Where are the firearms at?

[parttime crackhead]

Aye, your comment makes sense with the edit. I still totally disagree with you, but at least you're making (some) rational sense and not just going "CONSTATOOOTUN DERP DERP".

Don't you see that they won't ever actually come for your guns. You say that when they come to disarm there will be full revolution. Do you agree that there will not be full revolution before that point? If so, then all they have to do is let you keep your gun while using your bill of rights as toilet paper and you won't do a fucking thing.

 

[Sammy G]

History has taught the world what happens when nations disarm their citizenry.

Which particular historical example(s) are you referring to exactly? Nazi Germany is the usual example people come up with. I don't really think gun control had much to do with the atrocities perpetrated by that regime.

I don't think any particular example you come up with can demonstrate a causal link between gun control laws and any example of state atrocities against citizens.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

they intended them to be armed because they believed the british were going to invade imminently, and wanted an army on the cheap to defend their interests. to claim it as some sort of inherent ideological dream is a tad misleading

 

[Just A Guy]

Don't you see that they won't ever actually come for your guns. You say that when they come to disarm there will be full revolution. Do you agree that their will not be full revolution before that point? If so, then all they have to do is let you keep your gun while using your bill of rights as toilet paper and you won't do a fucking thing.

Yes. I was an advocate for Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012. Don't know what kind of candidates we'll see in 2016, and I'm convinced that the two-party system will never produce a candidate who won't continue doing more of the same thing (big government / violate Constitution / deficit spending). Doing my best to promote independent and 3rd party candidates. Not likely to be one myself, since I'm quite poor and don't have the shiniest record--but I'm doing what I think all people must do to hold on to what greater people than we have died for to give us: take political action. Vote. Educate ourselves. Tackle the issues on our own. To not be loyal to parties, but to principles... you know.

 

[Just A Guy]

Which particular historical example(s) are you referring to exactly? Nazi Germany is the usual example people come up with. I don't really think gun control had much to do with the atrocities perpetrated by that regime.

I don't think any particular example you come up with can demonstrate a causal link between gun control and state atrocities.

Well, the Soviet Union comes to mind... Remember the Bolsheviks? Started w/ firearm registration in 1918, and finally (after Lenin was shot) they were ordered to surrender all firearms and ammo. Even sabres. The penalty -- minimum 6 months prison. The used the previous registrations as a base to start locating those w/ firearms, and forcibly disarmed them. What state atrocities followed? Stalin made the penalty for owning firearms worse: a 1935 law making illegal carrying of a knife punishable by five years in prison and a decree of that same year extending "all penalties, including death, down to twelve-year-old children." Then came the Great Purge... They say 20 million people died in this oppressive regime, following gun control.

 

[Sammy G]

they intended them to be armed because they believed the british were going to invade imminently, and wanted an army on the cheap to defend their interests. to claim it as some sort of inherent ideological dream is a tad misleading

And to claim it as a guarantee of protection from state oppression is downright absurd.

What state atrocities followed? Stalin made the penalty for owning firearms worse: a 1935 law making illegal carrying of a knife punishable by five years in prison and a decree of that same year extending "all penalties, including death, down to twelve-year-old children." Then came the Great Purge... They say 20 million people died in this oppressive regime, following gun control.

Following gun control. Not because of gun control. The Purges were hardly a direct consequence of the penalties for owning firearms, were they?

Try again.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Yes. I was an advocate for Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012. Don't know what kind of candidates we'll see in 2016, and I'm convinced that the two-party system will never produce a candidate who won't continue doing more of the same thing (big government / violate Constitution / deficit spending). Doing my best to promote independent and 3rd party candidates. Not likely to be one myself, since I'm quite poor and don't have the shiniest record--but I'm doing what I think all people must do to hold on to what greater people than we have died for to give us: take political action. Vote. Educate ourselves. Tackle the issues on our own. To not be loyal to parties, but to principles... you know.

Fair enough. I can't argue with that at all.

 

[knock]

Jesus, so I have to again?

Yes. I was an advocate for Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012. Don't know what kind of candidates we'll see in 2016, and I'm convinced that the two-party system will never produce a candidate who won't continue doing more of the same thing (big government / violate Constitution / deficit spending). Doing my best to promote independent and 3rd party candidates. Not likely to be one myself, since I'm quite poor and don't have the shiniest record--but I'm doing what I think all people must do to hold on to what greater people than we have died for to give us: take political action. Vote. Educate ourselves. Tackle the issues on our own. To not be loyal to parties, but to principles... you know.

Voting is not political action, it doesn't matter which candidate you elect the interests of the rich will always be served, because when our means of existence all have a price tag, money is power, and those who have money generally use it in their own interest. The only way to be free of that economic law is to change the economic system, i.e. stop putting prices on things and produce according to need, not in the service of profit.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

well he was consigliere to the 'intellectual godfather of the tea party'* i wouldnt PTCH Lol

*Ron Paul wiki

 

[Sammy G]

Voting is not political action, it doesn't matter which candidate you elect the interests of the rich will always be served, because when our means of existence all have a price tag, money is power, and those who have money generally use it in their own interest. The only way to be free of that economic law is to change the economic system, i.e. stop putting prices on things and produce according to need, not in the service of profit.

Hold on, we've not got him pinned on the supposed causal link between gun control and state oppression. Don't bring the concept of sham democracy into it yet! :D

 

[Just A Guy]

they intended them to be armed because they believed the british were going to invade imminently, and wanted an army on the cheap to defend their interests. to claim it as some sort of inherent ideological dream is a tad misleading

Actually, the Bill of Rights was the direct result of anti-federalists who were opposed to the Constitution. During the ratification debate, they were very much concerned that the new Constitution (which would succeed the Articles of Confederation, as you know) threatened liberties, and opposed ratification. Do satisfy them, the Federalists promised to include a series of amendments after the first session of Congress that would detail and provide provisions to specifically protect those liberties they were concerned about.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Jesus, so I have to again?



Voting is not political action, it doesn't matter which candidate you elect the interests of the rich will always be served, because when our means of existence all have a price tag, money is power, and those who have money generally use it in their own interest. The only way to be free of that economic law is to change the economic system, i.e. stop putting prices on things and produce according to need, not in the service of profit.

Knock, you talk a good game. Every time you post about something like this I think "He's completely and utterly correct"... but it's just talk. What do we do, what do you do, to try and make this talk a reality?

I put it to you, my honourable friend, that you do absolutely fuck all

 

[Droppersneck]

Sheep dogs FTW

"while you guys were prancing over here in bright red uniforms we were digging our heels in the mud sniping people off decked out in Camo."

That made me chuckle... fukkin "sniping" that's a lovely word, that.

Droopy, don't be a silly billy... there weren't any snipers back then, the rifles hardly fucking shot straight and were a bitch to fucking reload... sniping me arse.

Anyway, I wouldn't talk about UK defeatism since y'all's existence is based on Mickey D's and covert racism.

I mean be honest, don't you think there'd be more pissed off people if Mickey D's was outlawed, instead of guns?

The stereotype of us all being fat is no different than saying all brits have bad teeth.

The framers of the United States Constitution intended citizens to be armed. Bottom line. History has taught the world what happens when nations disarm their citizenry. I don't think you are arguing against the 2nd Amendment, but you are critical of the lack of a violent revolution in light of the systematic destruction of citizens' rights in the US. I understand that, however, violence has to be the last resort. We must exhaust other methods first. I will guarantee, however, that when they come to disarm, it will be full revolution.

They know that, too. It's not going to deter them, really. They simply have been preparing for it by stockpiling ammunition and the kind of equipment that will make suppressing a revolution easy. But there will be a constant cadre of resistance forever. Pray for us.

Precisely.

What are you on about?

I'm not even saying they should disarm the citizens (although I do believe in strict gun control, but that's besides the point) I'm simply calling that dude out on his defend the constitution bollocks.

He said earlier that he enjoys shooting things. If he'd stopped there I would have said fair enough, but he went on to say that people shouldn't even be allowed guns for sport as that detracts from their intended purpose - to uphold the constitution. Which is just really stupid.

Well hunting is not illegal so I partake, but if it were I would support that too. Gun ownership was intended for one purpose and that is to uphold the constitution. Tossers generally do not understand this IME.

Yes. I was an advocate for Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012. Don't know what kind of candidates we'll see in 2016, and I'm convinced that the two-party system will never produce a candidate who won't continue doing more of the same thing (big government / violate Constitution / deficit spending). Doing my best to promote independent and 3rd party candidates. Not likely to be one myself, since I'm quite poor and don't have the shiniest record--but I'm doing what I think all people must do to hold on to what greater people than we have died for to give us: take political action. Vote. Educate ourselves. Tackle the issues on our own. To not be loyal to parties, but to principles... you know.

It is always hard to vote third party for me b/c the candidates are rarely appealing. Gary Johnson was the worst Libertarian candidate I have seen in a while. I am hoping Rand Paul runs in 2016, but who knows.

 

[Just A Guy]

Jesus, so I have to again?

Voting is not political action, it doesn't matter which candidate you elect the interests of the rich will always be served, because when our means of existence all have a price tag, money is power, and those who have money generally use it in their own interest. The only way to be free of that economic law is to change the economic system, i.e. stop putting prices on things and produce according to need, not in the service of profit.

That's one side of an idealist, some might say impossible goal -- I strive for another idealist, some might say impossible goal of truly free markets. As many markets as you need or want. Where you and I disagree, I think, is that you would have some oversight agency determining who needs what, and how much production is required from them. You disdain capitalism (for profit enterprise). I think for-profit capitalism is efficient, sensible, and even more compassionate than Marxist economics, depending on the particular oversight agency. The labour theory of value is interesting to ponder, though.

 

[Sammy G]

I think for-profit capitalism is efficient, sensible, and even more compassionate than Marxist economics, depending on the particular oversight agency.

With the US government being a prime example of a 'compassionate oversight agency'?

 

[parttime crackhead]

Well hunting is not illegal so I partake, but if it were I would support that too. Gun ownership was intended for one purpose and that is to uphold the constitution. Tossers generally do not understand this IME.

Explain to me what you are doing with your gun that upholds your constitution. Explain to me what you will do with your gun in the future to uphold your constitution. Other than the basic act of owning the thing, your gun is having zero effect on your constitution being upheld.

Will you ever answer my question - What do your government have to do to your constitution to make you use that gun?


"Hunting should be illegal, but it isn't so I do it" is a really weird thing to say btw. If you think it should be illegal then can you not preempt it's illegality by not doing it? Do you do every single thing that isn't illegal?

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

lets not get started on capitalism vs marxism, i certainly do not ascribe to the politics of envy. lines are drawn quite neatly at the moment, he's attempting to divide and conquer!

 

[parttime crackhead]

lets not get started on capitalism vs marxism, i certainly do not ascribe to the politics of envy. lines are drawn quite neatly at the moment, he's attempting to divide and conquer!

Aye, different topic for a different thread.

 

[Just A Guy]

With the US government being a prime example of a 'compassionate oversight agency'?

Oh, God, no. If there is one thing I am absolutely certain of, it's that too many people in United States government are corrupt to the core.

But back to gun control:

A disarmed citizenry is easier to control, so malign governments will support disarming citizens. It's natural that an unfettered government will tend towards corruption and the pursuit of power. Checks and balances are needed. I will reserve my rights, every time, all the time. I'll try to put together a neat little causal example for the person whose mind requires it later, but it's back to the grind. Have a great one.

 

[Droppersneck]

Explain to me what you are doing with your gun that upholds your constitution. Explain to me what you will do with your gun in the future to uphold your constitution. Other than the basic act of owning the thing, your gun is having zero effect on your constitution being upheld.

Will you ever answer my question - What do your government have to do to your constitution to make you use that gun?

Just with having the american people owning weapons the constitution is being upheld. I answered your question many times and that is I have no clue what would bring the American people to rebel against the government. All I know is I hope it never happens b/c we would have exhausted all other avenues to reconcile at that point.