Guns For All?? Gun 'Regulation'?? What Do You Say?

[matt romney]

(09-17-2011 10:00 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  Unfortunately Shakur I don't have that answer. The way I see it is this, I am against nuclear bombs, actually for arguments sake lets just say bombs (i'm against bombs of all kinds). And the reason I am against these bombs is because I think their purpose (e.g. killing) is wrong. Then I look at guns, same purpose, just on a smaller scale. Why would I be against the bomb but for the gun? It is the same thing used for the same exact purpose, the only difference being the scale of the action that is committed with a single bomb/gun. Also, this talk of having armed revolutions is a little fishy to me. I believe it was in one of Shakur's posts where I remember Chomsky saying something along the lines of if a society is born from a violent revolution, then that violence is then naturally integrated as part of the society, it is reflected in its culture, in its policies, etc. I believe that Chomsky (it might not have even been Chomsky that said it but I don't remember :3) is right on this one, a revolution born out of armed resistance is not an ideal revolution, or a revolution I want for that matter. What we NEED is a revolution born from love, love for the people, love for everyone and everything. I don't think we should just settle for the next best thing when the results will just end up coming back to the way things are now.

chomsky isn't really a good source. the fact that he has sat in his suits and college offices while subcommandete marcos is taking arms against the government disqualifies him.

we could either have a revolution of flowers and rainbows where they get slaughtered or have a revolution grounded in reality and survival. you choose

[NWOkiller]

Younes, I agree with a lot of what you say. With an armed population, the people will always have a chance to rise up. I'm not worried about citizen against citizen but about government out of control. If you are against gun then you can always not own one. Gun regulation or not, you will always have to worry about criminal obtaining one.

When it comes to the jews, I can't imagine people not seeing that coming. If you and your people are being put into ghetto's and the rest of the world says nothing, you should prepare for battle. I'd say they have the "it's not going to happen to us" mentality. I see much of this here in the US.

[1871]

Quote: djoser;since guns don't kill people, but people do, then we have to change the people, not the guns. Gang members join the military just to get training and then they have access to these military arsenal and then use the same tactics and weapons in their own town against their rivals and innocent people. Money is like another source of power for armed groups. And since they exist on both sides of "justice" and "crime" there will always be a high amount of guns used upon us and them by our hands and their own hands.

Guns DO kill people. This idea from the posts above that it’s the bullets lol or the people really ignore the fact that gun crimes wouldn’t happen without the supply of guns. People make money without resorting to gun crimes. What are your sources that ex-military are gang members - I’d really be interested to read that.

Quote:I'm looking at what needs to be done before that route to isolation of guns is completed. A gun free capitalist American is an impossibility

Yes sadly I think you are right about that djoser but don’t you think that restricting the availability of guns runs concurrently with decreasing gun crime?

I mean you wouldn’t even give a nut like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre the benefit of the doubt - you have to have the confidence to attack on all fronts so that criminals don’t get a chance - any chance whatsoever. Criminality exists in the political system because, as you say they allow criminals to shoot familes but its ok because its ‘out of sight is out of mind’

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagall...2&mggal=12

The innocent victims shot in American cities are no less and no more than those shot in Iraq or Afghanistan - but the same arms manufacturers profit.

You are right that the structure of American society creates that crime - but gun ownership is an integral pillar of that structure.

Quote:yael;It's hard to argue anything about gun control, legalization of weed, and social programs for the poor when we don't live in a country/ world that will allow any reform to work properly.

That’s just defeatism yael. Martin Luther King changed the way people think - so did Malcolm X.

Quote:shakur;
So, how do we reconcile this? How do we accept people's right to protect themselves and acknowledge that giving out more guns might actually put them in greater danger, will likely increase their chances of death or injury? I still think that we need to push for things like education, reforms, changes in the system, deading police corruption, etc., etc. while excepting that people who want guns for protection should have quick, easy access to them. Our job, as society, is not to tell them that they can't adopt the solutions they see, the things that make sense to them, but to push to eliminate the root causes, the reasons they live in danger and feel the need for protection.

No! You’ve just completely contradicted yourself. On the one hand you say that guns will actually increase their chances of death and injury and then you allow the things that cause death and injury. A car causes death and injury if its driven badly - for which there are penalties but a gun has only ONE purpose - and that is to shoot people - cause them injury, harm or kill them. Why not rename guns ‘homicide devices made in the ‘homicide factory’. I mean peope get arrested for having ‘offensive weapons, weapons which are deliberately created to harm people.
If people want to shoot for sport - that’s ok - sure they can go to special gun clubs for that. If you have laws for the good of society why would you want to permit something whose intent is to deliberately harm. As for the root causes - the gun industry IS the root cause - the gun industry IS the attitude materialised by capitalism - it IS also the reason why people live in poverty. You’ve argued the same on your Israel thread ie; money men at the helm of the arms industry making billions. Its their capital and ideology that a ban on gun ownership explicitly and overtly strikes at.

Quote:You can't honestly pretend that you care about the affects of terrorism when you simply talk about how many people "suicide bombers have killed" and that "security measures are needed", etc., etc. and completely ignore the root causes and refuse to address that "terrorists" have real grievances, and addressing those grievances is the solution, not "disarming terrorists". So, though I will admit that I'm inclined to believe that more guns equals more gun crime and gun related deaths, I don't think that in today's world, Malcom X or the Panthers were incorrect in arming themselves and promoting violent resistance for their survival.

Malcolm X was destroyed by gun crime. The Black Panthers were never advocates of gun crime - this is the Black Panthers -

they HAD to defend themselves from the result of a white owned gun industry - not because they wanted to but because they had to yes - but had the gun industry not existed it would have diminished the necessity - to a very great extent- for that to occur since rednecks wouldn’t have the guns to shoot black people.
Compare the advances in human rights for ‘racial minorities’ in the Uk with that of the US - less fatalities, no gun ownership, less overall manifestation numerically of that extreme racism - though it was still there and there were still murders but the UK moves faster more forward in its ‘race relations‘ than the US.. Overall the lack of the availability of guns diminishes homicide and serious injury fatalities - ask any hospital who has to deal with it on a nightly basis.

The root cause of terrorism is the arms trade - it is the ‘industrial military complex’ as Assange and others have stated which needs to keep the money rolling in with wars and conflict. If you study the lead up to both world wars - especially the first there was a MASSIVE build up in the arms trade - firearms, bombs, bullets - its an industry that escalates exponentially

Capital manifests itself in its intent - ‘attitudes’ help - but gun arms and bullets keep the homicides ticking over, determine policy and keep the billions rolling in. Without the arms trade there would be no war in Iraq. Its no use waiting for attitudes to change
When attitudes can change with policy which is what Bobby seale of the Panthers advocates.





http://www.caat.org.uk/


Amsterdam de-criminalised smoking weed but it has no legal guns - people feel safe.

[matt romney]

1871, how can you arbitrarily restrict guns, ignoring the black market and giving marginalized groups a disadvantage?

and i think you are confusing arming dictators with rockets and bombs to arming the proletariat with rifles

[shakur420]

(09-17-2011 10:00 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  Unfortunately Shakur I don't have that answer. The way I see it is this, I am against nuclear bombs, actually for arguments sake lets just say bombs (i'm against bombs of all kinds). And the reason I am against these bombs is because I think their purpose (e.g. killing) is wrong. Then I look at guns, same purpose, just on a smaller scale. Why would I be against the bomb but for the gun? It is the same thing used for the same exact purpose, the only difference being the scale of the action that is committed with a single bomb/gun. Also, this talk of having armed revolutions is a little fishy to me. I believe it was in one of Shakur's posts where I remember Chomsky saying something along the lines of if a society is born from a violent revolution, then that violence is then naturally integrated as part of the society, it is reflected in its culture, in its policies, etc. I believe that Chomsky (it might not have even been Chomsky that said it but I don't remember :3) is right on this one, a revolution born out of armed resistance is not an ideal revolution, or a revolution I want for that matter. What we NEED is a revolution born from love, love for the people, love for everyone and everything. I don't think we should just settle for the next best thing when the results will just end up coming back to the way things are now.

Sure, that's what you think, how you want things to come about. If you believe in Democracy, you're not going expect me to adopt your view of bombs, guns or anything else simply because you said so, right? If you tell me to put my gun down, and I tell you that I need that gun for such and such purpose, what's your next logical step? It's your move, what you gonna say? You gonna repeat the same old busted line? "Put down your gun". Is that what you're going to do? Maybe, but it wouldn't be productive, that would be the cycle, me telling you why I need a gun, you telling me to put it down. We would go on all night like that. The logical move for you, or one logical move rather, if your intention is to be productive, is too address my concerns, listen to what I'm telling you and why I feel I need a gun. If you address those issues, if I see the danger go away, I will put my gun down on my own, you won't even have to ask me.

Same goes for "criminals". You take away their need to earn money outside of the law, and it's pretty reasonable to expect that they wouldn't feel the need to have a gun to protect their interests.

I'm not all for a violent revolution, but I'm not sure that practically, there's any other way. But that's a different story, I don't think I can justify easy, quick access to guns and solid education about their use and safety on the basis of the "revolution" that might take 500 years to manifest. I'm talkin about crooked cops, drug dealers, and people trynna make their ends. I'm talkin about real life dangers that people face every day. Not to prepare for the apocalypse, Jesus' return or whatever. I'm talkin about real life and how you can expect somebody to adopt your views when their family's at stake.

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

(09-17-2011 10:10 PM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote:  

(09-17-2011 10:00 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  Unfortunately Shakur I don't have that answer. The way I see it is this, I am against nuclear bombs, actually for arguments sake lets just say bombs (i'm against bombs of all kinds). And the reason I am against these bombs is because I think their purpose (e.g. killing) is wrong. Then I look at guns, same purpose, just on a smaller scale. Why would I be against the bomb but for the gun? It is the same thing used for the same exact purpose, the only difference being the scale of the action that is committed with a single bomb/gun. Also, this talk of having armed revolutions is a little fishy to me. I believe it was in one of Shakur's posts where I remember Chomsky saying something along the lines of if a society is born from a violent revolution, then that violence is then naturally integrated as part of the society, it is reflected in its culture, in its policies, etc. I believe that Chomsky (it might not have even been Chomsky that said it but I don't remember :3) is right on this one, a revolution born out of armed resistance is not an ideal revolution, or a revolution I want for that matter. What we NEED is a revolution born from love, love for the people, love for everyone and everything. I don't think we should just settle for the next best thing when the results will just end up coming back to the way things are now.

chomsky isn't really a good source. the fact that he has sat in his suits and college offices while subcommandete marcos is taking arms against the government disqualifies him.

we could either have a revolution of flowers and rainbows where they get slaughtered or have a revolution grounded in reality and survival. you choose

If someone is right then they are right, it is irrelevant what kind of clothing or job he has. Subcomandante Marcos stopped taking up arms and is instead trying to foment revolution through words and peace so I have no idea why you would mention him.

[matt romney]

the revolution was started through guerilla warfare. and it is sustained through self defense

[High Nigga Pie]

Laz, STOP TALKING ABOUT REVOLUTION. Nobodys talking about how we should properly stage a revolution. We are talking about gun control during "peace" time. If we are going to war with our government, especially one who has no problem forcefully ending disputes, then yes we arm ourselves. But we are talking about day to day gun ownership.

[1871]

Quote:shakurSure, that's what you think, how you want things to come about. If you believe in Democracy, you're not going expect me to adopt your view of bombs, guns or anything else simply because you said so, right? If you tell me to put my gun down, and I tell you that I need that gun for such and such purpose, what's your next logical step? It's your move, what you gonna say? You gonna repeat the same old busted line? "Put down your gun". Is that what you're going to do? Maybe, but it wouldn't be productive, that would be the cycle, me telling you why I need a gun, you telling me to put it down. We would go on all night like that. The logical move for you, or one logical move rather, if your intention is to be productive, is too address my concerns, listen to what I'm telling you and why I feel I need a gun. If you address those issues, if I see the danger go away, I will put my gun down on my own, you won't even have to ask me.

So you are going to address the concerns of everyone who wants to own a gun right?

Address the concerns of concerned citizens, or racist rednecks who think the niggers are gonna take over, the concerns of the backwoods boys militias.

Youre going to have to address the concerns well into the next thousand years if you believe that!

[matt romney]

but by disarming yourself, you are preventing the revolution

[High Nigga Pie]

Oh shit, I live in Brooklyn. Go Brooklyn.

---

(09-17-2011 10:42 PM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote:  but by disarming yourself, you are preventing the revolution

I would love to be involved in revolution, as it seems you would too. But right know people are not ready to be armed for something that they don't understand. You can't just arm everybody. I know about five people who would spaz out after a simple dispute and would shoot you down for it. Look at the west indian day parade.

[1871]

(09-17-2011 10:42 PM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote:  but by disarming yourself, you are preventing the revolution

The 'revolution' is not a gun Lazarus. The 'revolution' embodies more than the gun. The revolution will get rid of the necessity for the gun.

The gun is used against the poor.

You have to de-criminalise the USA society


http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets...ckeys.html