says that he was a strong proponent of the individual ownership of firearms. "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. ~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard"
In his youth, and well into manhood, Orwell was still experimenting with gunpowder and explosives. Even after becoming a famous author - and while writing "1984" - one of his many pastimes was making his own bullets - literally and literaturely. So it is YOU is truly an idiot. What you are doing is using projection, you don't like firearms, therefore every Brit mustn't like them.


yes iv heard of Hitler. The same one that would of got into power whether people had guns or not? yes probably that one. The one who had massive popular support? Yeah that one. Yeah guns stop people liking hitler, sure mate.

Yeah that guy. You must also know then that he disarmed the populace. Hmm... I wonder why. Yeah, guns had helped defend people during things like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising And there where many more, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005407 What you do is spit on what they did and there movements.


You lot have to think about what your saying. "the ability to defend yourself is one much sought after". Here in Britain, i dont feel threatened enough in my own home or in the street to require a gun. Maybe countries without gunlaws such as yours are less ready to play with guns like toys.

Without gun laws!? Are you kidding me? America has MANY gun laws. You don't feel threatened? How about what your own government is doing in regards to privacy to its own subjects? The whole point of the second amendment in the US is mostly for use to stop any tyranny from our government, and self defense against thugs the second. While I was living in South Dakota I had my Concealed Pistol Permit and I carried a Glock 19. I didn't currently feel threatened, well besides from the .gov, but you don't carry only when you feel threatened, you carry in case you are attacked. Do you actually think that the criminals are going to let you know before hand that they are going to mug you?


No guns laws dont cause gang violence and activity, they simply make the problem worse. Having guns readily available is always going to make it worse.

No, if you bothered to read ANY of my stats you would realize how wrong you are.


Tasers or mace spray for example?

Yeah, those really work, :rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

No one who uses wikipedia as a credible source deserves answering. Dont use it again, its full of shit. Plus these statistics, everyone knows statistics can be manipulated and thefor the use of them is always questionable and never 100%.

Your veiw of Hitler seems a bit odd. You skip from him disarming the populace, to him owning Poland. What about him gaining massive popular support in Germany and Austria then INVADING poland and hungary. Guns would not change this support and if you think that the warsaw uprising (an uprising i am afraid to say, that was doomed to failure) would of been successful then your knowledge of history is slightly wrong. (You also say i spit on the warsaw ghetto. Go fuck yourself. That is genuinly offensive. Your a bastard. How dare you say that. Ridiculous. Fuck off Prick. Sorry bout that but you cant say i spit on the Warsaw ghetto unless your a prick. I assume your not so dont accuse me of that. Prick.)

ha no Tyrany in America. Whats the Patriot act? no its not, the patriot act doesnt have an effect on democracy. What you on about?

I would rather be mugged and threatened by knife point and do nothing than be mugged and wip a gun out.

Your talk of "Your government" infringing on my privacy seems odd. If i had a gun, i wouldnt start taking pot shots at the police would i? A gun would not stop this legislation would it? Clearly not.

I have been mugged in England, but it was at knife point. I lost 30 quid and my mobile phone. Does this matter enough to me to risk my assailants life and my own? No.

Next, you may have a point about Orwell. Personally i disagree but i thank you for sourcing you info. I do however disagree with using an orwell book as propaganda. Taking his opinions totally out of the context of their time is clearly wrong.

i gotta clock off for a bit, its 2:30 here.

[freakazoid]

No one who uses wikipedia as a credible source deserves answering. Dont use it again, its full of shit. The wiki article about the uprising? Well here then, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/warsawtoc.html http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wgupris.htm
Where you seriously doubting about the info in the wiki about the uprising?




Your veiw of Hitler seems a bit odd. You skip from him disarming the populace, to him owning Poland. What about him gaining massive popular support in Germany and Austria then INVADING poland and hungary. Guns would not change this supportIts not about changing his support, it is about the populace being able to defend itself.


support and if you think that the warsaw uprising (an uprising i am afraid to say, that was doomed to failure) would of been successful then your knowledge of history is slightly wrong.Yeah, your right. They should of just rolled over and died.


(You also say i spit on the warsaw ghetto. Go fuck yourself. That is genuinly offensive. Your a bastard. How dare you say that. Ridiculous. Fuck off Prick. Sorry bout that but you cant say i spit on the Warsaw ghetto unless your a prick. I assume your not so dont accuse me of that. Prick.)I'm not the one saying that they should of just rolled over and died.


ha no Tyrany in America. Whats the Patriot act? no its not, the patriot act doesnt have an effect on democracy. What you on about?HAHAHAHAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you kidding me? The PATRIOT Act has no effect on democracy!? Do you have any idea what it even is? It re-writes many laws. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41722 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html

The deepest cut came on October 15, 2001 when Congress enacted the Patriot Act. With minimal floor debate in the Senate and no floor debate in the House (House members were given only 30 minutes to read the 315 page bill),

I would rather be mugged and threatened by knife point and do nothing than be mugged and wip a gun out.Why?



Your talk of "Your government" infringing on my privacy seems odd. If i had a gun, i wouldnt start taking pot shots at the police would i? A gun would not stop this legislation would it? Clearly not.If the .gov came to my door I would.


I have been mugged in England, but it was at knife point. I lost 30 quid and my mobile phone. Does this matter enough to me to risk my assailants life and my own? No.Apparently the mugger thought that it was worth the risk. Also do you think that knives should be banned too? How is it risking your own? You are risking your own by not defending yourself.


Personally i disagree but i thank you for sourcing you info.No problamo, I try to source my info, :)


I do however disagree with using an orwell book as propaganda.Why do you think he wrote it?


Taking his opinions totally out of the context of their time is clearly wrong.It isn't taking it out of context.


i gotta clock off for a bit, its 2:30 here.lol, that can be a problem. Hope your on tomorrow so we can continue to disagree with each other, :thumbup:

[Forward Union]

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson

He was a ****, yes, but this quote is spot on.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Gun laws only reduce the availability of guns for people who are already inclined not to use them illegally. What does a criminal care if there is a law against his having a gun? Nothing short of draconian measure would be effective, and draconian measures will simply not be tolerated because, as I said, for the majority of people, there is no problem.
I hear this argument often, and it is fundamentally wrong. Criminals do not have their own illegal factories that produce illegal guns. All guns are produced legally, and then, one way or another, they end up in the hands of criminals who use them illegally. Since all illegal guns start out as legal guns, it follows that if you place restrictions on the production and use of legal guns, those restrictions will also reduce the number of illegal guns.

The point is, your argument is based on the assumption that the legal and illegal arms trade are two completely different and unrelated phenomena that do not influence each other. That is absurd.

For the record, I oppose restrictions on gun ownership for ordinary people, but that is because such laws would make a revolution more difficult, not because of any crime-related reason.

[freakazoid]

I hear this argument often, and it is fundamentally wrong. Criminals do not have their own illegal factories that produce illegal guns. All guns are produced legally, and then, one way or another, they end up in the hands of criminals who use them illegally. Since all illegal guns start out as legal guns, it follows that if you place restrictions on the production and use of legal guns, those restrictions will also reduce the number of illegal guns.

Ted Kaczynski made his own gun. http://www.kk.org/streetuse/archives/2007/03/unabombers_handmade_pistol.php Also it isn't to hard to make something like a Sten MK3. A lot of the resistance fighters would make them to fight Hitler. Also the thing is that even if you completely stopped the manufacture of firearms they are already out there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hear this argument often, and it is fundamentally wrong. Criminals do not have their own illegal factories that produce illegal guns. All guns are produced legally, and then, one way or another, they end up in the hands of criminals who use them illegally. Since all illegal guns start out as legal guns, it follows that if you place restrictions on the production and use of legal guns, those restrictions will also reduce the number of illegal guns.

Tell that to the Yardies in London and the gangs in Manchester. Criminals still get hold of guns even under the most draconian regimes like the UK, where pretty much any ownership of a firearm by a civilian individual is illegal.

Contrary to the fantasies of gun-grabbers, prohibitionists and anti-recreational drugs morons, if people want guns, liquor or drugs they are perfectly willing to break the law and become criminals to get them, and a significant minority will do so, and succeed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ted Kaczynski made his own gun. Also it isn't to hard to make something like a Sten MK3. A lot of the resistance fighters would make them to fight Hitler. Also the thing is that even if you completely stopped the manufacture of firearms they are already out there.
Ted Kaczynski was a crazy survivalist, and most criminals today don't carry (or manufacture) 1940s guns. Of course you cannot eliminate guns from society - and it wouldn't be a desirable thing to do even if it were possible - but it is ridiculous to argue that gun control laws have no effect, as some people do. If you make something illegal, fewer people will use that something. It won't be zero people, but it will be fewer people.


Tell that to the Yardies in London and the gangs in Manchester. Criminals still get hold of guns even under the most draconian regimes like the UK, where pretty much any ownership of a firearm by a civilian individual is illegal.

Contrary to the fantasies of gun-grabbers, prohibitionists and anti-recreational drugs morons, if people want guns, liquor or drugs they are perfectly willing to break the law and become criminals to get them, and a significant minority will do so, and succeed.
Of course. Making it illegal to possess item X will never completely eliminate the possession of item X from society. But it will reduce the number of people who possess item X. It is one thing to claim that the law is not 100% effective; it is another thing entirely to claim that the law has no effect whatsoever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course. Making it illegal to possess item X will never completely eliminate the possession of item X from society. But it will reduce the number of people who possess item X. It is one thing to claim that the law is not 100% effective; it is another thing entirely to claim that the law has no effect whatsoever.

Yes, but if you limit the avilability of Item X by making it illegal, it means that only criminals will posess Item X.

Therefore, illegalising Item X takes it out of the hands of those who obey the law and leaves it in the hands of those who are most most likely to use it for illegal and unethical purposes, IE criminals.

Criminals, by definition, have a disgregard for the law. A minority may possess Item X, but that minority will be totally comprised of criminals.

[freakazoid]

But it will reduce the number of people who possess item X. It is one thing to claim that the law is not 100% effective; it is another thing entirely to claim that the law has no effect whatsoever.

I don't think anyone is saying that it would have absolutely no effect, at least I'm not, but like NoXion said only the criminals would have the guns. That would be the effect. It would reduce the amount of people who own them because law abiding citizens, who are now subjects, would turn them in while the criminals wouldn't, and any freedom loving person who doesn't turn them in would then become a criminal.


Ted Kaczynski was a crazy survivalist, and most criminals today don't carry (or manufacture) 1940s guns.

While most don't carry guns manufactured during that period, that is only because they weren't massed produced for the public so there are not that many around from back then. Although a lot of new guns designed from guns during that period are around and are being used, take for example all of the 1911s out now. Also criminals don't normally manufacture there own guns because it isn't a necessity right now. But if all guns where made illegal and the .gov really cracked down on illegal ownership, then they would start to be manufactured. Or they would switch to the next best thing and go to swords and knives. Don't think that would happen? http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/12/swords-banned.html


If you make something illegal, fewer people will use that something. It won't be zero people, but it will be fewer people.

Yeah, few people because only criminals would have them, such as in countries like Australia or England, and not only real criminals but also people who where turned into criminals because they feel that it is a violation of there rights so they kept theres and didn't turn them in like sheep being lead to the slaughter.

[pusher robot]

I hear this argument often, and it is fundamentally wrong. Criminals do not have their own illegal factories that produce illegal guns. All guns are produced legally, and then, one way or another, they end up in the hands of criminals who use them illegally. Since all illegal guns start out as legal guns, it follows that if you place restrictions on the production and use of legal guns, those restrictions will also reduce the number of illegal guns.

A complete ban on the production, sale, ownership of any kind of firearm is exactly what I mean by "draconian measures" that simply will not be tolerated by the majority of people, because for the majority of people, gun ownership has no significant negative effect. It might - possibly - reduce somewhat the level of gun violence. But the price of that reduction is one that people - well, US citizens, anyways - are not willing to pay.

This is aside from the fact that, as pointed out by others, such measures will actually disproportionately hurt the law abiding, as the criminals will be far more likely to circumvent the ban.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, but if you limit the avilability of Item X by making it illegal, it means that only criminals will posess Item X.
Yes, but that is merely semantics. If you make item X illegal, everyone possessing item X becomes a criminal - but that doesn't necessarily mean they will all start robbing and murdering. Pirated software is illegal, so technically only criminals possess pirated software. But such "criminals" include most of the people I know, and none of them have joined the mafia or gone out on a murderous rampage yet. Drugs are illegal, so all drug users are technically criminals, but again, most of them are not a threat to society.

The point is, "criminal" does not necessarily mean "dangerous person."


Therefore, illegalising Item X takes it out of the hands of those who obey the law and leaves it in the hands of those who are most most likely to use it for illegal and unethical purposes, IE criminals.
See above. The world is not divided between people who obey every law and hardened murderers.


Criminals, by definition, have a disgregard for the law. A minority may possess Item X, but that minority will be totally comprised of criminals.
Umm, no. People can have disregard for some laws and respect for other laws. I myself have broken some trivial laws in my lifetime; I think everyone has.

[freakazoid]

The point is, "criminal" does not necessarily mean "dangerous person."

I think his point is that most of the people with firearms afterwords would be the dangerous criminals, as very few people will actually disobey the law for fear of being a criminal.


See above. The world is not divided between people who obey every law and hardened murderers.

See above, lol :) While the world may not really be divided like that, what he is saying is true though. The criminals will not turn in there guns, while the law abiding people will. Very few of the law abiding people will actually keep theres. The hardened murderers and other unsavory people, which includes the .gov, will pretty much be the only ones with guns.


Umm, no. People can have disregard for some laws and respect for other laws. I myself have broken some trivial laws in my lifetime; I think everyone has.

I know I have, mwahahahahaha

[Killfacer]

Okay first about Orwell. Yes much of his books are i guess propaganda, but the posters do not use them in the propanda puposes they were originally desinged for. They take the book out of context and there for the author. And yes it is taking someones opinions out of conext, many liberal people hundreds of years ago were racist (im not comparing the support of freely available guns with racism, its just a comparison). Yet in using modern day opinions these people seem ignorant, when in fact they were actually of their time. Orwell was brought up in colonial india i beleive (i hope im right!), owning a gun was probably common there. And your point about him playing with small explosives when he was little, cmon, who hasnet. i remember hundreds of times when i was 12 setting fire to stuff and blowing stuff up.

If the population of Germany had been able to defend itself and had guns readily available to them, the only difference would of been that Berlin would of been more difficult to invade than in reality. People dont "defend" themselves from something they support.

No, i would not the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to never of happened. Token resistance is resistance all the same and no doubt most people would do the same. But first of all using it as a reason for not having gun laws in America is incorrect. I fail to see the situation in which America is going to be conquered, subjucated, its entire jewish population sent to ghettos to wait their arrival at a death camp.

next people keep commenting on how draconian England is and how authoritarian it is. I dont really understand this, is this just about the gun laws or something else?

People seem to think it is weird that i would rather be mugged and let the person off until the police got them than get mugged and pull out a gun. To me it is obvious, in one nobody gets hurt, in the other hopefully nobody gets hurt but somebody might be shot. I am risking my life more if i escalate the situation by changing the balance of the mugging, by pulling a gun out i would feel more in danger. If i do nothing and later call the police, hopefully the person will be arrested and nobody gets hurt.

By the way i was being sarcastic about he patriot act. It was part of my point. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the citizens of America in an extremely authoritarian way. Why have your guns not stopped this?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

next people keep commenting on how draconian England is and how authoritarian it is. I dont really understand this, is this just about the gun laws or something else?

It's not just the gun laws. the UK is positively crawling with CCTV cameras, which actually do very little to deter crime (Telegraph article on official report) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566752/80-per-cent-of-CCTV-images-%27ineffective%27.html) (Even the Met has it's doubts). (http://www.cctvcore.co.uk/07-05-2008-met-officer-claims-cctv-doesnt-cut-crime.html)

Combine that with ridiculous "anti-terrorist" legislation where they can bang someone up for as long as 28 days merely on the suspicion of terrorist activity, and you have a recipe for a proto-Orwellian society.


People seem to think it is weird that i would rather be mugged and let the person off until the police got them than get mugged and pull out a gun. To me it is obvious, in one nobody gets hurt, in the other hopefully nobody gets hurt but somebody might be shot.

Oh noes, the poor mugger might get shot for preying on people! I'm sorry, but if someone threatens me with bodily harm, I would like to defend myself with deadly force. If somebody threatens my own personal safety then they forfeit any right to personal safety of their own.


I am risking my life more if i escalate the situation by changing the balance of the mugging, by pulling a gun out i would feel more in danger. If i do nothing and later call the police, hopefully the person will be arrested and nobody gets hurt.

Or you could get your liberal throat that you like to clutch so much slit by someone with no care of your personal well-being. Tell me, if somebody threatens me, why should I care about their safety?

And what if the fucker gets away with it? If you shoot him dead then he certainly won't be mugging any more people. It's very hard to re-offend when you're dead.

[Killfacer]

I cant beleive your not restricted and i am. Anyway to the point.

Yes i agree that the amount of CCTV in England is downright ridiculous. We have ridiculous anti terror legislation? What about the US? Have they never infringed on the human rights of people they suspect of terrorism. I dont wish to turn this into a competition of whos country breaks more human rights and privacy, but what country uses waterboarding and claimes its ok because its not torture? Not the UK, the US. What country has the patriot act? america. Guantanamo bay anyone? Dont come preaching to me about a proto-orwellian society before considering the clearly untenable base of your argument.

I personally dont think that someone should be shot for trying to mug someone. Just doesnt seem like a proportianl punishment.

A mugger wont stab somebody for the sake of it. There is a difference between a murderer and a mugger, one you have clearly missed. The aim of the mugger is simply to take by the use of force the personal belongings of another person. Now, the mugger will not want to use fatal or even damaging force, otherwise they would of just stabbed the person and stolen their stuff. No, it is not in the interest of the mugger to "slit my liberal thoat" as you so vulgarly put it, as this would antagonise their situation and would not be worth it. In England, when drugs are not involved, when a normal person carrying no kind of weapon or narcotics gets mugged they extremely rarely get hurt. Several of my friends and family have been mugged, a cut on the head and a small bruise was the worst any of them received. Someone a little shooken up and thiry quid down is better than somebody shooken up and somebody dead.

[freakazoid]

but the posters do not use them in the propanda puposes they were originally desinged for. Yes they do.


They take the book out of context and there for the authorI would like to know why you believe they are being taken out of context.


i remember hundreds of times when i was 12 setting fire to stuff and blowing stuff up.:thumbup:


But first of all using it as a reason for not having gun laws in America is incorrect. I fail to see the situation in which America is going to be conquered, subjucated, its entire jewish population sent to ghettos to wait their arrival at a death camp.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2pQgW3wX8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2gs-NUtc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_kv2Y0ofI
It isn't just the Jews, it is all US citizens.


To me it is obvious, in one nobody gets hurt,No, in one you are at the mercy of the thug, you just have to hope that he won't kill you, because he could if he wanted to. Also it has been shown that it is better to fight back because the criminal is only looking for easy targets. Sorry I am not posting links to show that, will do it later today when I have more time.


I am risking my life more if i escalate the situation by changing the balance of the mugging, by pulling a gun out i would feel more in danger.Why would you feel more in danger when you now have the ability to defend yourself? You have changed it from a mugging to showing that you will not be a victim.


If i do nothing and later call the police, hopefully the person will be arrested and nobody gets hurt.Again I ask, do you like the police?


By the way i was being sarcastic about he patriot act. It was part of my point. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the citizens of America in an extremely authoritarian way. Why have your guns not stopped this?Oh good, I thought you where being serious. I was like, WTF?

[freakazoid]

I cant beleive your not restricted and i am. Anyway to the point.

neither can I.... just kidding Noxion, :P


Yes i agree that the amount of CCTV in England is downright ridiculous. We have ridiculous anti terror legislation? What about the US? Have they never infringed on the human rights of people they suspect of terrorism. I dont wish to turn this into a competition of whos country breaks more human rights and privacy, but what country uses waterboarding and claimes its ok because its not torture? Not the UK, the US. What country has the patriot act? america. Guantanamo bay anyone? Dont come preaching to me about a proto-orwellian society before considering the clearly untenable base of your argument.

I am not saying that the US is just awesome compared to the UK. They are both bad.



I personally dont think that someone should be shot for trying to mug someone. Just doesnt seem like a proportianl punishment.

Apparently they thought it was worth the risk.


A mugger wont stab somebody for the sake of it.

Sometimes they do. Again, will post links later today, I hope.


Several of my friends and family have been mugged, a cut on the head and a small bruise was the worst any of them received.

All at one time or on different occasions? Does this not show you that there is a problem? Why hasn't the banning of firearms stopped these muggings? Should they now ban people from being able to own knifes?

[Killfacer]

Your telling me that the whole basis for 1984 was that it was convaluted pamphlet about why 21st century America should have readily available fire arms? because anything apart from that is taking it out of context. You also use an NRA video off youtube, NRA? Republicas? errr.

I would feel in more danger because wipping a gun out will scare someone into action. As i have explained above, in a situation were a mugger has a gun pointed at you or a knife near you, wipping out a gun will get you hurt. Maybe the situation in America is different but here the UK muggings rarely lead to deaths. Read what i said before, as it explains this is a bit more detail.

I do not like the police as such. I was nicked for possession of a Class B substance recently (thought i would just drop that in because it makes me sound cool and solid) and they were rude, obnoxious, arrogant and annoying. But if mugged, i would report it to the police. I wouldnt hunt the bloke dont and blow his head off.

At what point does owning a gun help. You have lots of links to YouTube videos and some of them do look a bit worrying for you lot over the pond. But its a similar situation as weimar germany. At what point does a popularly supported goverment become a target for the population as a whole. People dont suddenly turn on the government, most people in fact would not be likely to bare arms against their country because they're so god damn patriotic (sorry if this is incorrect, thats just the veiw we get from here).

Heh, no, it wasnt a mass mugging. All at different times. Muggins are a problem everywhere, gun laws or not, its how the society deals with muggers that i beleive is important.

I want you to answer this question: Is being potentially fatally shot a fair punishment for mugging someone without the intention of harm?

[pusher robot]

As i have explained above, in a situation were a mugger has a gun pointed at you or a knife near you, wipping out a gun will get you hurt.

Killfacer, part of your problem is that you rely on assumptions like these that you give us no reason whatever to believe are true. Furthermore, those assumptions are not in accordance with observed reality, as has already been presented to you, wherein vast numbers of crimes are deterred by firearms through the act of brandishing. It is also common sense: criminals are not usually suicidal, and they know that you could kill them without consequence to yourself, whereas they would certainly go to prison for most of their life if they did the same to you. As a result, they tend to cut their losses and abandon the criminal act.


I wouldnt hunt the bloke dont and blow his head off.Red herring. Nobody here is advocating that. Nobody.


People dont suddenly turn on the government, most people in fact would not be likely to bare arms against their country because they're so god damn patriotic (sorry if this is incorrect, thats just the veiw we get from here).
It is incorrect, I would advise you to stop making assumptions about what people in other cultures think. Americans (generally, particularly the gun-toting ones) love their country, but they dislike their government; more accurately, they dislike authority in general.

Heh, no, it wasnt a mass mugging. All at different times. Muggins are a problem everywhere, gun laws or not, its how the society deals with muggers that i beleive is important.
Believe that if you want, but actually mugging in the United States is rather uncommon.

I want you to answer this question: Is being potentially fatally shot a fair punishment for mugging someone without the intention of harm?Yes. The criminal has the option of avoiding the risk of being shot; he can choose not to commit the crime. But the victim has no such choice to avoid the risk of death or great bodily harm. It is unreasonable to ask the victim to read the mind of the mugger; by doing so, you are asking the victim, who has done nothing wrong, to wager his life on his ability to guess the intention of a criminal who is harming him. That's not an acceptable request for anyone who values his own life.

[freakazoid]

Your telling me that the whole basis for 1984 was that it was convaluted pamphlet about why 21st century America should have readily available fire arms? because anything apart from that is taking it out of context.It doesn't have to cover 21st century America, it is a warning to everyone about the dangers of that form of government, and its point about firearms is only one point in its many. ONE of the warnings is about a government that would disarm its populace. So no, it is not taken out of context.


You also use an NRA video off youtube, NRA? Republicas? errThere are many non NRA videos showing the exact same thing, it is just that that video seems to show it better than the others. The footage is real, those are real people giving those interviews. While it is true that the NRA does mostly back the Republican party, although there are Democrats that they also support, the Republican party is not really in favor of the true meaning of the 2A. Bush has said that if any anti-gun bill would pass in front of him he would sign it.


I would feel in more danger because wipping a gun out will scare someone into action. As i have explained above, in a situation were a mugger has a gun pointed at you or a knife near you, wipping out a gun will get you hurt.Pulling out a firearm =/= you getting hurt.
http://www.a-human-right.com/twoways_s.jpg

With the picture on the right, tell me exactly how the mugger is going to hurt this person.



I was nicked for possession of a Class B substance recently

What is that? I'm assuming something like marijuana?


I wouldnt hunt the bloke dont and blow his head off.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.


You have lots of links to YouTube videos and some of them do look a bit worrying for you lot over the pond.

Yeah, it's getting worse and worse. I'm worried about the time it gets to the point of what it is like for you guys lol, :lol:


At what point does a popularly supported goverment become a target for the population as a whole. People dont suddenly turn on the government,

When it finally oversteps its bounds so much that the people finally get fed up with it and decide it is high time that the tree of liberty was watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, :) But if it is popularly supported then that means that there will be a bunch of people in support of it, obviously since that is what it means, but that doesn't mean that people won't rise up against it.


most people in fact would not be likely to bare arms against their country because they're so god damn patriotic (sorry if this is incorrect, thats just the veiw we get from here).

Yes and no. While it is true that there are a bunch of sheeple here that think that our .gov is the best thing in the world, there are also a bunch of people waking up to the fact that our .gov is getting out of hand. Plus it depends on what exactly you mean by using the word patriot. It can mean blind obedience to the .gov, which is what it would like to to believe it means, or it could mean actually believing in what the US constitution says which would also mean to be in opposition to what our current government has become.


I want you to answer this question: Is being potentially fatally shot a fair punishment for mugging someone without the intention of harm

I think pusher robot said it pretty well.

[Killfacer]

Can you quote me the page number in which Orwell directly refers to gun laws. The book is set in the UK (or airstrip 1!), a place which has never allowed guns, so i assume they didnt have to disarm the population. THen again it was a while since i read it so i hope it doesnt!

I dont think that poster is evidence that gun laws are bad, do you? That isnt really a fair representation of what happens. People dont just heroically pull out a gun like in a film. That poster looks shit. A violent attacker isnt just gonna hang about waiting for their victime to pull their gun out, if they were violent they would have a gun to their head or of violently assaulted them, disarming them.

Marajuana isnt class B here, although they are thinking about re-classifying it. It was speed and MDMA. Yay that makes me even harder. Im so cool.

Do you think that people are likely to do anything. Apathy has gripped the UK and voter turn out is awful. People here would just role over a do nothing (i dont condone this obviously, if England did become authoritarian there are certain groups whod do stuff, but the general population doesnt mind). I cant help but feel thatm ost of the population in urban areas in the US would not pull out their guns and attack the state, it just doesnt seem beleivable to me.

[Jazzratt]

Can you quote me the page number in which Orwell directly refers to gun laws.

I don't believe it does, but Orwell was a keen supporter of people being able to protect themselves:


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy.It is our job to see that it stays there.

Put that in your pipe & smoke it.


The book is set in the UK (or airstrip 1!), a place which has never allowed guns, so i assume they didnt have to disarm the population.

Incorrect. Learn UK legal history.

[Killfacer]

Actually Jazzratt, 1984 was written in 1948, 46 years after the 1903 Pistols Act and 11 years after the 1937 firearms act. Unless Orwell was remembering the good ole days when he was three years old and owned a gun then your wrong.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

American libertarians, especially those in support of Ron Paul, are a fickle group. I imagine their manifesto would go something like:

- We believe in small government, but let's keep the republican institution. We think people (outside of us, obviously) are dumb as rocks. But help us regardless!
- We believe that human rights actually do exist. Some of us may be atheists, but who cares - if the Founding Fathers (capitalized) believed it, why shouldn't we?
- We want to get rid of state capitalism, but still have capitalists around so that they could usurp any progress made.
- We believe in liberty, but the states should decide abortion and gay marriage.
- We're against government indoctrination, but we believe private institutions should enforce in kids' minds french fries and religion.
- We think communism is a utopia, but perfect competition in every marketplace is a very real possibility!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Killfacer, part of your problem is that you rely on assumptions like these that you give us no reason whatever to believe are true. Furthermore, those assumptions are not in accordance with observed reality, as has already been presented to you, wherein vast numbers of crimes are deterred by firearms through the act of brandishing. It is also common sense: criminals are not usually suicidal, and they know that you could kill them without consequence to yourself, whereas they would certainly go to prison for most of their life if they did the same to you. As a result, they tend to cut their losses and abandon the criminal act.
That would be the rational thing to do, yes, but in my experience many criminals are guided more by notions of pride and "reputation" than by reason. Especially if they are part of a gang.

If I am about to be mugged and I have a gun, the likelihood of me pulling out that gun decreases as the number of assailants increases. Not only would it be difficult to fight off several people at once at close quarters, even if I do have a gun and they don't, but being part of a gang greatly increases the possibility that one of these criminals may do something stupid with no regard for his personal safety that might result in me being hurt (and him getting shot, but I'm more concerned about the "me being hurt" part).

[pusher robot]

If I am about to be mugged and I have a gun, the likelihood of me pulling out that gun decreases as the number of assailants increases. Not only would it be difficult to fight off several people at once at close quarters, even if I do have a gun and they don't, but being part of a gang greatly increases the possibility that one of these criminals may do something stupid with no regard for his personal safety that might result in me being hurt (and him getting shot, but I'm more concerned about the "me being hurt" part).

Obviously you have to use your best judgment. Bernie Goetz, for example, might disagree with you. But that's what we're all about here, isn't it? Empowering individuals to decide what course of action is best for them? How can they make that choice if the state has already stolen their best defensive tool?

[Jazzratt]

Actually Jazzratt, 1984 was written in 1948, 46 years after the 1903 Pistols Act and 11 years after the 1937 firearms act. Unless Orwell was remembering the good ole days when he was three years old and owned a gun then your wrong.

He may well have been wishing for those days to come back, he still said what he said though. He wouldn't be on your side, that was my point.

Moving away from this though, how do you suggest that an unarmed society controls the state's firearms.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, like I said, I support personal gun ownership, though it is mostly for revolution-related reasons.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, like I said, I support personal gun ownership, though it is mostly for revolution-related reasons.

You will NEVER have a Revolution if the people don't have guns.

You will never be able to defend yourself against a Revolution is people don't have guns.

[freakazoid]

If I am about to be mugged and I have a gun, the likelihood of me pulling out that gun decreases as the number of assailants increases. Not only would it be difficult to fight off several people at once at close quarters,Why would it decrease? You don't have to shoot them, like pusher robot had said, usually the confrontation with the assailant will end once you merely brandish your firearm.


but being part of a gang greatly increases the possibility that one of these criminals may do something stupid with no regard for his personal safety that might result in me being hurt (and him getting shot, but I'm more concerned about the "me being hurt" part).Which is an even bigger reason to be armed.


That isnt really a fair representation of what happens. People dont just heroically pull out a gun like in a film.What do you mean by this?


A violent attacker isnt just gonna hang about waiting for their victime to pull their gun out, if they were violent they would have a gun to their head or of violently assaulted them, disarming them.It doesn't take to long to pull out your pistol. Wouldn't it be better to at least have the option to defend yourself?


but the general population doesnt mind).This is because the people have been conditioned to believe in the .gov. Which is why we need to be trying more than ever to get the people to wake up, and I believe that they are slowly starting to.


I cant help but feel thatm ost of the population in urban areas in the US would not pull out their guns and attack the state, it just doesnt seem beleivable to me.
Reply With QuoteMost, well at least not at first. To quote Mark Twain, "In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

Here are some links I had promised to post about fighting back instead of being a victim, http://www.trccmwar.ca/fight-back.html http://www.modelmugging.org/testm.htm section under Success Rate, sorry but so far all I have been able to find deals with fighting back against a rapist. If I can I will try to find one that deals in just a general assault.

[Jazzratt]

Well, like I said, I support personal gun ownership, though it is mostly for revolution-related reasons.

So after the revolution, what we're going to disarm the weak and vulnerable?

[Bud Struggle]

So after the revolution, what we're going to disarm the weak and vulnerable?

That's when Comrade Tom takes over. ;)

[Killfacer]

Freakazoid, whilst your looking for sources can you also have a look for ones to support the idea the using a gun when being the victim of a mugging not an assault. cheers.

Jazzratt, your question fails to resonate with me and i dont mean the offensively. I get what you mean but i dont understand how guns will help when the state has is kicking off. Its been discussed before by me and freakazoid, i fail to see the situation in which a goverment that was voted in will be fought against with firearms be a large enough percentage of people to be even noticable.

[Jazzratt]

Jazzratt, your question fails to resonate with me and i dont mean the offensively. I get what you mean but i dont understand how guns will help when the state has is kicking off. Its been discussed before by me and freakazoid, i fail to see the situation in which a goverment that was voted in will be fought against with firearms be a large enough percentage of people to be even noticable.

YOu misunderstand. I asked who would control the guns of the state, if you've allowed them to take guns from the citizenry but keep a standing army or police force (in order to, of course, "protect" the now (mostly) defenceless citizens) or do you think it is legitimate to have armed gangs of thugs backed by the most wealth crime lords (the ruling class)? Also in most bourgeois "democracies" there doesn't need to even be a majority turn-out at elections, so the idea that the majority of any given population supports their government (usually selected from between two and four flavours of shit) is a bit odd.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So after the revolution, what we're going to disarm the weak and vulnerable?
No, after the revolution we can decide the gun ownership policy democratically, and I'll probably stay out of the debate on that issue and just go along with whatever the majority of comrades decide, since I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

[Killfacer]

The guns of the state are controlled by democratically elected officials who are supposed to have our best interests at heart and more often than not do. Even if they are occasionally misguided. Also your point about most governments not being supported by a majority, if someone cant be bothered to go out and vote i doubt armed insurrection is high on their list of priorities.

[freakazoid]

if someone cant be bothered to go out and vote i doubt armed insurrection is high on their list of priorities.

While I don't know about you guys on the other side of the pond but it seems here that the reason most people don't vote here is because they feel that there is no one to really vote for, that and apathy I think. Although armed insurrection would currently not be on there list of priorities right now, but if we do our part correctly, and the .gov continues on its current path of greater and greater authoritarian measures, then the idea of an armed insurrection will start to grow.

And Jazzratt, didn't you use to make fun of me because of my beliefs that there is a need for militias, and that we need to prepare for an armed insurrection? Something like calling me a "crazy survivalist nerd for Jesus" :P

[Jazzratt]

The guns of the state are controlled by democratically elected officials who are supposed to have our best interests at heart and more often than not do.

Are you talking about current bourgeois states?

You don't need a state to look after your best interests, if you're unable of acting in your own material interests then you probably need mental help.


Even if they are occasionally misguided.

When have they ever been "correctly" guided in their actions?


Also your point about most governments not being supported by a majority, if someone cant be bothered to go out and vote i doubt armed insurrection is high on their list of priorities.

That assumes everyone that doesn't vote is just some lazy couch potato that sits on their arse all day stuffing fast food into their heads. This is bollocks. A lot of people who don't vote do so simply because they are so disillusioned with the government and whatever handful of facsimile parties are presented as an "alternative" that they do not vote. Also in a lot of turn-out statistics spoiled ballots are not counted.

I'm under no illusion that there will be an armed insurrection tomorrow morning, but it's better to make sure everyone is armed for when one can happen.

Freakazoid


And Jazzratt, didn't you use to make fun of me because of my beliefs that there is a need for militias, and that we need to prepare for an armed insurrection? Something like calling me a "crazy survivalist nerd for Jesus" :P

I made fun of you because you are a survivalist nerd for jesus. The entire basis of your militia theory is that there is some kind of apocalyptic event on the horizon, which is stupid.

[Kropotesta]

While I don't know about you guys on the other side of the pond but it seems here that the reason most people don't vote here is because they feel that there is no one to really vote for, that and apathy I think. Although armed insurrection would currently not be on there list of priorities right now, but if we do our part correctly, and the .gov continues on its current path of greater and greater authoritarian measures, then the idea of an armed insurrection will start to grow.

And Jazzratt, didn't you use to make fun of me because of my beliefs that there is a need for militias, and that we need to prepare for an armed insurrection? Something like calling me a "crazy survivalist nerd for Jesus" :P
how come you're restricted? From what I've seen you post I just can't figure it out!

[Robert]

deleted

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, for crying out loud. "After"? Why not now? What do you mean "democratically"? There are hundreds of gun laws on the books in the USA, and presumably in GB, and every one of them was enacted, and some occasionally amended and repealed, by a popularly elected legislature, parliament or Congress, and then approved by a popularly elected governor or president. Then they are tested against the Second Amendment for constitutionality in the U.S. anyway. That's as good as it gets unless we just make you dear leader for life and let you decide what's best for everybody else.

What the hell do you want, assuming you know?

Robert, calm down. :) You know when the Revolution comes it will be you, me, Pusher and Deja that will be in charge of the damn thing anyway. ( Like these Commie guy's are going to run a Revolution! :rolleyes:)

The only question left to decide about the Revolution is who's going to have the bushy mustache, who's going to grow the beard and who's going to do the Elvis/Trotsky style pompadour? :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Oh, for crying out loud. "After"? Why not now?

Because I aked him, a leftist that posists a revolution, about what his post-revolution plan for gun ownership was. That's why "after".

[Robert]

who's going to have the bushy mustache, who's going to grow the beard and who's going to do the Elvis/Trotsky style pompadour?T-dude, I do a bad version of "Suspicious Minds" (and by "bad" I don't mean good), but that's as close to Elvis as I get. So ... I'll make the supreme sacrifice and take the bushy mustache. I promise never to betray the revolution. Trust me!

On edit: Edric O, I took your comment about guns out of context and so responded inappropriately. My bad.

[freakazoid]

Freakazoid

Thats me, :D


I made fun of you because you are a survivalist nerd for jesus.

:P


The entire basis of your militia theory is that there is some kind of apocalyptic event on the horizon, which is stupid.

Actually that is not correct. While I do believe that it will happen that is not the basis, if you remember what I had said some of the goals of the militia should be.


how come you're restricted? From what I've seen you post I just can't figure it out!

Because of an off hand comment I made about abortion that made it seem like I am anti-choice, which isn't true, I believe that women should have the right to decide if they can have one or not, it doesn't help that I'm not liked because I am a Christian, and a YEC at that. Oh well, it doesn't look like I am going to be restricted anytime soon so I try to make the best of it, :(

[Robert]

Freak, who is the guy on your avatar/image? He looks very earnest.

[freakazoid]

It's Mark Rudd, he was a member of the Weather Underground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29

[Killfacer]

Jazzratt your taking what i said out of context. Obviously the state is not required for everything, but i think most people would agree that a state is needed for important laws such as gun laws.

When have they been correctly guided in their actions? Your telling me that the UK government or the US goverment have never done anything good?

Your assumption that an armed insurrection is likely to happen in your life time seems stupud. Not withstanding a natural apolyptic disaster (something you laughed at freakazoid for) it aint gonna happen.

[freakazoid]

Your assumption that an armed insurrection is likely to happen in your life time seems stupud.

At least here in the US I believe that I will see one in my lifetime.

[IcarusAngel]

Going back to a more appropriate topic that is applicable now: The UN is a complete necessity in today's world.

The UN has specific rules for when the use of force is allowed, and that is basically only in the case of the self-defense. All the United States has to do to declare war, however, is declare war on a supposed enemy.

Thus, the UN is far more humane than the United States and international IGOs are needed in an interdependent world. Europe almost killed itself off with battles among the "states," and so some cooperative efforts were needed. The US thinks it can invade anybody to exploit their resources, so condemnations of its actions are needed.

A lot of what the UN has done though is just carry about actions FOR the United States, and the US owes it more money than any other country, and has vetoed more resolutions than all the other countries on the Security Council combined. So, the UN is flawed and can be an instrument for the powerful, but it's had a better record than the US in securing social democracy in many countries.

Almost all Anarchists and communists are against the totalitarian, idiotic concept of the state, and, specifically, they despise so-called "nation-states." Nation-states have been responsible for more deaths than any other type of system, even feudalism, and have been developed in coalition with capitalism.

I'd be interested to know what kind of "defense" a leftist could put forth to justify the idea of the "soverign" nation-state like what the Paultards believe, as almost all leftist theory is diametrically opposed to it.

[IcarusAngel]

And remember what Marx said: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." He didn't say, they have "France, Germany, and Russia" to win, but the world. "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere." --King.

And I doubt the WeatherUnderground wanted a revolution to restore a soverign United States alone. :laugh:

freakazoid has unfortunately been bullshitting agian.

[Jazzratt]

Your assumption that an armed insurrection is likely to happen in your life time seems stupud.

How the fuck did you extrapolate that I believed I would live to see an armed insurrection from this:


I'm under no illusion that there will be an armed insurrection tomorrow morning, but it's better to make sure everyone is armed for when one can happen.

Try to apply your elementary reading comprehension skills next time.

(I'll reply to the rest later)

[Kami]

Your[sic] telling me that the UK government or the US goverment have never done anything good?
Bad institutions do good things occasionaly. This neither means they are good institution, nor that they should exist.

[RNK]

The only time bad institutions do something good is when they are forced to or when that good deed is simply an unintentional side effect of the pursuit of their own private interests. More often than not, these corporations which get involved in "greenism" and charity do so as a public relations ploy to improve business and draw in more consumers rather than any active attempt to do something "good". If they wanted to do something good they'd give homeless people free shit or pay for breast cancer patients' biopsies.

[Killfacer]

jazzratt, i do understand what your saying but maybe i didnt fully explain what i meant. it seems stupid to me to prepare for something which, in my opinion, isnt likely to occur in several generations, particuarly if the side effect of this preperation is the deaths of hundreds of people.

Kami, your assuming that the UK government is innately evil. It isnt, i belevie that what you said is true but in reverse. Good institutions occasioanlly do bad things. Really bad things sometimes. For example sometimes good institutions impliment silly ideas such as not having very strong gun laws :)

[Kami]

Kami, your assuming that the UK government is innately evil
Where did you pull that from? I just said doing something good doesn't make it a good institution.
I don't believe it EVIIIL, just damaging and unnecessary

[freakazoid]

freakazoid has unfortunately been bullshitting agian.What in the world are you talking about? Bullshitting on what?


it seems stupid to me to prepare for something which, in my opinion, isnt likely to occur in several generations, particuarly if the side effect of this preperation is the deaths of hundreds of people.

If it isn't going to happen for several generations why is that an excuse not to prepare? That just means that you have an even longer time to stockpile things for your children's children. That and what if it does happen in your lifetime. Then you have nothing prepared. Also the only reason many people will die is because the .gov isn't going to just let capitalism be destroyed. Your not preparing for the deaths of hundreds of people, your preparing for the death of capitalism.

[Killfacer]

kami, the UK government isnt damaging and unnecassary, but thats for another conversation i think.

Freakazoid, are you stock piling guns for the revolution of your childrens childrens children? Because if your not then i dont see how what you said is relevant. If your refering to laws then personally i think a revolution is perfectly acheivable without having ridiculous gun laws decades before.

[Peacekeeper]

Because it was the needless slaughter of thousands. what more reason do I need?

1. Shut it with your "this country". The internet isn't American, and neither are all its denizens.
2. Yes, you were asked to help. And you did. Thankfully ending your isolationism just in time.
As to america's habit of invasions; if not for international pressure, you guys'd probably be in Iran already.

If you want to get really technical, it was developed by our military, so yeah. It kinda is. Just saying.

[pusher robot]

If you want to get really technical, it was developed by our military, so yeah. It kinda is. Just saying.

While DARPA invented the technology and created the first internetwork, the vast bulk of the internet infrastructure was created by capitalists.

Just saying.

[freakazoid]

Freakazoid, are you stock piling guns for the revolution of your childrens childrens children? Because if your not then i dont see how what you said is relevant. If your refering to laws then personally i think a revolution is perfectly acheivable without having ridiculous gun laws decades before.

I was, had to sell them for money, :( And when I start getting more money after I pay some things off I will start again. Even if I currently am not how does that all of a sudden make it irrelevant? Like I said, money is an issue.

[IcarusAngel]

While DARPA invented the technology and created the first internetwork, the vast bulk of the internet infrastructure was created by capitalists.

Just saying.

After the internet was built up and proven to be effective and strong, it was privatized and handed over to the capitalists, who ruined some of the best features of it -- turning it more into e-commerce than the information super-highway.

The net still uses the same fundamental technology today as when the NSF ran it.

Everything is either developed by the government in capitalism, or protected monopolies.

[pusher robot]

After the internet was built up and proven to be effective and strong, it was privatized and handed over to the capitalists, who ruined some of the best features of it -- turning it more into e-commerce than the information super-highway.Of course, those dreaded cyber-capitalists and their nefarious ruining of the intarwebz! CURSE YOU, GOOGLE! DAMN YOU, QWEST! FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL, I STAB AT THEE!


The net still uses the same fundamental technology today as when the NSF ran it.

Except for using different infrastructure, with different protocols and different operators, yes, it's exactly the same.


Everything is either developed by the government in capitalism, or protected monopolies.True, for sufficiently small values of "everything."

[IcarusAngel]

Of course, those dreaded cyber-capitalists and their nefarious ruining of the intarwebz! CURSE YOU, GOOGLE! DAMN YOU, QWEST! FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL, I STAB AT THEE!

Google = developed at Stanford, probably on state bought computers.

Qwest = government monopoly.


Except for using different infrastructure, with different protocols and different operators, yes, it's exactly the same.

TCP/IP are still the base protocols for the net.


True, for sufficiently small values of "everything."

Name one thing developed in a capitalist FREE-MARKET.

Every corporate invention has been insured by the government to protect from market failure.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Interestingly enough, there's not one case of laissez faire capitalism actually working, whereas communism and socialism was practiced (quite successfully) in Spain, Chile, Iran, and other parts of the world at a certain time. Anything close to market dominance came through brutal force by neo-liberal agents, and the results have always been devastating.

The internet, highways, and Apollo missions are just some examples where the government went forward with a project that no private entity could have funded. We see this in contemporary society where Exxon Mobile refuses to create refineries even though it's making record profits. I believe it's the Chicago school which postulates 20% government investment being necessary.

Free market capitalism is a pipe dream for the same simpletons who think all the problems associated with industrialism don't apply today.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't know what's more amusing: apologists for the many failed regimes of neo-liberalism, or apologists for corporations.

On one hand you have demonstrable evidence of market-oriented economies stagnating - on the other you have people trying spout off "free market principles" while defending government protection around an entity that would not be near as popular today if it weren't for the fact you can't take down a corporation, or sue the shareholders. At the same time, corporations carry economies. Quagmire?

[IcarusAngel]

Don't you know?

Whenever something is developed in our society - it's because of capitalism.

Whenever the injusticies of our society is pointed out, it's because we don't live in a capitalist society.

Libertarians have about a million definitions of capitalism. A success story is noted, suddenly the US becomes the perfect type of capitaism. A failure is noted, the US is an anti-capitalist, socialist dictatorship. This happens even in the same time at the same place. :laugh:

[Killfacer]

Freakazoid are you genuinly considering stock piling guns?

[Forward Union]

While DARPA invented the technology and created the first internetwork, the vast bulk of the internet infrastructure was created by capitalists.

Just saying.

The printing press, pen, and masonry was invented by Feudalists. Knives, spears, and cooked food by Primitivists.

Things were invented in certain economic contexts; it is neither a reflection on that economy or the invention.

[freakazoid]

Freakazoid are you genuinly considering stock piling guns?

Theres nothing to really consider at this point, I will when I have the funds again.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The printing press, pen, and masonry was invented by Feudalists. Knives, spears, and cooked food by Primitivists.

Things were invented in certain economic contexts; it is neither a reflection on that economy or the invention.

Very good point. Ancient civilizations invented the most remarkable elements of society: shelter, medicine, cooked food, agriculture, language, storage, numerals [...] I imagine under communism we'll see exponential growth in every field of living due to the lack of property restrictions and emancipated labor - as opposed to today's linear model, and feudalism's cubic growth.

The "Ron Paul" phenomena is unconvincing. He'll probably go down as another John Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bayard_Anderson). I prefer Eugene Debs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs), anyway.

[Peacekeeper]

Interestingly enough, there's not one case of laissez faire capitalism actually working, whereas communism and socialism was practiced (quite successfully) in Spain, Chile, Iran, and other parts of the world at a certain time. Anything close to market dominance came through brutal force by neo-liberal agents, and the results have always been devastating.

The internet, highways, and Apollo missions are just some examples where the government went forward with a project that no private entity could have funded. We see this in contemporary society where Exxon Mobile refuses to create refineries even though it's making record profits. I believe it's the Chicago school which postulates 20% government investment being necessary.

Free market capitalism is a pipe dream for the same simpletons who think all the problems associated with industrialism don't apply today.



Don't forget the massive voluntary agricultural collectives in western China! A lot of those are still operating today. :)

[Andy Bowden]

I think gun ownership is, in theory a good idea. Having an armed people is the best defence against military coups, repression etc. Theres dozens of cases where armed workers could have won - Chile in 73 for example.

But gun ownership and debates around it are skewed by the fact that the developed country most associated with gun ownership has large levels of gun crime, associated with said ownership and that the gun ownership defence is carried out mostly by the right.

Still, radicals in the US have used the right to bear arms - the BPP most obviously.

That said all these right wing millitia nuts who think that because they and a couple of mates have shotguns think they could make a dent if the worlds most powerful army decided to take over are seriously deluded.

If you actually wanted to protect yourself from that you'd need to network as millitia groups (which I think maintains the progressive elements of gun ownership, while limiting the chances they are used for crime).

But then again, a huge part of gun ownership is about individualism in the US - I, and I only will defend MY family against the FBI, IRS an Al Qaeda!

[freakazoid]

That said all these right wing millitia nuts who think that because they and a couple of mates have shotguns think they could make a dent if the worlds most powerful army decided to take over are seriously deluded.

Ever heard of the Michigan Militia? They have a lot more than just a couple of shotguns.

[Killfacer]

but the problem is these people from the US and the UK seem to think that there is likely to be a chance for them to use the guns they have. There isnt. People talk about defending themselves against the state, when the fuck is "THE STATE" gonna knock on your door and say "IM COMIN TO GET YOU". Aint gonna happen. The only time you will use your gun is in anger at a crime.

[freakazoid]

People talk about defending themselves against the state, when the fuck is "THE STATE" gonna knock on your door and say "IM COMIN TO GET YOU".

Hurricane Katrina? The Greensburg, KS tornado?


The only time you will use your gun is in anger at a crime.

Are you serious? Do you need me to post links to how many times a firearms has been used in self-defense?

[Killfacer]

Hurricane Katrina? I dont see the relevance of that. I thought the main problem was the distinct lack of government intervention. Unless your actually referring to people being evacuated. if you are then, it might just be me, but i always thought that getting out of the Hurricane zone was usually a pretty bright idea.

You have misunderstood what i mean Freakazoid, i was saying that the only time you will use a gun is when being involved in crime, either victim of criminal and that you will not use a gun in anger against your government.

[Bud Struggle]

Hurricane Katrina? I dont see the relevance of that. I thought the main problem was the distinct lack of government intervention. Unless your actually referring to people being evacuated. if you are then, it might just be me, but i always thought that getting out of the Hurricane zone was usually a pretty bright idea.

You have misunderstood what i mean Freakazoid, i was saying that the only time you will use a gun is when being involved in crime, either victim of criminal and that you will not use a gun in anger against your government.

In the aftermath of Katrina roving gangs of thugs and theives were wondering around looting and killing (Anarchy anyone?:rolleyes:)

The citizens needed to be armed to defend themselves against these predators.

[careyprice31]

Ron Paul=LOL
nuff said.

Exactly what i was thinking.
Took the damn words out of my .....keyboard.

[Killfacer]

TomK have you even read the conversation? I commented that the state was not gonna come knocking on your door. Gangs of looters looting is not the state. Thefor the use of hurricane Katrina as an example is stupid. Unless off course you think that its worth staying in your flooded house, risking your life, to stop someone stealing your TV. Nobody is that stupid though.

[Kronos]

So what would really spark a revolution? I don't mean a little thousand man union strike somewhere. I mean a sudden (considering) radical change in the super-structure.

I figure that if the majority of voting, working citizens in first world capitalisms are middle class, and their lifestyles suddenly change because of a great shift in economics- hyperinflation, recession- they will quickly become discontented and more susceptible to accepting democratic liberal socialistic policies as real alternatives to global capitalism.

Suppose that countries that have capitalist monopolies operating by importing jobs, raise the economic strength of their own country...so that they are comparable to some other first world capitalisms. The price of exported labor raises slowly, as the internal strength is increased (think China) Once an "imperialized" country has its own industry...it doesn't need to accept imported labor offers from monopolies- a majority of its working classes can be employed by native capitalists...and are no longer contracting imported jobs. If this is so, the wonderful low costs of products sold in America would not be possible, since corporations would no longer want to contract and import jobs to workers in monopolized countries. These workers can get the same workers benefits, and general wages, with other jobs that are in demand.

In theory, if the price for labor increases, because the majority of commodities are produced by exporting the jobs to countries that are gaining their own economic strength and stability (increasing the national workers demand), and therefore the workers have higher paying alternative jobs, then capitalist monopolies will have to sell products at higher prices.

If the product market in general is raised because of this, the quality of the middle class lifestyle dramatically changes...probably rather quickly. Suddenly a majority of the middle class will be filing bankruptcy, foreclosing their house, losing property for loans, going into credit debt, etc. Because the overall market costs are higher...the minor inflations of price on individual commodities would not be noticed, but all of them combined results in a pseudo-depression that has to be inferred.

Also what happens is what jobs that would have been exported, but are now nationalized, are not competitive, or in demand back on the home land. Now there are too many jobs.....and monopoly capitalists lose serious capital without the opportunity for international job exportation.

Now if, say, in one hundred years, seventy-five percent of our exported jobs are no longer needed or taken, what would that do to the local market in the economy that was once so drastically increased because of new imperialism and monopoly techniques? There would be a sudden crash in the consumer market. Everybody would be broke, with the exception of the corporations which share global stock.

There would be no new jobs, nor would wages suddenly increase, as an attempt to revitalize the consumer market. Everything manufactured and sold on American soil would be made in America, and when the production of those things no longer has the low cost advantages of being exported......a shift happens in the economy. As I have explained in a rather amateur way, the consumer market inflates prices without a higher wage tendency to balance out the economy- as many buyers as there are producers.

The stage which directly precedes this catastrophic event, if it happens, would look something like how it looks now. A middle class national working majority living a high standard life because its consumer market costs are kept low through exporting the jobs which produce those things which are brought back and sold to them.

The "credit" system is the "last dance" of the conservative, republican ideology. There simply won't be any incentive or opportunity for global investors to risk generating capital through monopoly and imperialism. All nations will eventually "even out" in the race for industry strength.

I think a revolution will be lengthy, and I think it will come about in politics after several economic states and phases are passed through, which are the results of the natural course of things in the capitalist system.

The majority of the voters are at any time the middle working class. The power in the material dialectic lies in the fact that a majority of one working class will always be far greater than the number of the opposing bourgeois classes. Politics is the mind of the proletariat evolving. The necessary political synthesis of the problems and eventual states that the capitalist system will create, will be realized by the people's majority and resolved through them, as well.

I liked what Zizek said about the "utopia". It is not something that necessarily will evolve dialectically. It is only a loose, theoretical depiction of a communist state without any government. We shouldn't think of it as something that is bound to happen, naturally. No. We need to think of a utopia as being necessarily invented, out of "sheer urgency", as he put it.

But the days of "war" are over. There will be no more violent revolutions of fascist dictators taking power out of nowhere.

If something like that is going to happen...its gonna be part of a bigger plan, one which was designed long before it was enacted. A totalitarian state declared as a response to terrorist activity...or something else fabricated like that. A one world order is absolutely comprehensive. It is certainly a feasible plan.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK have you even read the conversation? I commented that the state was not gonna come knocking on your door. Gangs of looters looting is not the state. Thefor the use of hurricane Katrina as an example is stupid. Unless off course you think that its worth staying in your flooded house, risking your life, to stop someone stealing your TV. Nobody is that stupid though.

You haven't been to New Orleans. LOTS of people did just that--they stayed in their homes and refused to leave. The town sank into lawlessness after the hurricane and people had to protect their homes with guns. A real world situation.

[Killfacer]

What in gods name Kronos, did that have to do with gun laws?

TomK can you link it back to the "state knocking on the door" and where a gun will be useful in that situation. Because nobody is saying that people didnt stay at home during hurricane katrina and protected their homes with guns.

[Bud Struggle]

Maybe it's me. I'm just having a tough time following you sentences. But it's a forgone conclusion that people don't use guns against the state--it's against criminals.

[Killfacer]

TomK thats the bloody point i have been going on about for fucking ages. Me and Freakazoid were debating about the use of guns. The conversation turned from using guns in self defence to using guns in a revolution. I denied the validity of this, because i cannot see the point in allowing guns because there might be a revolution in the next hundred years. Freakazoid disagreed. Then he stated Hurricane Katrina as an example. But i didnt think that it was a particuarly useful example because it wasnt the state knocking on the door, it was looters.

Get it?

[Bud Struggle]

Get it?

I see that now. I mistook your point. Anyway, sorry about that. :)

[Killfacer]

heh no worries. I did it recently but i made a complete twat of myself because i was having a pop at someone, then i clocked on. Felt like a right tosser. Not that your a tosser or anything :)

We kind of killed the conversation with that tangent.

[PRC-UTE]

http://www.a-human-right.com/difference_s.jpg

Funny as rifles such as that one would've been used to keep slaves in their place.

I basically agree that armed workers are better than unarmed, but let's start from the beginning: if there isn't a well organised, combative workers' movement to begin with, whether it's armed for revolution or not is pointless. If there's not much solidarity being practiced by workers in the course of the class struggle, they're likely to use the weapons on each other- especially in paranoid racist countries like the USA.

[freakazoid]

Unless your actually referring to people being evacuated. if you are then, it might just be me, but i always thought that getting out of the Hurricane zone was usually a pretty bright idea.

The .gov has no right to force someone out of there home. A lot of the people that had stayed had enough food and water to take care of themselves.



You have misunderstood what i mean Freakazoid, i was saying that the only time you will use a gun is when being involved in crime, either victim of criminal and that you will not use a gun in anger against your government.

Yes, I will. Why do you say otherwise? If the .gov came and did what it had done after Katrina I will fight it.


Then he stated Hurricane Katrina as an example. But i didnt think that it was a particuarly useful example because it wasnt the state knocking on the door, it was looters.It wasn't only looters, it was the state knocking on the doors FORCING people out. I've posted this video before, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

[Killfacer]

and you think people are likely to start taking pot shots are the police because they want the evacuate them? If they do then they are idiots.

You will always get fools who will stay in their house come hurricane or apocolypse. Some people just dont understand and if it makes it more difficult for future rescue operations then i think people to take the clearly responsible path and just be evacuated. More to the point i dont think being evacuated is worth shooting someone for. Would you genuinly shoot a young police officer who attempted to get you out?

[freakazoid]

and you think people are likely to start taking pot shots are the police because they want the evacuate them?

It isn't just that they are trying to evacuate them, it is that they are trying to force them out.


You will always get fools who will stay in their house come hurricane or apocolypse. Some people just dont understand

Some people are just prepared for the event, some people don't want to leave because they have always lived there, and some people don't want to leave to protect there valuables.


and if it makes it more difficult for future rescue operations then i think people to take the clearly responsible path and just be evacuated.

How would it make it more difficult?


Would you genuinly shoot a young police officer who attempted to get you out?

Not if all he did was suggest that I should leave. And after I say no thanks he says ok have a nice day and leaves. But I would if they break into my house and try to force me at gun point to make me leave.

[Killfacer]

I see what your saying and actually you have won me round slightly, (not about gun laws) people do have the right not to me forced to leave their homes. On the other hand should peoples stupidity risk the lives of others. I mean if a parent is properly paranoid then they will not allow their kid to leave as house, should the idiocy of the parent be a good enough reason to risk the life of the children? I have no problem with adults staying in their house, they are perfectly within rights to do so, but if a child is involved it would me immoral. I know thats kind of a stupid hypothetical but im just interested to see what you think on the matter.

[careyprice31]

And while people often bring up Adolph Hitler as a reason why nations sometimes need to intervene, it's conveniently overlooked that rampant militarism and a foreign policy of naked aggression throughout Europe was the root cause of World War One and therefore one of the root causes of the Nazis rise to power in the first place.

ahahahahaha

I'm studying world war one atm in my history course in fact the entire course is on WWI and this post is my own opinion on the causes of the war (s) exactly.

[freakazoid]

I see what your saying and actually you have won me round slightlyExcellent,
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/100276794_548c83c4eb.jpg


I mean if a parent is properly paranoid then they will not allow their kid to leave as house, should the idiocy of the parent be a good enough reason to risk the life of the children? I have no problem with adults staying in their house, they are perfectly within rights to do so, but if a child is involved it would me immoral.A lot of the people had adequate supplies, so there would of been no danger to there children. Also I believe that even if there was some sort of "danger" that the .gov would have no right to force them out. I don't believe that the .gov has any rights to begin with.

[Bright Banana Beard]

How can I trust your vote if you cannot trust me with a gun?

[Killfacer]

So you dont beleive that the government should be allowed to stop children being endangered by the stupidity of their parents? even if they do have to use force?

[freakazoid]

So you dont beleive that the government should be allowed to stop children being endangered by the stupidity of their parents?

That could lead to one huge slippery slope. Where does it draw the line? What exactly would constitute as being dangerous? Does taking your child to McDonalds count? How about letting your child ride a bike? How about Letting your child simply go outside and play? The only thing the government should do is disband.

[Killfacer]

Yes but by that logic our ancestors shouldnt of made fire because it eventually led machine guns and bombs.

[freakazoid]

What?

[Killfacer]

i was just criticising the "slippery slope" excuse. Its poor. By that logic you could say we should not have invented fire because it was a slippery slope to bombs. Make sense? i hope so!

[freakazoid]

It's not poor, it is a very valid objection. But we should be making bombs ;)

[Killfacer]

yeah good idea! lets all make bombs and stockpile them so in 500 years when there may or may not be a revolution our ancestors wont be short of bombs ;) ;)

[freakazoid]

Pretty sure it is going to be a LOT sooner than that ;) ;) ;)

[Killfacer]

what gives you that impression?

[freakazoid]

It seems to me that a lot of people are waking up to the fact that the .gov isn't really that good of a thing. Things happening around the globe. Plus other reasons, :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That could lead to one huge slippery slope. Where does it draw the line? What exactly would constitute as being dangerous? Does taking your child to McDonalds count? How about letting your child ride a bike? How about Letting your child simply go outside and play? The only thing the government should do is disband.

I'm sorry, but parents don't have a "right" to rape their children, keep them uneducated, or verbally abuse them.

[freakazoid]

Did I say they had a right to do those things? Keep them uneducated? How far does that go? Is it ok for teachers to strike then? Is it ok for a child to skip school? And on verbally abusing them, what exactly would that be?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Did I say they had a right to do those things?

You were arguing in favor of preposterous notions, namely: parental rights trumping the right for the community to intervene.


Keep them uneducated? How far does that go?

The community should decide. Do you think parents have a "right" to keep their children dumb as clunks?


Is it ok for a child to skip school?

Depends on the circumstances. Why do you argue from moral dichotomies?


And on verbally abusing them, what exactly would that be?

I don't know; what constitutes physical abuse? Yes, that's right. The community decides.

Jeesh. :rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

isnt all this pretty stupid. Each of the things you both mention have to be looked at seperatly (i think gene said something about circumstances).

Personally i dont think any parent has the right to keep their child uneducated. Thats an abuse of human rights as the child is not likely to ever "fit in". Obviously there are mitigating circumstances in which a child may not be able to attend school, bullying for example, in which case home schooling should be enforced. Keeping a child uneducated is morally wrong and community (avoided using the word state there!) intervention is required.

Verbal abuse is something which has to be looked at in a case by case way. Obviously a parent does not have the right to bully their child. However when does the community have the right to intervene? Simply calling you child a stupid bastard does not warrant bullying. But to do it daily would surely have a long term effect. At what point does it become ok for state intervention?

[Kami]

bullying for example, in which case home schooling should be enforced.
O.o Pardon? That's one of the worst ideas I've heard this week. care to back it up?

[freakazoid]

You were arguing in favor of preposterous notions, namely: parental rights trumping the right for the community to intervene.

So this is the community then, not the government? Thats different.


Depends on the circumstances.

Does allowing you child to skip school one day be regarded as keeping your child uneducated? Should teachers not be allowed to strike because if they did then won't the children be kept uneducated?


Why do you argue from moral dichotomies?

What do you mean?

[Killfacer]

Kami i am simply saying that homeschooling is better than no schooling at all and that kids should HAVE to have an education.