Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:33 pm 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
T51b wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
No ones gonna take your guns away from you. Guns are just collectibles to many people. I can't see the rational though behind having a huge person arsenal for self protection.


The reasons vary greatly I suppose, some are collectors/shooters and then you can also go into the people (my friends and neighbors who own the automatics fall into this category) who believe they should maintain a vast arsenal so that if the government ever threatens individual freedom they will be there to keep it in check.

That is the main reason I am not worried with someone attempting to impose to great of control on firearms so soon, there are already thousands of armed Americans who possess the mentality of "Come to take my guns and I will give you my bullets"


Sadly your arsenal would be for not if such a case were to arise. The "we need guns in order to keep the government from oppressing us" argument doesn't work in this modern age of tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The best way to keep the government from oppressing you and taking your freedoms away is to be more involved and educated politically, sadly I don't that happening with the common man. The military industrial complex already has the nation by it's balls, and your small arsenal is little threat.


:shock: Are you actually admitting that we live in a tyranny?!
Good for you! :thumbsup:


I have to apologize to you. I shouldn't have insulted you for your views, as crazy as some might be.


No need, it goes with having controversial views and having no inhibitions of laying them out in a discussion with zero accounting for subtlety, I was being a little bit of an ass with regards to the McCain concession speech, though my opinion of him and our current president-elect has not changed.

Quote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"


The only reason I can lay out for you is that because when the inevitable tyranny that results from an ever expanding government divorced from democratic accountability becomes hostile to the general public, some of us want a fairer fight than what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Personally if government functioned the way it ought to, I'd be the first person to jump on the "get rid of all the guns" bandwagon. But if the government gets to have all these toys to use in depopulating 3rd world countries and enforcing capricious drug laws, I see no reason why anyone else can't have them either. Most of the notorious mass murderers in history get lauded as either conquerors or political visionaries because they had the almighty mark of sovereign immunity via being the agents of a government, while a handful of reclusive madmen who kill a few dozen people are bashed repeatedly for lacking such status.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)


Last edited by hells_unicorn on Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:34 pm 
 

Leify wrote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"

'Because you can' is essentially, "2nd Amendment!!!" You don't justify the legitimacy of the amendment by saying, "Well look, its in the Constitution. It is beyond logic, so we just can." I'm all for private ownership of guns, I have a couple myself, but I'm also in favor of gun ownership that doesn't defy all practicality and logic.

If you want to collect high powered guns, then they don't need to be capable of firing.

What liberty are you protecting by having a fucking anti-tank gun or automatic rifle. Are you expecting the gov'mint bastards to wage war on you? Or maybe our military magically ceases to exist and the US gets invaded? By this same rationale, we're protecting our liberty by making sure every American owns his own A-bomb.

Leisure shooting is a different story, but I can't see any reason to need to shoot a AK-47 over a magnum or shotgun if all you're doing is target practice and want some recoil.

The general theory behind practice shooting is that you are improving your aim with the gun (maybe it's just me, but I was raised not to just shoot at random shit) and nothing comes to mind for needing to be a crack shot with an AK.


I really do not feel the need to explain my motives to you at all as "Second Amend/Because we can!" Is all that really needs to be said on this topic.

However I will say this:

1. Shooting these types of weapons you are against is fun as was just mentioned.

2. As far as protecting liberty goes and the military protecting you blah blah blah I will go back to this quote:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)


You never know what the future has in store for us. I personally intend to be prepared for every possibility.



edit: Some stats

"GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies...

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:43 pm 
 

T51b wrote:

I really do not feel the need to explain my motives to you at all as "Second Amend/Because we can!" Is all that really needs to be said on this topic.

However I will say this:

1. Shooting these types of weapons you are against is fun as was just mentioned.

2. As far as protecting liberty goes and the military protecting you blah blah blah I will go back to this quote:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)


You never know what the future has in store for us. I personally intend to be prepared for every possibility.

edit: Some stats

"GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies...


I'd like to add to your sentiment regarding the military by stating that the greatest threats to liberty always come from within. I'm more afraid of a bunch of hot shot ATF morons killing Americans than I am of Al Qaeda.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:52 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
I'd like to add to your sentiment regarding the military by stating that the greatest threats to liberty always come from within. I'm more afraid of a bunch of hot shot ATF morons killing Americans than I am of Al Qaeda.


I agree and that is another reason gun ownership is so important. I did not want to get all Alex Jones up in here if I did not have to but millions of armed Americans willing to fight and possibly die for the basic liberties of our nation would put a damper on any tyrannical government plans.

Top
 Profile  
PhantomOTO
Exterminator 666 Does Not Answer

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:19 am
Posts: 3242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:52 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
The only reason I can lay out for you is that because when the inevitable tyranny that results from an ever expanding government divorced from democratic accountability becomes hostile to the general public, some of us want a fairer fight than what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

How is that in any way a relevant example? There are hardly any parallels of which to speak.

Top
 Profile  
Nahsil
Clerical Sturmgeschütz

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:06 pm
Posts: 3777
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:49 pm 
 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.
_________________
and we are born
from the same womb
and hewn from
the same stone - Primordial, "Heathen Tribes"

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:01 pm 
 

Nahsil wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.


I agree with that completely, however, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when one wouldn't have a weapon that spouted out 700 rounds a minute. People should be able to have guns that will defend themselves, not machines that could mow down a dozen people in a few seconds. Own all the guns you want, so long as they are semi automatic.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8754
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
Nahsil wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.


I agree with that completely, however, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when one wouldn't have a weapon that spouted out 700 rounds a minute. People should be able to have guns that will defend themselves, not machines that could mow down a dozen people in a few seconds. Own all the guns you want, so long as they are semi automatic.


What if mowing down a dozen people in a few seconds is what you need to defend yourself?

Top
 Profile  
Musick
Wicker Mantis

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:43 pm
Posts: 616
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:05 pm 
 

Although very un-PC, almost all the bad in this world comes down to this:

Its not an object problem, its a people problem.

Laws, regulations, restrictions and bans dont have an effect on the bad people. Driving while talking on your cell phone is not the problem, ite the person who cant pay enough attention who is the problem. Guns are not the problem, it is the people who misuse them who are the problem.

We can continue to put bandaids on the problem (jail, restrictions, bans, etc.) but until we get to the heart of the issue (bad/stupid people), no real change will come about.
_________________
Good Traders Supplementary Info -- The Numbers : Link.

I have had successful trades/sales with:
vegnsanity, DMR, TooHuman, turboeye, minionofkyuss and teuti

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:08 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:
Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
Nahsil wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.


I agree with that completely, however, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when one wouldn't have a weapon that spouted out 700 rounds a minute. People should be able to have guns that will defend themselves, not machines that could mow down a dozen people in a few seconds. Own all the guns you want, so long as they are semi automatic.


What if mowing down a dozen people in a few seconds is what you need to defend yourself?


If it is, then you're in more trouble than a gun can get you out of.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8754
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:08 pm 
 

That really isn't the point, though.

Top
 Profile  
Leify
A Whisper of Death

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:11 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

If China was actually able/inclined to invade and we had no military/nuclear deterrant, you'd have a "tank on top of every guy-with-a-gun-hiding-behind-a-blade-of-grass."

T51b wrote:
I really do not feel the need to explain my motives to you at all as "Second Amend/Because we can!" Is all that really needs to be said on this topic.


So, it really just comes down to "Shooting big guns is FUN!" Which must mean the NRA is just scared of the FUN POLICE!
_________________
Between the velvet lies, there's a truth that's hard as steel. The vision never dies, life's a never ending wheel.
Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!

Top
 Profile  
Sir_General_Flashman
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:23 am
Posts: 363
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:13 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:
That really isn't the point, though.


My point is that anyone who would want to have something to mow down dozens of people is mentally unstable or has far too many enemies. If your interest is mainly firing it, then there should be a certain place you keep it and can fire it, but it can't leave that place.
_________________
red_blood_inside wrote:
I forsee a new metal style called Death-Grind-Power-Ranger-Potter of the rings, and its kvltnes and tr00ness will be beyond this world

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8754
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:14 pm 
 

Leify wrote:
If China was actually able/inclined to invade and we had no military/nuclear deterrant, you'd have a "tank on top of every guy-with-a-gun-hiding-behind-a-blade-of-grass."


Well, in a total war scenario, that is exactly what militaries are for. Still, a populace armed to the teeth is still far more capable of mounting a defense than one that is not.

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
rexxz wrote:
That really isn't the point, though.


My point is that anyone who would want to have something to mow down dozens of people is mentally unstable or has far too many enemies. If your interest is mainly firing it, then there should be a certain place you keep it and can fire it, but it can't leave that place.


That's not even true. What about circumstance? That is entirely what the second ammendment is all about. Parallels to revolutions brought up in this thread weren't brought up for nothing.

Really, all that needs to be said is in the link that joesphus posted.

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

Just about any sort of defense for firearms that any of us could bring is all represented here, so I suggest reading it and then countering the points that the site mentions.

Top
 Profile  
Musick
Wicker Mantis

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:43 pm
Posts: 616
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:19 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
.....Personally if government functioned the way it ought to, I'd be the first person to jump on the "get rid of all the guns" bandwagon. ....


My only comment is that it is impossible for ALL guns to be eliminated in the United States, and unless all of them could be eliminated, total disarmament of law abiding citizens, while leaving the "bad guys" as free to have them as they are now, is not good.

That is NOT an improvement.

The guns are there in our society. Live with that fact and work with it. Pollyanna like pronouncements to "eliminate guns" or "make guns illegal" must be recognized as impractical wishful thinking. Work with the real world, work with what exists, do what is practical and possible.
_________________
Good Traders Supplementary Info -- The Numbers : Link.

I have had successful trades/sales with:
vegnsanity, DMR, TooHuman, turboeye, minionofkyuss and teuti

Top
 Profile  
Leify
A Whisper of Death

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:26 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:
Leify wrote:
If China was actually able/inclined to invade and we had no military/nuclear deterrant, you'd have a "tank on top of every guy-with-a-gun-hiding-behind-a-blade-of-grass."


Well, in a total war scenario, that is exactly what militaries are for. Still, a populace armed to the teeth is still far more capable of mounting a defense than one that is not.


I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that anyone who says that the reason we have guns is so that if the US is invaded the citizens can fight and take the country back successfully, probably doesn't realize Vietnam was a jungle where we couldn't roll tanks through (until we napalmed shit at least) and that the last time we used guerrilla warfare against an invading enemy was the Revolutionary War.

It's a near fallacious argument, because the weapons we would successfully push back a major invading army with would not be ak-47's or anti-tank guns.
_________________
Between the velvet lies, there's a truth that's hard as steel. The vision never dies, life's a never ending wheel.
Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8754
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:28 pm 
 

I don't think many people believe that armed citizens alone can single handedly defeat an invading army in a total war scenario, but it would be the best thing to give them hell, which is exactly what I'd plan on doing.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:52 pm 
 

Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
I agree with that completely, however, Thomas Jefferson lived in a time when one wouldn't have a weapon that spouted out 700 rounds a minute. People should be able to have guns that will defend themselves, not machines that could mow down a dozen people in a few seconds. Own all the guns you want, so long as they are semi automatic.


A person with proper training could kill a dozen people in a few seconds with a semi auto rifle. Seung-Hui Cho managed to kill 32 people using only two hand guns.

Aiming>Spray and pray


rexxz wrote:
I don't think many people believe that armed citizens alone can single handedly defeat an invading army in a total war scenario, but it would be the best thing to give them hell, which is exactly what I'd plan on doing.


Exactly :wink:

Top
 Profile  
Musick
Wicker Mantis

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:43 pm
Posts: 616
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:52 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
....... but millions of armed Americans willing to fight and possibly die for the basic liberties of our nation would put a damper on any tyrannical government plans.


United we stand, divided we fall.

I agree with your example - an armed society helps because even evil people can calculate costs.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth. Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries. We also learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations.
_________________
Good Traders Supplementary Info -- The Numbers : Link.

I have had successful trades/sales with:
vegnsanity, DMR, TooHuman, turboeye, minionofkyuss and teuti

Top
 Profile  
ebola_legion
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:00 am
Posts: 67
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:16 pm 
 

Musick, I respect your posts.


Sir_General_Flashman wrote:
No one fully needs fully automatic anything, what one can do with a bolt action rifle is good enough, and no one will try to ban that, without risking full blown rebellion...



Leify wrote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"...



Leify wrote:
'Because you can' is essentially, "2nd Amendment!!!" You don't justify the legitimacy of the amendment by saying, "Well look, its in the Constitution. It is beyond logic, so we just can." I'm all for private ownership of guns, I have a couple myself, but I'm also in favor of gun ownership that doesn't defy all practicality and logic...



With starvation and poverty abound, why should anyone in the United States, or abroad, be able to own a mansion, a private jet, or own anything beyond what is absolutely critical to life? The only point I can see to your arguments of taking away assault weapons is in the preservation of life, and in that preservation of life, no one should be allowed to live beyond their means. Protip: Communism fucking sucks. We're humans, not robots.


Handguns account for over half of the homicides committed within the country, so if you ban assault weapons, their void will surely and quickly be filled in by handguns. So, to Leify and Flashman, what do you guys intend with banning assault weapons? As Musick said, the murders at Virginia Tech were committed by a man with two pistols, of which both of you are in support of personal ownership.


My best argument against gun control is... the war on drugs. People are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of what the government has to say about it. The cons of the war on drugs are that is has failed to stop production, sales and use of illegal substances. However, the pros of the war on drugs are that it has exponentially increased our prison populations, created extremely profitable black markets in the nation and abroad, that in turn use violence, which in turn escalates crime (how ironic), and has increased taxes upon the people and has created more, utterly useless bureaucracy within the government. Thanks Ronald Reagan, thanks Harry Anslinger. Wherever you two are now, I'm sure you're burning.


Increasing legislation on gun control, will only lead to a repeat of the war on drugs. However, this time around, the intended target of eradication will be lethal to everyone but the user.


Homicides by weapon types.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t ... onstab.htm
_________________
Balaam_Abaddon wrote:
I am Kurt Cobain's reencarnation, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. The similarities between Kurt and I, are incredibly close, words can not describe my feelings for Kurt. I love him, and his music.

Top
 Profile  
CountBlagorath
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1042
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:43 pm 
 

I just thought I'd bring this up. I can't remember the towns name (I think it's in Georgia) but they made a law where every citizen of thier town must own a gun. Know what happened to crime? It went down. Personaly, I think that's what we should do to the country, but that's just me...
_________________
Cinerary on Triptykon's album wrote:
This album made my girlfriend's water break and that bitch wasn't even pregnant.

PeachPit wrote:
5 dollar BJ's anyone?

MY BAND:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Ir ... 1401059608

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:15 pm 
 

Nahsil wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.


Yeah, this is coming from some racist slave owner from the 1700s.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:16 pm 
 

PhantomOTO wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
The only reason I can lay out for you is that because when the inevitable tyranny that results from an ever expanding government divorced from democratic accountability becomes hostile to the general public, some of us want a fairer fight than what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

How is that in any way a relevant example? There are hardly any parallels of which to speak.


Well, one reason is because I've seen declassified State Department documents showing that government officials in this country during the Wilson administration gave monetary and some logistical aid to Leon Bronstein (aka Trotsky). In some respects I'm dumbfounded as to why we got into a Cold War with the Soviets, the corporate tycoons who've been manipulating our government were more than happy to supply that country with weapons technology, most of which was used on hapless Russian counter-revolutionaries who actually wanted something resembling a free country.

The kind of shit that our government has done in the past is so vile that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd pull something similar if a couple of states actually decided to revive the secession movement and left the Union. That's basically how they dealt with the South during the Civil War, so there is precedence for it.

Quote:
Yeah, this is coming from some racist slave owner from the 1700s.


I was going to ask what Jefferson's status as a slave owner (he spoke against the practice later in life) had to do with the correctness of his viewpoint regarding gun ownership, but I doubt it would do much good. I'll simply respond to this by presenting an equally irrational and unreasonable retort.

Given that you're viewpoints on gun control are almost identical to the one that Hitler espoused, you're not really in a situation to make such comments on Jefferson's racism without coming off as disingenuous.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
PhantomOTO
Exterminator 666 Does Not Answer

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:19 am
Posts: 3242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:23 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
PhantomOTO wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
The only reason I can lay out for you is that because when the inevitable tyranny that results from an ever expanding government divorced from democratic accountability becomes hostile to the general public, some of us want a fairer fight than what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

How is that in any way a relevant example? There are hardly any parallels of which to speak.


Well, one reason is because I've seen declassified State Department documents showing that government officials in this country during the Wilson administration gave monetary and some logistical aid to Leon Bronstein (aka Trotsky). In some respects I'm dumbfounded as to why we got into a Cold War with the Soviets, the corporate tycoons who've been manipulating our government were more than happy to supply that country with weapons technology, most of which was used on hapless Russian counter-revolutionaries who actually wanted something resembling a free country.

The kind of shit that our government has done in the past is so vile that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd pull something similar if a couple of states actually decided to revive the secession movement and left the Union. That's basically how they dealt with the South during the Civil War, so there is precedence for it.

That has little bearing on the circumstances of the two 1917 revolutions and the Civil War that followed and how the history of Russia cannot be compared in any way to that of the United States. It's a poor example, too, because hardly any of the scores of armies involved actually wanted to establish a "free society". Russia had no democratic tradition to speak of (still doesn't, really) and to assume that any significant of people there at the time wanted to establish one (or at least one that you would consider "free") is plain wrong.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:27 pm 
 

CountBlagorath wrote:
I just thought I'd bring this up. I can't remember the towns name (I think it's in Georgia) but they made a law where every citizen of their town must own a gun. Know what happened to crime? It went down. Personally, I think that's what we should do to the country, but that's just me...


Kennesaw, Georgia is the place you are thinking of.


antzology wrote:

Yeah, this is coming from some racist slave owner from the 1700s.


Relevance?

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:46 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
antzology wrote:

Yeah, this is coming from some racist slave owner from the 1700s.


Relevance?


Yeah I guess you're right. Someone from the 1700s doesn't have much relevance with this century. I put the racist bit on just to annoy Americans who treat the holy forefathers or whatever they're called as if they were god.

And about the Hitler thing... I've got no idea what his stance on guns were (nor do I give a shit) but where did I even state my stance on gun ownership? I don't remember doing so.

I will do now though, I think in order to own a gun you should have a background check done and pass a simple test about gun safety - this is to own a normal semi-automatic or bolt action (same thing??) rifle/shotgun. And if you want to own an automatic weapon or pistol you should have a further, more stringent test and possibly a collectors license.

These are quite similar I think to the laws in this country and they work extremely well with gun crime being nearly non-existent and violent crimes in general being very low, especially compared to the USA. Our police force don't use guns either, not necessary.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:04 pm 
 

antzology wrote:
[
Yeah I guess you're right. Someone from the 1700s doesn't have much relevance with this century. I put the racist bit on just to annoy Americans who treat the holy forefathers or whatever they're called as if they were god.


I can find plenty of inspiration in his words about gun ownership even in this day and age. I was simply asking what racism and slavery had to do with this topic.

Considering you basically just admitted you were trolling I guess I got my answer eh?


edit: also I just very quickly read about some of NZs gun laws and I think I will pass :P

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:23 pm 
 

antzology wrote:
Nahsil wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.


Yeah, this is coming from some racist slave owner from the 1700s.


Don't you dare dis my man. He believed in equality, he just wanted someone to take care of his family. He was a great man.

Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:25 pm 
 

antzology wrote:
Yeah I guess you're right. Someone from the 1700s doesn't have much relevance with this century. I put the racist bit on just to annoy Americans who treat the holy forefathers or whatever they're called as if they were god.


Some of them were the smartest men in history. It all went to hell when that idiot Andrew Jackson took office.

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:39 pm 
 

Avaddons_blood wrote:
antzology wrote:
Yeah I guess you're right. Someone from the 1700s doesn't have much relevance with this century. I put the racist bit on just to annoy Americans who treat the holy forefathers or whatever they're called as if they were god.


Some of them were the smartest men in history. It all went to hell when that idiot Andrew Jackson took office.


I don't know much about them but I have no doubt they were smart men, however, the foundations they lay ultimately failed in the long term to create a really good fair country (assuming that was their aim). So I don't think their word should be taken as the final stance on anything.

....................

Would you rather get a firearms license and have a fully registered weapon, or purchase a weapon through a black market and own it illegally?

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:41 pm 
 

antzology wrote:
Would you rather get a firearms license and have a fully registered weapon, or purchase a weapon through a black market and own it illegally?


That would depend on the process,taxes,fees and what not involved acquiring the weapon. I am pleased currently with how things are run in my country.

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:04 am 
 

T51b wrote:
antzology wrote:
Would you rather get a firearms license and have a fully registered weapon, or purchase a weapon through a black market and own it illegally?


That would depend on the process,taxes,fees and what not involved acquiring the weapon. I am pleased currently with how things are run in my country.


You go somewhere and pay $50 to sit the license, and officers come to your place and you show them where you plan on storing your guns (under your bed wouldn't do)... It would have to be in a gun cabinet or a good hiding place. Then you're good to go but you have to carry your firearms license with you when buying ammo/guns or hunting.

To be quite honest, I really doubt that gun regulation could work in a country like USA because it's so full of gun nuts and nearly everyone already has them.

I think it works well here, but maybe our gun crimes are very small because we are less violent people (I doubt it)... I don't know.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:26 am 
 

PhantomOTO wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
PhantomOTO wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
The only reason I can lay out for you is that because when the inevitable tyranny that results from an ever expanding government divorced from democratic accountability becomes hostile to the general public, some of us want a fairer fight than what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

How is that in any way a relevant example? There are hardly any parallels of which to speak.


Well, one reason is because I've seen declassified State Department documents showing that government officials in this country during the Wilson administration gave monetary and some logistical aid to Leon Bronstein (aka Trotsky). In some respects I'm dumbfounded as to why we got into a Cold War with the Soviets, the corporate tycoons who've been manipulating our government were more than happy to supply that country with weapons technology, most of which was used on hapless Russian counter-revolutionaries who actually wanted something resembling a free country.

The kind of shit that our government has done in the past is so vile that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd pull something similar if a couple of states actually decided to revive the secession movement and left the Union. That's basically how they dealt with the South during the Civil War, so there is precedence for it.

That has little bearing on the circumstances of the two 1917 revolutions and the Civil War that followed and how the history of Russia cannot be compared in any way to that of the United States. It's a poor example, too, because hardly any of the scores of armies involved actually wanted to establish a "free society". Russia had no democratic tradition to speak of (still doesn't, really) and to assume that any significant of people there at the time wanted to establish one (or at least one that you would consider "free") is plain wrong.


This is precisely the garbage that American Universities fill the heads of unwitting students with. Do some research on the Green Armies (ergo the Ukrainian Nationalists), starting on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Army ). They may not fit too well into the American ideal of secular society as it exists today with brain dead adherents to Libertarian Socialism, and I'd argue that free societies don't necessarily need democracy, in fact I'd argue that democracy is often utterly useless in establishing and maintaining freedom. These people fought to protect peaceful peasants from blood hungry Collectivist thugs like the Bolsheviks as well as the Imperialist White Army, that's not exactly what I'd call in line with the tradition of submission to the sovereign tyrants of old. Had they succeeded in beating back the Bolsheviks, they might have proved a good example for the rest of the former Czarist Empire to follow. Pity American money wasn't on their side.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)


Last edited by hells_unicorn on Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Avaddons_blood
Veteran

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:23 am
Posts: 2677
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:26 am 
 

antzology wrote:
Avaddons_blood wrote:
antzology wrote:
Yeah I guess you're right. Someone from the 1700s doesn't have much relevance with this century. I put the racist bit on just to annoy Americans who treat the holy forefathers or whatever they're called as if they were god.


Some of them were the smartest men in history. It all went to hell when that idiot Andrew Jackson took office.


I don't know much about them but I have no doubt they were smart men, however, the foundations they lay ultimately failed in the long term to create a really good fair country (assuming that was their aim). So I don't think their word should be taken as the final stance on anything.



The foundations they laid have been deconstructed for years.

Top
 Profile  
PhantomOTO
Exterminator 666 Does Not Answer

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:19 am
Posts: 3242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:32 am 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
PhantomOTO wrote:
That has little bearing on the circumstances of the two 1917 revolutions and the Civil War that followed and how the history of Russia cannot be compared in any way to that of the United States. It's a poor example, too, because hardly any of the scores of armies involved actually wanted to establish a "free society". Russia had no democratic tradition to speak of (still doesn't, really) and to assume that any significant of people there at the time wanted to establish one (or at least one that you would consider "free") is plain wrong.


This is precisely the garbage that American Universities fill the heads of unwitting students with. Do some research on the Green Army (ergo the Ukrainian Nationalists), starting on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Army ). They may not fit too well into the American ideal of secular society as it exists today with brain dead adherents to Libertarian Socialism, but they fought to protect peaceful peasants from blood hungry Collectivist thugs like the Bolsheviks as well as the Imperialist White Army. Had they succeeded in beating back the Bolsheviks, they might have proved a good example for the rest of the former Czarist Empire to follow. Pity American money wasn't on their side.

I'm well aware of the Greens. Don't be so condescending. They are just one example and most other armies were not aligned with these kinds of ideas. Nesto Makhno is a great character of history and they accomplished some incredible things, but again, to claim they represented a significant part of the conflict is absurd. Makhno's force was by far the most significant anarchist faction, but he never could have mustered enough to even contest with the Whites and Reds (and Makhno concluded treaties with the Bolsheviks [I believe the Whites as well but most notably with the Bolsheviks] and his army was known to commit atrocities of its own [although Makhno discouraged this]). Other anarchist groups were quite small and could offer a good fight in their little area, but again nothing that would really threaten the Bolsheviks or Tsarists. You have absolutely no point in throwing them out. Don't be such a condescending ass.


Last edited by PhantomOTO on Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:42 am 
 

PhantomOTO wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
PhantomOTO wrote:
That has little bearing on the circumstances of the two 1917 revolutions and the Civil War that followed and how the history of Russia cannot be compared in any way to that of the United States. It's a poor example, too, because hardly any of the scores of armies involved actually wanted to establish a "free society". Russia had no democratic tradition to speak of (still doesn't, really) and to assume that any significant of people there at the time wanted to establish one (or at least one that you would consider "free") is plain wrong.


This is precisely the garbage that American Universities fill the heads of unwitting students with. Do some research on the Green Army (ergo the Ukrainian Nationalists), starting on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Army ). They may not fit too well into the American ideal of secular society as it exists today with brain dead adherents to Libertarian Socialism, but they fought to protect peaceful peasants from blood hungry Collectivist thugs like the Bolsheviks as well as the Imperialist White Army. Had they succeeded in beating back the Bolsheviks, they might have proved a good example for the rest of the former Czarist Empire to follow. Pity American money wasn't on their side.

I'm well aware of the Greens. Don't be so condescending. They are just one example and most other armies were not aligned with these kinds of ideas. Nesto Makhno is a great character of history and they accomplished some incredible things, but again, to claim they represented a significant part of the conflict is absurd. Don't be such a condescending ass.


The initial point of the post I made that sparked this discussion relates to specific events involving the American government and business elite. Somewhere this turned into some sort of comparison between the Soviet Russian government and the current American one. I would argue they are both tyrannical, but methodically they are different, but I'm not so much interested in methodology and trivial specifics of implementation as I am in the general nature of tyrannical ideas, and a heavily armed police force with absolute power over an unarmed populous is about as tyrannical as it gets, regardless of how many controlled/staged elections you have to fool people into thinking otherwise.

Nonetheless, I see little difference in the salient points of the historical reference I made. Whether we're talking Fascism, Crony Corporatist Capitalism with Fascist trimmings, Bolshevism, Fabian Socialism, Keynesian Consumerism or what not, it all boils down to command and control. As far as I'm concerned, all of these "isms" are a question of differing banners, nothing more.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
PhantomOTO
Exterminator 666 Does Not Answer

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:19 am
Posts: 3242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:47 am 
 

You pulled Russia out of your ass because it has scare value in America. There's absolutely no reason to suggest any sort of connection between the Russian Revolution/Civil War and your ideas about America otherwise, even if what you say about the latter is completely true. The details are essential and you're only displaying your ignorance regarding Russia and your over-eagerness to selectively (ab)use history to advance your ideas. In addition to your continuous policy of Manichean smugness that alienates everyone who isn't already an acolyte of your positions and makes them regard you as a joke.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:13 am 
 

PhantomOTO wrote:
You pulled Russia out of your ass because it has scare value in America. There's absolutely no reason to suggest any sort of connection between the Russian Revolution/Civil War and your ideas about America otherwise, even if what you say about the latter is completely true. The details are essential and you're only displaying your ignorance regarding Russia and your over-eagerness to selectively (ab)use history to advance your ideas. In addition to your continuous policy of Manichean smugness that alienates everyone who isn't already an acolyte of your positions and makes them regard you as a joke.


As it should everywhere, it has the highest body count perpetuated by a government towards subjects within it's area of control. I suppose I could have used Cambodia as an example for shock value with regards to the percentage decline in population in the killing fields, or the Chinese cultural revolution, or the Nazis brown-shirts, Mussolini's blackshirts, or whatnot. Command and control was my principle aim and it's specific relation to the gun confiscation issue.

But whatever, I have nothing but for contempt for how most established American academic institutions view history, and I prefer being blatant about it rather than engaging in euphemistic egg shell walks. The people who don't think as I do about the nature of government probably wouldn't change their minds until they saw the end results of it's continual expansion, their too busy dwelling upon details and stupid wedge issues to see the monster growing right in front of them.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
PhantomOTO
Exterminator 666 Does Not Answer

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:19 am
Posts: 3242
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:15 am 
 

Yes, it's much better to appropriate only the aspects of history which confirm one's own views. Your "system" of doing so is much better. If you're reading history and not concerned about the details (but merely with loose parallels useful only in constructing paranoid conspiracies), you should try another field.

Top
 Profile  
Leify
A Whisper of Death

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:54 am
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:20 am 
 

ebola_legion wrote:
Leify wrote:
Explain to me why a private citizen would ever need an anti-tank gun or AK-47 over a simple shotgun or handgun, and then give me a good argument for why the general public should have access to firearms that are only useful in the context of warfare. You know, other than "2nd Ammendment!!!!"...



Leify wrote:
'Because you can' is essentially, "2nd Amendment!!!" You don't justify the legitimacy of the amendment by saying, "Well look, its in the Constitution. It is beyond logic, so we just can." I'm all for private ownership of guns, I have a couple myself, but I'm also in favor of gun ownership that doesn't defy all practicality and logic...



With starvation and poverty abound, why should anyone in the United States, or abroad, be able to own a mansion, a private jet, or own anything beyond what is absolutely critical to life? The only point I can see to your arguments of taking away assault weapons is in the preservation of life, and in that preservation of life, no one should be allowed to live beyond their means. Protip: Communism fucking sucks. We're humans, not robots.


Handguns account for over half of the homicides committed within the country, so if you ban assault weapons, their void will surely and quickly be filled in by handguns. So, to Leify and Flashman, what do you guys intend with banning assault weapons? As Musick said, the murders at Virginia Tech were committed by a man with two pistols, of which both of you are in support of personal ownership.


Pistol is not to assault rifle as apartment is to mansion. Do you even know what "living beyond your means" means? Because the only way it applies to this is if people are buying up assault rifles on credit cards and are unable to pay it off.

Anywho, it's not a cut and dry matter of just banning assault weapons, it's a matter of tightening border security and better tracking of weapons made within the US.

I'm absolutely fine with pistols and semi-automatic rifles. They serve a purpose in society in terms of hunting and self defense. Yes, they also are used to commit murder, but so are knives. Should we start cutting food with forks? Assault rifles are built for one purpose only, and it's not to stop home invasion or shoot a buck.
_________________
Between the velvet lies, there's a truth that's hard as steel. The vision never dies, life's a never ending wheel.
Stab! Bawl! Punch! Crawl!

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dudemanguy, martinsane, shouvince and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group