Victim disarmament zones

[Jarnauga]

Why can't we all use macroquest ?

i mean, the cheaters have an unfair advantage compared to us, rules abiding norrathians. It's not because Rogean says that MQ is bad that it's gonna stop people using it ! and come on, you trust Rogean, Sirken etc to protect us from it ? come on..

I say that we all have the right to use MQ, Rogean is just a commie trying to cut our liberties. After all the server is based in the US, land of the brave and freedom (insert-pic-of-hawk-here.jpg)

[Hailto]

lol canadians

[Kagatob]

Why can't we all use macroquest ?

i mean, the cheaters have an unfair advantage compared to us, rules abiding norrathians. It's not because Rogean says that MQ is bad that it's gonna stop people using it ! and come on, you trust Rogean, Sirken etc to protect us from it ? come on..

I say that we all have the right to use MQ, Rogean is just a commie trying to cut our liberties. After all the server is based in the US, land of the brave and freedom (insert-pic-of-hawk-here.jpg)

This is the dumbest shit I've seen posted since the last time Naez posted.

[Jarnauga]

This is the dumbest shit I've seen posted since the last time Naez posted.

If you find what i wrote dumb, there's hope for you :p

[aowen]

No, correlation does not assert a probability of causation. At first I thought you were just being deceitful in trying to use statistics to confuse and overwhelm people. It's a pretty common way to manipulate the ignorant masses. As you continue to write, it becomes clear you are actually part of the ignorant masses. My first clue was when you started dropping pseudoscience terms like retrocausality in an attempt to sound smart. Now you don't seem to understand the problems with inferring causation from correlation at all. You see, if A and B happen, A might cause B, B might cause A, C might cause A and B, or there may be no link whatsoever. A stronger correlation does not help us in determining which of these is the case. And clearly in any complex system, a single effect may be influenced by multiple causes. None of this permits you to infer causation from correlation.

To put it in terms of this debate, let's assume for a minute that there is a strong correlation between increased gun laws and reduced murder rate. It could be the case that adding a new gun law will directly reduce the murder rate. Or it could be the case that as murder rates drop due to other reasons, people feel less that they need guns and thus enact more laws. Or it could be the case that as a nation of people start to feel more close-knit as a society, they both kill each other less and accept tighter gun restrictions. The strength of the correlation tells us nothing about which are causes and which are effects.

Determining causation is far more difficult, particularly in the social sciences, where scientific experiment is for all practical purposes impossible. I don't think I have the answer on the best way to do this, though it's clear that statistical correlation is not even close to the right way. I'm sure you'll just keep on using it though. It's pretty easy to fool people into believing you when you can cite scientific-sounding sources. Most people simply aren't tuned in enough to the nature of knowledge to have any chance at defending against such an assault on logic.

Oh I see what you're saying. Research is meaningless because it is impossible to determine if it is actually a cause or not, so better to just rely on your superior logic that supersedes evidence alluding to the PROBABILITY that something is causal. Since no facts concerning social issues can ever be scientifically proved causal, we should ignore everything else and concentrate solely on rational argument, never knowing if our linear logic actually is correct. Anyone failing to recognize this is a confused member of the ignorant masses and a mental dwarf.incspable of sound reasoning. Or they are attempting to manipulate all the people that you're so much smarter than. Therefore, any claims ranging from carbon dioxide emissions in part being the cause of global warming, to an increase in sales due to marketing campaigns are bogus because the data supporting them is all correlation disguised as causation.

This is why conservatives and the religious are confidently ignorant, they believe they don't need information, and that their sophisticated logic structures founded on nothing resembling reality stand proudly in the face of information and days analysis.

[aowen]

I might also add within that framework you can say essentially nothing with any confidence because anything could be the cause of or result of anything else. this also means you cant say that anything is not the cause of something. If it makes sense, it might be valid, might not

[Ryba]

Why can't we all use macroquest ?

i mean, the cheaters have an unfair advantage compared to us, rules abiding norrathians. It's not because Rogean says that MQ is bad that it's gonna stop people using it ! and come on, you trust Rogean, Sirken etc to protect us from it ? come on..

I say that we all have the right to use MQ, Rogean is just a commie trying to cut our liberties. After all the server is based in the US, land of the brave and freedom (insert-pic-of-hawk-here.jpg)

They won't get it. This is still too subtle to get past the fetal alcohol damage. Fortunately, these people are easily flown over. Plus they don't realize their votes go to a party that has forsaken them in all but the most superficial issues.

[Ryba]

Why rehash freshman philosophy? Correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition in determining causation. Causality is never entailed from statistical correlation.

But to jump from that to "all statistics should be ignored" is fucking retarded. Statistical significance tests applied to well-done research can provide useful information and suggest high confidence that a factor being examined is a direct cause.

Understanding this is the difference between being tricked by numbers, or worse yet, so confused by them that you give up and cower in ignorance with your guns, versus actually adjusting your beliefs in the light of new information.

[Rellapse34]

u guyz like my pistol????

http://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/gay-gun-rights.jpg

[bubba]

oooh

[runlvlzero]

They won't get it. This is still too subtle to get past the fetal alcohol damage. Fortunately, these people are easily flown over. Plus they don't realize their votes go to a party that has forsaken them in all but the most superficial issues.

EQ is a game. MQ is a program designed to cheat at said game. All players in the game agree to play by the same rules in order to not have cheating. One group of those players isn't permitted by some rule to have guns (military, police), while the rest are not.

You are making an illogical and irrational comparison between two different topics of contention. While analogous. They have no connection to each other.

We already have a well established right to bear arms that has been steadily eroded. And from the days that it was completely unregulated we didn't see any more tragedy than we do now.

We just see more tragedy per capita and guns happen to be what the media pays attention to. Rather than many other tragic deaths happening all the time.

One also is ignoring the philosophical right we who wish to bear arms bring to the table. That the purpose is not to cheat at the games, or to use them wantonly to maintain an edge on another group that is using them. Just that we have the right to have them and use them as we see fit. We see this in laws like the "castle doctrine".

Get off your self righteous high horse. You are fighting a fight for a group of people that really do want to see you powerless and helpless. They would be more than happy to sacrifice your life for a bit of extra "security" in their mind. Virtual security. Security that cannot even truly be ensured through the use of their own force.

Eliminating guns through laws will not make our society a freer, safer, happier society. It will just be one more nail in the coffin of America. Its a virtual meta safety. If you cant understand this. You truly have never been in a situation of powerlessness. I'm telling you right now. That if you allow this slippery slope to proceed just for good warm feelings that someone else told you so. You will result in shit like the holocost 2.0

[runlvlzero]

I also never have personally met a victim of violence that believes guns are evil or that removing them from our society would benefit us as a whole. Or making them illegal. Not a single survivor that I know of.

[Skittlez]

If America didn't have all the people that love their guns, the Russians and the Chinese would have invaded.

[runlvlzero]

Nah, we'd have even worse laws, Verizon would be your only internet provider. Linux would be illegal. Banks wouldn't need bailouts (they'd just right off their debt), and hunting big game would be a bitch.

Well, we'd probably be ruled by someone more like the late Hugo Chávez.

[runlvlzero]

Or we'd be British. And god knows that country has its own F'd up problems.

[Elmarnieh]

Nice! Bet you can't wait to turn that burglary into a homicide. Hope you win the shootout

Eighty percent of defensive uses of firearms do not involve firing said firearm. Eighty percent of the remaining do not cause a fatality. So given that 4% of DGU's result in a fatality why would you say homicide (and it would be a legally valid use of force in all 50 states and therefore not a homicide).

[Ryba]

EQ is a game. MQ is a program designed to cheat at said game. All players in the game agree to play by the same rules in order to not have cheating. One group of those players isn't permitted by some rule to have guns (military, police), while the rest are not.

You are making an illogical and irrational comparison between two different topics of contention. While analogous. They have no connection to each other.

We already have a well established right to bear arms that has been steadily eroded. And from the days that it was completely unregulated we didn't see any more tragedy than we do now.

We just see more tragedy per capita and guns happen to be what the media pays attention to. Rather than many other tragic deaths happening all the time.

One also is ignoring the philosophical right we who wish to bear arms bring to the table. That the purpose is not to cheat at the games, or to use them wantonly to maintain an edge on another group that is using them. Just that we have the right to have them and use them as we see fit. We see this in laws like the "castle doctrine".

Get off your self righteous high horse. You are fighting a fight for a group of people that really do want to see you powerless and helpless. They would be more than happy to sacrifice your life for a bit of extra "security" in their mind. Virtual security. Security that cannot even truly be ensured through the use of their own force.

Eliminating guns through laws will not make our society a freer, safer, happier society. It will just be one more nail in the coffin of America. Its a virtual meta safety. If you cant understand this. You truly have never been in a situation of powerlessness. I'm telling you right now. That if you allow this slippery slope to proceed just for good warm feelings that someone else told you so. You will result in shit like the holocost 2.0

Strawman much? Why do gun proponents equate gun control with getting rid of all the guns? Who said I trust the government to protect me? Alcohol is a regulated substance...does that mean we are on a "slippery slope" to being a dry nation?

I own a 12 gauge shotgun, two high powered rifles, a .22 for groundhogs, a .357 revolver for home defense, a .22 rimfire pistol and a black powder rifle. Yet I have no fear of gun control laws that make it nigh impossible to own ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPONS. You don't need to have these and you can't make a convincing argument for them.

If you are about to say that all of the guns I own can kill people, you still don't get my position. It is the difference between getting into a fight in 5th grade vs. getting into a fight with a bouncer. The 5th grade bully might blacken your eye, but the bouncer might permanently change your anatomy. If that analogy isn't clear, let me bludgeon you with it: you are not entitled to easy and cheap access to the latest and greatest killing tools. There is a difference of degree that should not be glossed over.

You pay taxes? Wouldn't you rather not? But you do it, because it is better for everyone if people cooperate in this way (you hope), and because you face legal consequences if you don't. Taxes are membership dues and an example of enabling certain freedoms by compromising others. You don't get to keep all of your IHOP paycheck because someone has to maintain the roads for your piece of shit Impala. Similarly, you don't get to have any gun/gun accessory you want. No matter how responsible you think you are, that is still one more lethal weapon added to the system. What happens if you die, or sell your BFG 9000? Maybe YOU were a responsible owner, but is the next guy? And the guy after that? It is perfectly equivalent to firing a gun without knowing what lies downfield.

Should there be no regulations on who can refine uranium? What if I have my own uranium mine and centrifuge? Many things stop being your "right" when they interfere with the public good. There are firearm/cartridge/magazine combinations that cross this line, as well as paths to gun possession that dodge this line. How anyone could advocate less restriction in these matters is boggling.

[Orruar]

Oh I see what you're saying. Research is meaningless because it is impossible to determine if it is actually a cause or not, so better to just rely on your superior logic that supersedes evidence alluding to the PROBABILITY that something is causal. Since no facts concerning social issues can ever be scientifically proved causal, we should ignore everything else and concentrate solely on rational argument, never knowing if our linear logic actually is correct. Anyone failing to recognize this is a confused member of the ignorant masses and a mental dwarf.incspable of sound reasoning. Or they are attempting to manipulate all the people that you're so much smarter than. Therefore, any claims ranging from carbon dioxide emissions in part being the cause of global warming, to an increase in sales due to marketing campaigns are bogus because the data supporting them is all correlation disguised as causation.

This is why conservatives and the religious are confidently ignorant, they believe they don't need information, and that their sophisticated logic structures founded on nothing resembling reality stand proudly in the face of information and days analysis.

Again, as I have said before, statistical correlation is not meaningless. But it isn't an end product of causation that can be presented as a complete argument. It can only be used as evidence to help guide us toward fruitful lines of reasoning. We need an underlying logical framework to then help us find the causal links and deliver the proof necessary to believe we understand the relationship. You say the religious are confidently ignorant (something I won't deny), but you don't realize that by holding statistical analysis up to such a high regard, you have just as much ignorant belief as any religious person.

Your examples (CO2 -> global warming, marketing -> increased sales) show just how little you understand. We don't believe there's a link between CO2 and global warming because of the statistics alone. We believe it because we have done experiments that show CO2 traps heat. Marketing was not invented because of some statistical analysis that showed it works. It was invented because people had the logical notion that if they informed people about their product, more people would buy their product. Not exactly a giant leap of logic. Also, that particular example is far more conducive to statistical tests that come close to showing causation (there are assumptions behind those tests that are valid in that example).

It's like if we were having a debate about the best way to travel of 100 miles. One person says ride a donkey, another says ride a horse, and you say use 2 tons of steel and 4 gallons of gasoline, without ever turning those products into a car. You might be on the path to the right answer, but without development, it's the worst answer. And when you come back and say "I'm the only one showing statistics", it's like saying "but I'm using modern materials and the others are just riding animals". It doesn't make you any more right.

[Orruar]

Why rehash freshman philosophy? Correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition in determining causation. Causality is never entailed from statistical correlation.

But to jump from that to "all statistics should be ignored" is fucking retarded. Statistical significance tests applied to well-done research can provide useful information and suggest high confidence that a factor being examined is a direct cause.

Understanding this is the difference between being tricked by numbers, or worse yet, so confused by them that you give up and cower in ignorance with your guns, versus actually adjusting your beliefs in the light of new information.

I assume this post is directed at me. I suggest you read more than 1 page of this discussion before forming such a strong opinion on the matter. I never said all statistics should be ignored, on multiple occasions. In some instances, causal links can nearly be established with statistics alone (though not in the case of gun laws -> violent crime, as it violates many of the assumptions behind the tests). All we ever can observe in this universe is correlation, and yet we have determined causation for a great many things. But this requires something extra. Aowen presented statistics as if that alone was enough to show causation.

Also, I don't own guns, and think our laws are probably too loose, though I don't really care one way or the other since gun violence is such a small concern.

[Rellapse34]

.

[Recycled Children]

http://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/girl-smoking-weed-bong.jpg

[Malice_Mizer]

OF course, Obama and Holder sold them the weapons in F&F, but I digress...

I lawl'd.

"Sold them the weapons"

As though the entire arsenal of the various cartels of Central America were sold during F&F.

BTW F&F was simply the US government allowing illegal guns to be trafficked across the border.

;____;

[r00t]

you must believe every gov't coverup story too

[runlvlzero]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KoUCSY8Xlbw/Tar-yEEDBAI/AAAAAAAACDs/6KC6KMp1hh8/s1600/WmpZM.png

A well armed person is a freer person.

[runlvlzero]

So go fuck yourself with your straw men. ^^^

I'm seriously pissed at all you fucking retards. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

[runlvlzero]

And yes, I'm at a point beyond rage over this shit. Its like living in a prison full of mentally insane children who cannot grasp the nature of simple Newtonian physics.

[r00t]

FORCE IS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION

[runlvlzero]

Personally I would rather be calling the shots on who can refine uranium and for what purpose. But we are taxed without representation. We have no power to stop the atrocities of our military industrial complex (EVEN Armed as we are).

But I don't want to see my beloved violent society fall further into the tub of apathetic me-tooism that every yuppy wants.

Sure we should have government. And control on crazy shit like nuclear weapons. But we are way beyond the red line when it comes to freedom in these things. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory agency is so fucked we can't even properly roll out newer safer reactors and are stuck with 1950's tech and a monopolistic energy industry run by DoE thugs in bed with the DoD.

Will guns fix that, hell no. Are they the solution right now? No. Will giving up our guns fuck us even worse? Yeah these guys will fuck you so hard your descendents will be enslaved for the next 200 years.

NOTHING will change until we start drawing lines in the sand and saying NO MORE.

We have this right. And it is a GOOD RIGHT to stand for. It is a good place to draw the fucking lines.

[aowen]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KoUCSY8Xlbw/Tar-yEEDBAI/AAAAAAAACDs/6KC6KMp1hh8/s1600/WmpZM.png

A well armed person is a freer person.

In the UK, everyone pays about £25 a year for a TV license. This money means the BBC does not have breaks for advertisements.

How do I know this? I lived there and paid for a TV license. Would you pay $25 to not have commercials on the biggest and most watched network? I sure as fuck would.

[runlvlzero]

I'd give my left nut to not have to pay a trillion fucking dollars for the right to broadcast a show not full of propaganda on a not state owned fucking TV system.

Though What you say makes sense. Its the socialist way of doing it. Can't say its bad. But its not great either.

I take it anything like PBS is illegal in the UK. I learned a lot from PBS as a kid.

[aowen]

I assume this post is directed at me. I suggest you read more than 1 page of this discussion before forming such a strong opinion on the matter. I never said all statistics should be ignored, on multiple occasions. In some instances, causal links can nearly be established with statistics alone (though not in the case of gun laws -> violent crime, as it violates many of the assumptions behind the tests). All we ever can observe in this universe is correlation, and yet we have determined causation for a great many things. But this requires something extra. Aowen presented statistics as if that alone was enough to show causation.

Also, I don't own guns, and think our laws are probably too loose, though I don't really care one way or the other since gun violence is such a small concern.

No, I presented statistics and evidence to contribute to my argument for stricter gun laws. Then you assumed that I believed this evidence alone justified making a causal link, and that I had no logic to apply to how that link is made. If you actually wanted to have a debate about it, you would have never even started talking about correlation/causation, and demonstrated how this statistics are not indicative of a causal link, rather than act like an idiot, and start talking about Russia, China, and then rehashing shit about welfare from a different forum.

[Hasbinbad]

pbs made possible by viewers liek u

[aowen]

I'd give my left nut to not have to pay a trillion fucking dollars for the right to broadcast a show not full of propaganda on a not state owned fucking TV system.

Though What you say makes sense. Its the socialist way of doing it. Can't say its bad. But its not great either.

I take it anything like PBS is illegal in the UK. I learned a lot from PBS as a kid.

The BBC is chartered by the government and is primarily funded by this fee, as it is a public service network, and was originally created to deliver impartial information to the public, but has obviously expanded into other programming. It is basically the British equivalent of PBS, so why would something like PBS be illegal? It similarly has children's programming. They have plenty of other stations, channel 4 being the second largest there, which is privately owned and has commercials.

[runlvlzero]

PBS is an opt in system.

[runlvlzero]

And less government controlled. Except by the FCC. So the British just combine the FCC with their PBS's and make it mandatory.

From what I can tell. That is less free still.

[runlvlzero]

Anyway my arguments still stand IMO. I don't want to copy 'gun free places' I don't like how they do their business in Britain. I've listed to many British commoners talk about their country. And while its certainly not a hell hole. Shit like self defense is a major problem there. Even when it doest' involve guns.

Not the slippery slope I want to be slippery slidin.

[Orruar]

No, I presented statistics and evidence to contribute to my argument for stricter gun laws. Then you assumed that I believed this evidence alone justified making a causal link, and that I had no logic to apply to how that link is made. If you actually wanted to have a debate about it, you would have never even started talking about correlation/causation, and demonstrated how this statistics are not indicative of a causal link, rather than act like an idiot, and start talking about Russia, China, and then rehashing shit about welfare from a different forum.

I was talking about correlation/causation because that is all about showing how your statistics don't show any kind of causal link. I even gave an example of how causation could be the reverse of what you believe (people who live in countries with less crime feel less of a need for a right to carry weapons).

[aowen]

And less government controlled. Except by the FCC. So the British just combine the FCC with their PBS's and make it mandatory.

From what I can tell. That is less free still.

Actually, the BBC is quite autonomous now, but kind of lumps all public broadcasting into 1 place. I think you have a bigger option in the case of the BBC, as PBS is funded through tax (aside from the ways it generates other revenues, similar to what the BBC does). Tax is mandatory, whereas the license is only mandatory if you want to own a TV and watch broadcasted television. I suppose the only problem with this is that you can't watch stations that don't receive any benefit from the license fee. However, BBC broadcasting there has many of the good shows, plus no ads, so everyone watches it.

[Hasbinbad]

wait, you're making relative judgements based on what is more or less "free" and then brag about not sliding on slippery slopes?

[Vadd]

God bless the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution

[runlvlzero]

If people actually have say in what shows end up on BBC and how its regulated. I could see it being a valid social means of regulating TV broadcasts.

BBC programming is quite good and I have watched quite a bit over the web (so I will agree in theory that BBC works). Yet I still think people should be able to have their TVs without needing a license and a government snooping around to make sure their not illegally watching BBC. It is a simplified solution to cheap socialized cable. Yet how much control do the people really have over BBC other than simple viewer ship? How does an unknown obscure, yet worthy show get a shot on BBC?

The internet has been great for getting stuff broadcast publicly (Ted Talks).

[Hasbinbad]

TED is in bed with monsanto now, don't you know anything?

[runlvlzero]

wait, you're making relative judgements based on what is more or less "free" and then brag about not sliding on slippery slopes?

I don't get where your going with that. America is founded on the ideals of egalitarianism and checks and balances (not going to say things are working). Every man has an opportunity here to make that great big T.V. show and get it air'd. We have the right to do what we want with our computers, hardware and programs (EQEMUlator).

How would these rights fair under a system much more closely monitored and government influenced. Rather than influenced by peoples free use of what they purchased.

The internet is a subsided by us and payed for by our taxes since its inception. In this I say we are responsible for maintaining such things as the freedom of the internet.

[runlvlzero]

TED is in bed with monsanto now, don't you know anything?

I'm sure theres plenty of biased shit on TED. But theres some good ones too. They are a publisher. Not a content creator. Unless TED is actively refusing to permit anti-GMO view points from being discussed.

[aowen]

I was talking about correlation/causation because that is all about showing how your statistics don't show any kind of causal link. I even gave an example of how causation could be the reverse of what you believe (people who live in countries with less crime feel less of a need for a right to carry weapons).

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

[runlvlzero]

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

Or we could focus on liberating people through empowerment before taking away this liberty. Than re-evaluate the need to control guns in a more stable society.

[runlvlzero]

My bet is in a very stable society. Gun control would be a non issue. As people would be responsible and fear would be low. People would be informed. And mass media and lobbyists couldn't even sell it as a useful tact.

[runlvlzero]

Better yet. Do you need to cage monkeys in order to civilize them?

A contemporary movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes) comes to mind.

Caging a person turns them into an animal. Taking away their rights and responsibilities does the same.

[hatelore]

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

I am as big of a gun nut as the next guy, this I will admit. But honestly I see no problem with stricter background checks. The problem is, Most liberals in our government are total anti-gun nuts to the extent of trying to label an "assault rifle" as a shotgun or deer rifle ( see Diane Fuckstein for reference) ...

And to be quite honest a lot of the bullshit you are spewing is just that, bullshit. Look at areas in our country with very strict gun laws such as Illinois (Chitcago), statistics will clearly show that crime is more rampant in areas with strict or absolute ban's on owning workable gun's. The problem this nation faces isn't some redneck rampaging mongoloid owning a gun or trying to be a billy badass and shoot some poor skittle wielding negro boy .

The problem lies in a degradation of morals and doing the right thing as an individual in our society. Not to mention our out of control corrupt government. I don't know how, at this point anyone could call themselves a Republican OR a Democrat. Both are parties full of lying cheating rat fucks. This is truth.

[hatelore]

Back before assault weapon prices went up, Me and my brother were buying sks's at gun shows for like 150 to 200 a pop. Now you can't touch an sks in my neck of the woods for under 600 or so. And there wasn't any waiting , it was , heres the money, thanks for the gun, suck it easy bro~ Looking back, yeah... That is a problem.

But as we have witnessed through history, give the government a little bit, and they snatch up the entire fucking cake. What Dianne Fuckstien and Obama etc want, is an outright BAN on all assault rifles. Now , how do you classify an assault rifle? Because that is where the key to what that ban will get us. Is a semi auto rifle an assault rifle? Is a rifle that holds over 5 rounds an assault rifle? Is a bolt action that shoots over 100 yards an assault rifle? Because there are many semi automatic rifles that hold over 5 rounds that are NOT assault rifles, and numerous bolt action rifles will accurately shoot over 100 yards. An SKS, AR 15, and Ak 47. Yeah those are assault rifles modeled after or used as guns in war.

I would not be surprised to see Obama pass an executive order to ban outright the sale or ownership of an assault rifle. Nothing Obama could do at this point would surprise me.

[Malice_Mizer]

Stricter gun laws in the city of Chicago mean literally nothing when you can drive 15 minutes away and grab a gun with zero regulation and simply drive into Chicago with the gun. Local gun laws are meaningless and provide breeding grounds for illegal activity. You also overlook New York's gun laws which are some of the most restrictive, and yet they've seen a massive deescalation of crime for the past 20 years, including confiscation of firearms. It's about how much control you have over the flow of goods through your city or locality. Most places can't have meaningful control when the rest of the nation hands out guns to literally anybody, and we can't even get a fucking bill passed concerning god damned background checks. You want mentally ill or felons to own guns? Sounds great! Who the hell are you defending?

You all are seriously crazy. Especially Morpheus. What the fuck are you even talking about? I recommend reading a book.

[runlvlzero]

Back before assault weapon prices went up, Me and my brother were buying sks's at gun shows for like 150 to 200 a pop. Now you can't touch an sks in my neck of the woods for under 600 or so. And there wasn't any waiting , it was , heres the money, thanks for the gun, suck it easy bro~ Looking back, yeah... That is a problem.

But as we have witnessed through history, give the government a little bit, and they snatch up the entire fucking cake. What Dianne Fuckstien and Obama etc want, is an outright BAN on all assault rifles. Now , how do you classify an assault rifle? Because that is where the key to what that ban will get us. Is a semi auto rifle an assault rifle? Is a rifle that holds over 5 rounds an assault rifle? Is a bolt action that shoots over 100 yards an assault rifle? Because there are many semi automatic rifles that hold over 5 rounds that are NOT assault rifles, and numerous bolt action rifles will accurately shoot over 100 yards. An SKS, AR 15, and Ak 47. Yeah those are assault rifles modeled after or used as guns in war.

I would not be surprised to see Obama pass an executive order to ban outright the sale or ownership of an assault rifle. Nothing Obama could do at this point would surprise me.

Really when it was 500x easier to get assault weapons we saw the same if not less actual incidents like what gets plastered on mass media? Once every few years, now yearly.

Nah. It wasn't a problem. But our BIG government is making a mountain out of a molehill and MKultraing people right over the damn edge.

I'll gladly take my mongoloid rednecks with assault weapons over crazy fucking assholes like Obama calling the shots.

[runlvlzero]

Stricter gun laws in the city of Chicago mean literally nothing when you can drive 15 minutes away and grab a gun with zero regulation and simply drive into Chicago with the gun. Local gun laws are meaningless and provide breeding grounds for illegal activity. You also overlook New York's gun laws which are some of the most restrictive, and yet they've seen a massive deescalation of crime for the past 20 years, including confiscation of firearms. It's about how much control you have over the flow of goods through your city or locality. Most places can't have meaningful control when the rest of the nation hands out guns to literally anybody, and we can't even get a fucking bill passed concerning god damned background checks. You want mentally ill or felons to own guns? Sounds great! Who the hell are you defending?

You all are seriously crazy. Especially Morpheus. What the fuck are you even talking about? I recommend reading a book.

I'm talkinga bout life experience. Being a live living 32+ years. Joining the Army. Serving the country. Growing up in a libertarian (Republican) state (Utah), having Christian morals but having an open mind. And not being an ignorant retard.

I have seen the world go steadily downhill and southward as people except what gets shoved into their minds by "Studies" and Bureaucrats. If you had actually spent any time around firearms and real life dangerous situations. You would have no problem with the gun laws of 50 years ago. You would respect the foundations of our civilization (Revolution) and the freedom to allow people to fuck up and do horrible things. Because with that freedom and by protecting those potential disasters. You also protect everything else.

You people need to really take the time to visit a real third world nation and see what is both good and bad about it. And than visit a dictatorship or an extremely authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia.

Do you really want your OVERLY AUTHORITARIAN and OUT OF CONTROL government to stamp out this right?

If you think you will be safer after the fact. You are completely insane and irrational in my book. At this point this discussion devolved into UMAD, NO U territory. I am extremely sorry that I cannot cite and write you college essays on politics and life experience. I am terribly sorry that I'm not in a position to "rationally debate" on "your terms" this issue.

But take my old grouchy ass man words for it. You don't want to give up even more liberty.

GO OUT AND VOTE FOR A 3rd PARTY.
PROTEST.
DEMAND COPYWRITE REFORM.
DEMAND CONTROL ON CORPORATIONS.
DEMAND FREE COMMERCE.
DEMAND REPRESENTATION.
DEMAND EGALITARIAN TREATMENT OF ALL.
DEMAND YOUR CITY MANAGE YOUR COMMUNITIES
DEMAND THE ENERGY SOLUTIONS YOU DESERVER (SOLAR, NUCLEAR, NAT GAS, WIND, a HETROGENOUS MIX OF TECHNOLOGIES SUBSIDIED BY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, IN THE HANDS OF NPO's YOU CONTROL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION AND INFLUENCE)
DEMAND GOOD FOOD CROPS (did you know Mexico is suing monsanto for infecting and destroying their Miaze crops of which there were 150 different types, for destroying Mexico's cultural heritage?)
We do not need GMO to feed ourselves.
We NEED to liberate our means of education and bring it back to the community level.
We need to promote SMALL BUSINESS at the COMMUNITY LEVEL. Rather than NATIONAL CHAINS AND MONOPOLIES.

Yep I'm way off the deep end and I'm not even calling for complete anarchy. I'm just an honest to god actual conservative.

If I wanted to live in the European Union or USSR I would have moved there. In fact I plan on one day learning Russian and visiting the far east (and or Spanish and South America). Because I am thoroughly disgusted enough to become an expatriate of this country.

[runlvlzero]

*accept (not except) blahblah poor grammar and syntax. Again I really am sorry I cannot communicate more effectively. It is terrible. Because I would rather convince you guys through words than force.

You guys just advocate force. Forcing others to live the way you want out of FEAR. You do not permit people to live free.

Trust me you are being huckstered by a political illusion. These NSA security fucks would love to see this country go through disarmerment. Just to justify and increase the # of security clearences they can sell 1000x fold to "Good Citizens" who are completely politicaly sanitary.

[runlvlzero]

Last triple post here.

What you wan't is what you've been told you wan't and what is historically wrong. And you think you are a progressive PACIFIST.

But NO PACIFIST who cares about their fellow man would ever ask or use force or coerce a government to use force to disarm their fellow people.

There is NO WAY I can see philosophically, ideologically, morally, ethically, wanting to take guns away from other people in your society as anything other than simple indirect bullying and oppression.

Lead by example. Stop buying guns. Teach gun safety. Teach people about the evils of murder. Preach.

But don't force your psudoscientific religion on us.

[Hasbinbad]

TED is actively refusing to permit anti-GMO view points from being discussed.

[Hasbinbad]

I don't get where your going with that. America is founded on the ideals of egalitarianism and checks and balances (not going to say things are working). Every man has an opportunity here to make that great big T.V. show and get it air'd. We have the right to do what we want with our computers, hardware and programs (EQEMUlator).

How would these rights fair under a system much more closely monitored and government influenced. Rather than influenced by peoples free use of what they purchased.

The internet is a subsided by us and payed for by our taxes since its inception. In this I say we are responsible for maintaining such things as the freedom of the internet.
Do you believe everything you're told?

[runlvlzero]

No lulz... I tend to take multiple sides of opinions, filter than and than force them to fit my world view.

/sarcasm off. I am actually a very open and tolerant, if not opinionated individual. But more than 1 source of information is always good for basing those opinions off of.

[runlvlzero]

So what I'm doing is defending conservative principles. If you can't understand them, or refuse to see those principles as legitimate. I'm sorry for you. And me for not being able to demonstrate them better.

[runlvlzero]

I have no agenda. I have no vast wealth. I have no children. All I have to look forward too is a society moving forwards in humanity rather than transcending into futility and insanity.

I am genuinely interested in formulating the best possible outcome for our species development over the next century. I want our legacy to be one where I would love to reincarnate in. Or one that will help shape the universe into something amazing, open, and free. Or at the very least. Diverse. Keeping the spark of idealism alive.

[Kagatob]

Last triple post here.

Sorry had to. ;)

You make an assload of good points though. For real.

[runlvlzero]

Sorry had to. ;)

You make an assload of good points though. For real.

Yeah I failed hard lol ;p HB a good troll =)

[runlvlzero]

** HBB omg... been in red RnF too much

[hatelore]

As I said before, I'm as big a gun nut as the next guy. My father owned a gun shop while I was growing up and I carry on his heritage. I am also a Gunsmith among other things. And I was also raised on Christian and conservative values, but...

The society we have today is vastly different then the society we had many years ago. I see no issue with stricter background checks. When I say stricter background check, what I refer to is this : has the candidate ever been checked into a psychiatric hospital, is the candidate on any types of psychiatric drugs? Is he a felon, is he someone with a criminal record that reflects violence etc? I don't mind them checking that and infact I don't mind a 7 day wait for my newly purchased firearm.

What I do have issues with though is how they define an assault rifle. Either way, I am pro gun, and I don't think the problem lies mainly in guns. I think the problem lies in our society and how we are as individuals in this day and age. There are a lot of piece of shits out there, that will kill you for next to nothing. '

[runlvlzero]

As I said before, I'm as big a gun nut as the next guy. My father owned a gun shop while I was growing up and I carry on his heritage. I am also a Gunsmith among other things. And I was also raised on Christian and conservative values, but...

The society we have today is vastly different then the society we had many years ago. I see no issue with stricter background checks. When I say stricter background check, what I refer to is this : has the candidate ever been checked into a psychiatric hospital, is the candidate on any types of psychiatric drugs? Is he a felon, is he someone with a criminal record that reflects violence etc? I don't mind them checking that and infact I don't mind a 7 day wait for my newly purchased firearm.

What I do have issues with though is how they define an assault rifle. Either way, I am pro gun, and I don't think the problem lies mainly in guns. I think the problem lies in our society and how we are as individuals in this day and age. There are a lot of piece of shits out there, that will kill you for next to nothing. '

I agree. But if they are functional even if they are on medication and have a clean record. I wouldn't even discriminate against people who've been labeled with mental illness. There's plenty people who are responsible who take care of their issues. Just because someone goes to get medication, or had 1 bad day 10 years ago should not disbar them from the freedoms we all share. There's plenty of ranking military still serving and veterans who would be screwed by something like this. Even if they are a slightly higher risk for things like suicide. Its not our choice to make for them.

I'm all down for stricter checks. Better licensing. And no second chances for people who abuse this right. Someone whos been on and off probation 50x and just can't deal with authority when its reasonable is not someone who needs to be carrying.

The recent issue with this guy at the naval yard should have raised a ton of red flags. This one guy is when the guy needed to be evaluated by a psychiatrist, had his clearance revoked, and had a court order to take his shit. But the gun free zone didn't help anyone. The guy was hearing voices and seeing doctors prior to this instance. He was also not demonstrating a functional lifestyle. Getting in trouble with his co-workers and locals at the restaurant. The first time he shot a van up outside his apartment should have been the only time.

Nothing wrong with fixing that. But "gun bans" re-writing the constitution? Gun free zones? Not the right solution in this case.

[runlvlzero]

Whats the saddest is this guy acted out and gave authorities the chance to stop this from happening like in almost every single case prior to this one as well. Yet our LEO's and courts failed us yet again. Either by not pressing charges or by dragging their feet.

[Malice_Mizer]

The self-important righteousness is overwhelming.

"Hey guys let's overturn the current evil social order of things by adhering to American conservatism." Do you want me to break that word down for you? Conservatism in itself is antithetical to a revolutionary society. If your big thing is "egalitarianism" (as though that is honestly a founding principle of the US-- if you believe this, I highly recommend referring to literally any source of history for a correction), then conservatism is not your answer. If you want to learn Spanish and participate in the Pink Tide of South America, that also does not mesh with your stated beliefs. Neither does moving to Russia because you think the US is too authoritarian and oppressive. You're demonstrating your short-sighted, knee-jerk reactionary bullshit here.

By the way, your spelling, grammar and general structure of thought are laughable and immediately relegates you to the "crazy street-corner ranter" status. Not trying to be too elitist here or anything, but do you seriously think "want" is a contraction or something? Are you roleplaying an older dialect of English? And therfore wol I maken yow disport, As I seyde erst, and doon yow som confort.

Virtually everything you've said has been utter insanity.

"I'll gladly take my mongoloid rednecks with assault weapons over crazy fucking assholes like Obama calling the shots."

Case in point. You rant about representation and then somehow oppose the head of state and government as though he is illegitimate simply because you do not agree with him. Not sure how conservatism ideologically fits in with this.

Again, I recommend you study even the surface level of your shit before engaging in some half-assed pop rant because it's en vogue to hate "BIG GOVERNMENT FASCISTS." You sound like a middle schooler who just discovered that it's cool to dissent against the current administration.

[runlvlzero]

Thanks for the personal attacks. I hope you feel safe when guns are illegal and only shit bags have a desire to break the law.

[runlvlzero]

And its laughable to call a conservative point of view "Knee Jerk". Damn dood. Never has a redneck ever threatened me. And I met some low IQ people during my hunting course. Yet I felt perfectly safe around them and was really glad that we were getting trained on proper safety and gun handling.

The world is not full of shitbags. Its full of people. Some more capable than others. You are a god damned troll. I suppose your half racist as well probably. Must be too many blacks in chitcago for them to have guns in that city!

[Malice_Mizer]

I said that your "fuck America it's changed too much from the good ol' days" crap is reactionary and short-sighted.

Also, you used the term "mongoloid" dude. Were you using that in a pejorative sense like a person with Down's Syndrome (as it is often used), or were you actually referring to an antiquated anthropological racial categorization system (like Caucasoid and Negroid)?

Either way, I think this represents the first time in recorded history where a conservative launched the first "ur racist" attack against a progressive.

PS I'm going to try and explain this again, though few people seem to bother understanding it. "Racism" is not something you "are." Racism is a social structure. Individuals hold prejudices. Racism persists despite this.

[runlvlzero]

I was repeating what someone else said for affect when using the term mongoloid.

I also acknowledged that technology, the world, our social landscape is different.

I'm quite patriotic. Fuck America, no. Fuck the liberal socialism that seems to be the fad now. Sure. The trend in politicians to be completely fixated on the whims of lobbyists and special interests. Sure. The dissolving of a Republic into one Federated... I dunno... Lobbyist Democracy?

I even acknowledged that I'm no expert on any of this. I tried to interject some meaningful philosophical ideals a few pages back.

But I don't hate you. Or your ideas. I just disagree. And in some cases pretty vehemently.

[runlvlzero]

Curse no edits. But to further repeat what I attempted to say as well in a prior post.

I even criticize myself in that I should probably stay the fuck out of these god damn political discussions (for the good any point of view). Yet its hard to keep myself STFU'd when something moves me.

But I know I am no imbecile.

[Malice_Mizer]

Lobbyists arose because of our Constitutionally protected right to petition the government. All special interests do this. It just so happens that in our current economic system, individual private firms wield the absolute pinnacle of power in a variety of ways.

It always amuses me how libertarians argue that weakening the government and handing even more power over to private firms will somehow increase freedom. It will not. The vast majority of our problems come from the concentration of power in private hands-- often multinational corporations who have little interest in any of your patriotic crap. They do whatever it takes to maintain acceptable margins of profitability, including outsourcing the labor market and slashing worker's benefits and wages. It will lead further into the immiseration of the masses, the continued hyper-concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few, and the eventual recognition that capitalism and the world we all want are not compatible states of existence. This unsustainable path will bleed America dry and then move on to the next super power without batting an eye. Have fun with that while the rest of us liberal socialists try to develop some power for the public to stand up for our own self-interests.

[runlvlzero]

Lobbyists arose because of our Constitutionally protected right to petition the government. All special interests do this. It just so happens that in our current economic system, individual private firms wield the absolute pinnacle of power in a variety of ways.

It always amuses me how libertarians argue that weakening the government and handing even more power over to private firms will somehow increase freedom. It will not. The vast majority of our problems come from the concentration of power in private hands-- often multinational corporations who have little interest in any of your patriotic crap. They do whatever it takes to maintain acceptable margins of profitability, including outsourcing the labor market and slashing worker's benefits and wages. It will lead further into the immiseration of the masses, the continued hyper-concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few, and the eventual recognition that capitalism and the world we all want are not compatible states of existence. This unsustainable path will bleed America dry and then move on to the next super power without batting an eye. Have fun with that while the rest of us liberal socialists try to develop some power for the public to stand up for our own self-interests.

Expertly said. I don't know how to mesh that with more libertarian ideals. I'm sure their not necessarily mutually exclusive though.

[Malice_Mizer]

The Law of Disproportionality.

The Law of Accumulation.

The Law of Falling Rate of Profits.

Simply put, our shared idealism is not compatible with capitalism. The conflict can be softened, but it will always return worse than before.

Our society derives all of its values and morals from the current state of economic activity. Until that changes, the greedy, self-interested hyper-materialism of the powerful few will always be the norm. And worst of all, there will always be a large chunk of America that views this as the way it ought to be. John Steinbeck said that socialism never took root in America because the working and lower class doesn't see themselves as the oppressed proletariat that they are, but rather "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Sound familiar?

[runlvlzero]

I suppose what I want to see is a weaker federal government and more strong cohesive and broad local government. That would mean Monsanto would have to get permission from every individual county. Or individual states would subsidy crops. Not the federal government.

While I agree wall street would need Federal or national management. Perhaps the federal government shouldn't be in charge of bailing out banks and banks should be required to register and operate individual corporations in every county/jurisdiction where they have a branch. Sure more bureaucratic overhead. But it would hetrogenize (made up word!) some of the things that are so centrally controlled by special interest.

[runlvlzero]

The Law of Disproportionality.

The Law of Accumulation.

The Law of Falling Rate of Profits.

Simply put, our shared idealism is not compatible with capitalism. The conflict can be softened, but it will always return worse than before.

Our society derives all of its values and morals from the current state of economic activity. Until that changes, the greedy, self-interested hyper-materialism of the powerful few will always be the norm. And worst of all, there will always be a large chunk of America that views this as the way it ought to be. John Steinbeck said that socialism never took root in America because the working and lower class doesn't see themselves as the oppressed proletariat that they are, but rather "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Sound familiar?

yeah.

[Malice_Mizer]

Quick and choppy overview of some basic Marxist principles about capitalism. I think everybody can recognize all of these facts in their daily lives as being noncontroversial truths.

Law of Disproportionality
Capitalism never successfully coordinates production and consumption. Capitalism will always create surpluses of some goods and shortages of others. Shortages / surpluses spread throughout entire economic system. Unplanned economies are characterized by constant stream of production crises (bubbles). Rational economic behavior is not possible. Long-term prosperity / growth is not possible. Think of every bubble you can imagine: .Com bubble, housing market, even smaller things like the Beanie Baby craze in the 90's. Firms and individuals perceive demand of a product and a deluge of suppliers flood into the market, until it's realized that the supply does not meet the demand and huge numbers of firms crash. Supply and demand never "meet up" in this perfect equilibrium state that market-champions claim. There are always massive disparities that lead to huge structural problems across the entire market, i.e. markets are not nearly as "efficient" as everybody blabbers on about. Markets are notoriously inefficient. So, contrary to Rand and Ron Paul, bubbles are not the product of "too much government interference," but rather an unchecked market place where individuals can allocate resources in irrational and honestly stupid ways that affect every other facet of the economy. When all of that polyester went into making the billion Beanie Babies that nobody bought once the fad passed, all of those resources were wasted by supply and demand not meeting up. That means a negative effect for industrial polyester thread, clothing, etc. all across the market.

Law of Accumulation
Capitalism organically leads to concentration of capital: Markets create competition between firms. Competition eliminates inefficient or ineffective firms. Dominant firms hold increasingly large shares of markets. Technological development makes production more efficient. Fewer laborers required to maintain constant level of production. Population increases a surplus of labor reserves. Wealth inequality organically increases. Working class becomes increasingly immiserated (existential crisis of misery and worthlessness). Which leads into the next law:

Law of Falling Rate of Profit
Increasing efficiency lowers production costs. Decreasing production costs + fixed profit margin = falling rate of profit over time. Two choices: Deal with falling rate of profit (never happens because firms are beholden to stockholders), or reduce labor cost for temporary boost of profit (cut benefits, wages and outsource jobs to cheaper international labor markets).

[runlvlzero]

Those are all legit. However corruption is what ruined communism in the USSR and China.

Even now China has huge ghost cities. People exploited each other through both systems. The solution is not more central government IMO. If there are more governments, more "communes" different communes can be allowed to thrive and different ones which become corrupt can be allowed to die without affecting the overall ecosystem of a country.

[JayN]

Damn malice, droping some knowledge on these trolls, so nice of you to take the time.

damn libatards niga lovers ruining mah country; excuse me i need to get back to beating and fuckign my daughter.

[Malice_Mizer]

Those are all legit. However corruption is what ruined communism in the USSR and China.

Even now China has huge ghost cities. People exploited each other through both systems. The solution is not more central government IMO. If there are more governments, more "communes" different communes can be allowed to thrive and different ones which become corrupt can be allowed to die without affecting the overall ecosystem of a country.

Agreed, though since the early 80's China has been introducing large numbers of market principles into their party platform. The capitalist reforms have led to a sort of dualism in the country that has its obvious problems.

I think anything humans endeavor toward will be fraught with mistakes and corruption and its share of evil self-interest, but I think it's equally important to recognize that we need to take steps forward as a people, not backward. Lapsing into laissez-faire is not the answer IMO. Not saying you're suggesting that or anything-- I think we have a lot in common at the end of the day. It's more a matter of how we get there (the ultimate goal being an anarchic egalitarian self-governing society/world) that we have differences of opinions about. I personally believe that we need to go through a radical shift of political ideology before we can get to an idealistic place of egalitarian anarchy. I don't think we can simply shift from the insanity and violence of American capitalism into a culture of mutual public interest and cooperation without a period of radical transformation.

[Orruar]

Quick and choppy overview of some basic Marxist principles about capitalism. I think everybody can recognize all of these facts in their daily lives as being noncontroversial truths.

Law of Disproportionality
Capitalism never successfully coordinates production and consumption. Capitalism will always create surpluses of some goods and shortages of others. Shortages / surpluses spread throughout entire economic system. Unplanned economies are characterized by constant stream of production crises (bubbles). Rational economic behavior is not possible. Long-term prosperity / growth is not possible. Think of every bubble you can imagine: .Com bubble, housing market, even smaller things like the Beanie Baby craze in the 90's. Firms and individuals perceive demand of a product and a deluge of suppliers flood into the market, until it's realized that the supply does not meet the demand and huge numbers of firms crash. Supply and demand never "meet up" in this perfect equilibrium state that market-champions claim. There are always massive disparities that lead to huge structural problems across the entire market, i.e. markets are not nearly as "efficient" as everybody blabbers on about. Markets are notoriously inefficient. So, contrary to Rand and Ron Paul, bubbles are not the product of "too much government interference," but rather an unchecked market place where individuals can allocate resources in irrational and honestly stupid ways that affect every other facet of the economy. When all of that polyester went into making the billion Beanie Babies that nobody bought once the fad passed, all of those resources were wasted by supply and demand not meeting up. That means a negative effect for industrial polyester thread, clothing, etc. all across the market.

Law of Accumulation
Capitalism organically leads to concentration of capital: Markets create competition between firms. Competition eliminates inefficient or ineffective firms. Dominant firms hold increasingly large shares of markets. Technological development makes production more efficient. Fewer laborers required to maintain constant level of production. Population increases a surplus of labor reserves. Wealth inequality organically increases. Working class becomes increasingly immiserated (existential crisis of misery and worthlessness). Which leads into the next law:

Law of Falling Rate of Profit
Increasing efficiency lowers production costs. Decreasing production costs + fixed profit margin = falling rate of profit over time. Two choices: Deal with falling rate of profit (never happens because firms are beholden to stockholders), or reduce labor cost for temporary boost of profit (cut benefits, wages and outsource jobs to cheaper international labor markets).

In regards to the first "law". Communism did successfully remove at least half of the problem. They got rid of any surpluses and left only shortages. Maybe some day they'll figure out how to centrally coordinate an economy more effectively, if only the right people are in charge!

[runlvlzero]

Makes sense :D

[Malice_Mizer]

Collective shortages VS Unemployment and Homelessness/Evictions being utterly abolished and nonexistant, and a largely agrarian civilization of serfdom rising to global super power status in a matter of 2 decades. That's a real toughie.

[Malice_Mizer]

I'm not going to defend the Soviet Union as some perfect experiment obviously, but there were many things we could learn from as a society-- largely in what we value most (our priority of values) and what the dignity of a worker means to us as Americans (which at the moment, the dignity of the working and lower classes means exactly shit to the US at large).

[runlvlzero]

I'm not going to defend the Soviet Union as some perfect experiment obviously, but there were many things we could learn from as a society-- largely in what we value most (our priority of values) and what the dignity of a worker means to us as Americans (which at the moment, the dignity of the working and lower classes means exactly shit to the US at large).

Certainly. It has been the focus of many good fiction novels. I'm not well versed in the economic or political sciences. But yeah. I can understand the ideas.

[Elmarnieh]

The self-important righteousness is overwhelming.

"Hey guys let's overturn the current evil social order of things by adhering to American conservatism." Do you want me to break that word down for you? Conservatism in itself is antithetical to a revolutionary society. If your big thing is "egalitarianism" (as though that is honestly a founding principle of the US-- if you believe this, I highly recommend referring to literally any source of history for a correction), then conservatism is not your answer. If you want to learn Spanish and participate in the Pink Tide of South America, that also does not mesh with your stated beliefs. Neither does moving to Russia because you think the US is too authoritarian and oppressive. You're demonstrating your short-sighted, knee-jerk reactionary bullshit here.

By the way, your spelling, grammar and general structure of thought are laughable and immediately relegates you to the "crazy street-corner ranter" status. Not trying to be too elitist here or anything, but do you seriously think "want" is a contraction or something? Are you roleplaying an older dialect of English? And therfore wol I maken yow disport, As I seyde erst, and doon yow som confort.

Virtually everything you've said has been utter insanity.

"I'll gladly take my mongoloid rednecks with assault weapons over crazy fucking assholes like Obama calling the shots."

Case in point. You rant about representation and then somehow oppose the head of state and government as though he is illegitimate simply because you do not agree with him. Not sure how conservatism ideologically fits in with this.

Again, I recommend you study even the surface level of your shit before engaging in some half-assed pop rant because it's en vogue to hate "BIG GOVERNMENT FASCISTS." You sound like a middle schooler who just discovered that it's cool to dissent against the current administration.

If we want to start critiquing posts then I should point out that your entire post contains no argument and is entirely constructed from a combination of two fallacies:

1. Attacking the style - logical fallacy
2. Attacking the person - logical fallacy

[Orruar]

Quick and choppy overview of some basic Marxist principles about capitalism. I think everybody can recognize all of these facts in their daily lives as being noncontroversial truths.

Law of Disproportionality
Capitalism never successfully coordinates production and consumption. Capitalism will always create surpluses of some goods and shortages of others. Shortages / surpluses spread throughout entire economic system. Unplanned economies are characterized by constant stream of production crises (bubbles). Rational economic behavior is not possible. Long-term prosperity / growth is not possible. Think of every bubble you can imagine: .Com bubble, housing market, even smaller things like the Beanie Baby craze in the 90's. Firms and individuals perceive demand of a product and a deluge of suppliers flood into the market, until it's realized that the supply does not meet the demand and huge numbers of firms crash. Supply and demand never "meet up" in this perfect equilibrium state that market-champions claim. There are always massive disparities that lead to huge structural problems across the entire market, i.e. markets are not nearly as "efficient" as everybody blabbers on about. Markets are notoriously inefficient. So, contrary to Rand and Ron Paul, bubbles are not the product of "too much government interference," but rather an unchecked market place where individuals can allocate resources in irrational and honestly stupid ways that affect every other facet of the economy. When all of that polyester went into making the billion Beanie Babies that nobody bought once the fad passed, all of those resources were wasted by supply and demand not meeting up. That means a negative effect for industrial polyester thread, clothing, etc. all across the market.

Law of Accumulation
Capitalism organically leads to concentration of capital: Markets create competition between firms. Competition eliminates inefficient or ineffective firms. Dominant firms hold increasingly large shares of markets. Technological development makes production more efficient. Fewer laborers required to maintain constant level of production. Population increases a surplus of labor reserves. Wealth inequality organically increases. Working class becomes increasingly immiserated (existential crisis of misery and worthlessness). Which leads into the next law:

Law of Falling Rate of Profit
Increasing efficiency lowers production costs. Decreasing production costs + fixed profit margin = falling rate of profit over time. Two choices: Deal with falling rate of profit (never happens because firms are beholden to stockholders), or reduce labor cost for temporary boost of profit (cut benefits, wages and outsource jobs to cheaper international labor markets).

In regards to your third "law". It assumes a fixed profit margin, which seems like a stretch. But it also isn't logical in the way you explain it. I mean, if the costs are reduced while the profit margin is fixed, the rate of profit would actually increase. I had to look up the wiki on this to get the real explanation for what Marx meant. And his argument relies heavily upon his labor theory of value, which has been fairly well discredited.

And when you say a firm only has two options to deal with such a problem (accept falling rate of profit or reduce labor cost), it's abundantly clear that you have never had any kind of business experience. If those are the only two options you could see, you don't have the creativity to run any kind of successful business.

[runlvlzero]

If we want to start critiquing posts then I should point out that your entire post contains no argument and is entirely constructed from a combination of two fallacies:

1. Attacking the style - logical fallacy
2. Attacking the person - logical fallacy

Yeah, regardless I think were way past that. Does not invalidate the other facts they brought to the table that are indeed interesting and thought provoking.

Don't need to dredge it up.

[runlvlzero]

Further I know I have an inflammatory way of stating things. So I can forgive others when they go for the throat in a literary sense.

[runlvlzero]

It tends to not generate the most productive responses )

[Elmarnieh]

Lobbyists arose because of our Constitutionally protected right to petition the government. All special interests do this. It just so happens that in our current economic system, individual private firms wield the absolute pinnacle of power in a variety of ways.

It always amuses me how libertarians argue that weakening the government and handing even more power over to private firms will somehow increase freedom. It will not. The vast majority of our problems come from the concentration of power in private hands-- often multinational corporations who have little interest in any of your patriotic crap. They do whatever it takes to maintain acceptable margins of profitability, including outsourcing the labor market and slashing worker's benefits and wages. It will lead further into the immiseration of the masses, the continued hyper-concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few, and the eventual recognition that capitalism and the world we all want are not compatible states of existence. This unsustainable path will bleed America dry and then move on to the next super power without batting an eye. Have fun with that while the rest of us liberal socialists try to develop some power for the public to stand up for our own self-interests.

The concentration of power in heriarchical organizations is a systemic problem. This is as true for any such organizational structure - business or government. As the power is concentrated it not only tempts and corrupts those who can wield it but it also attracts the already corrupted to the positions of control. Union, Government, Corporation, family business, Charity, Religion, whatever - the flaw is in the nature of the system.

If one only picks one of these groups to chastise they are missing the truth. Striking at business while calling for more government is like having one arm punch your chest while the other massages your back - it does nothing constructive but makes you feel better in one area while causing much more serious damage elsewhere. In fact it is wholly worse for the government has the ability to employ uncontested force in order to effect compliance whereas the rest (absent such force) can only present options that individuals are free to undertake or reject.

[Elmarnieh]

Yeah, regardless I think were way past that. Does not invalidate the other facts they brought to the table that are indeed interesting and thought provoking.

Don't need to dredge it up.

I am replying as I read.

[Orruar]

Collective shortages VS Unemployment and Homelessness/Evictions being utterly abolished and nonexistant, and a largely agrarian civilization of serfdom rising to global super power status in a matter of 2 decades. That's a real toughie.

"Collective shortages" is a really funny way to describe the death of millions of human beings by manmade economic disasters.

So if our options are
a) everyone has a roof over their head, but tens of millions die from lack of food
b) having a cornucopia of food available 24 hours a day, but about a million are homeless. Literally 0 people die each year from starvation in the US.

You would really choose a)?

[Elmarnieh]

Law of Disproportionality-

Compared to what? Rare shortages and surpluses that are autoamtically resolved in quick manner by price signals. When was the last time you went to the store and couldn't find what you needed in stock in the US? Lets compare that to well-known shortages and wait times in socialist nations (Cuba, former USSR, and right now Venezuela is taking over a toilet paper factory because their economic policy causes it to be no longer worth it to manufacture http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/world/americas/venezuela-toilet-paper/index.html ).

It's very easy to attack a thing when you don't compare it to the alternative you're offering. I've never run out of toilet paper. I've never stood in a line only because there was a line. I've never gone to a store to gaze longingly at basic consumer electronics.

Law of Accumulation

This is actually a few fallacies wrapped into one. Increase technology leads to increased efficiency but to argue that technology only puts people out of work well our technology is many times greater than it was in 1932 yet there are more people employed in the US than existed back then and the rate of employment is higher. It in effect calls for the destruction of all computers and copiers and the return of hand messangers and scriveners. Its a call for luddites.

The second fallacy is that it assumes accumilation of capital is a bad thing.

Law of Falling Rate of Profit

Assumes a fixed profit margin. Assumes no innovation (which meshes nicely with the fallacy in the "Law of Accumulation".

[Orruar]

I'm not going to defend the Soviet Union as some perfect experiment obviously, but there were many things we could learn from as a society-- largely in what we value most (our priority of values) and what the dignity of a worker means to us as Americans (which at the moment, the dignity of the working and lower classes means exactly shit to the US at large).

You know what I value most? Not having to worry about dying of starvation every few years. Actually, access to water is probably top, but food would be #2. Then things like having a home, internet, etc. Having dignity is probably down around #50-100. Shit, if my employer wants to yell at me all day and call me a worthless piece of shit while giving me enough money to cover all of my most immediate expenses and many frivolous ones, I'll take that. I'll certainly take that over working my ass off only to die of starvation because no food is available at any price.

[runlvlzero]

Not to be overly trolly. But here is another issue: Illustrated by the past.


Project Cybersyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Cybersyn_control_room.jpg/350px-Cybersyn_control_room.jpg

Things like this is what the libertarian mindset seeks to avoid.

[Orruar]

Law of Disproportionality-

Compared to what? Rare shortages and surpluses that are autoamtically resolved in quick manner by price signals. When was the last time you went to the store and couldn't find what you needed in stock in the US? Lets compare that to well-known shortages and wait times in socialist nations (Cuba, former USSR, and right now Venezuela is taking over a toilet paper factory because their economic policy causes it to be no longer worth it to manufacture http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/world/americas/venezuela-toilet-paper/index.html ).

It's very easy to attack a thing when you don't compare it to the alternative you're offering. I've never run out of toilet paper. I've never stood in a line only because there was a line. I've never gone to a store to gaze longingly at basic consumer electronics.

Marx was basically just showing that capitalism is not 100% perfect. Just another of his brilliant insights. Certainly nobody knew men could make mistakes before Marx came along, right?

Law of Accumulation

This is actually a few fallacies wrapped into one. Increase technology leads to increased efficiency but to argue that technology only puts people out of work well our technology is many times greater than it was in 1932 yet there are more people employed in the US than existed back then and the rate of employment is higher. It in effect calls for the destruction of all computers and copiers and the return of hand messangers and scriveners. Its a call for luddites.

The second fallacy is that it assumes accumilation of capital is a bad thing.


Technology does put people out of work. However, people have this knack for figuring out new types of work. The destruction of jobs has been one of the great. I'm sure happy that we don't need 90% of the population to be farmers anymore. I don't think Steve Jobs would have made a very good farmer, but he was pretty good with electronics.

[Orruar]

Not to be overly trolly. But here is another issue: Illustrated by the past.


Project Cybersyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Cybersyn_control_room.jpg/350px-Cybersyn_control_room.jpg

Things like this is what the libertarian mindset seeks to avoid.

Perhaps you can make a point? Or explain that last sentence of yours? Libertarians want to avoid centrally planned economies? That doesn't seem like a terribly trolly or provocative statement.

[Stinkum]

Orruar is actually a parody forum account for that annoying Paultard on every college campus who thinks he's intelligent because he can paraphrase Milton Friedman.

[Elmarnieh]

You know what I value most? Not having to worry about dying of starvation every few years. Actually, access to water is probably top, but food would be #2. Then things like having a home, internet, etc. Having dignity is probably down around #50-100. Shit, if my employer wants to yell at me all day and call me a worthless piece of shit while giving me enough money to cover all of my most immediate expenses and many frivolous ones, I'll take that. I'll certainly take that over working my ass off only to die of starvation because no food is available at any price.

I don't see the USSR as having any respect for anyone's dignity who wasn't part of the inner circle. Have a religion - gulag, say something against party line - gulag, educate your kids - gulag, want a different job than the one assigned to you - gulag, work not hard enough -gulag, work too hard you make others look bad - gulag.

[Orruar]

I don't see the USSR as having any respect for anyone's dignity who wasn't part of the inner circle. Have a religion - gulag, say something against party line - gulag, educate your kids - gulag, want a different job than the one assigned to you - gulag, work not hard enough -gulag, work too hard you make others look bad - gulag.

If the USSR was the only communist country to run into starvation issues, you might have a point.

[runlvlzero]

Libertarians don't believe in strong authoritarian central governance. Or a particular form of government over the other. We like small limited government.

Project Cybersyn was a project to act as Command and Control for Chile's economy during a heavily socialist time with much unrest. In the end it was only used for breaking strikes. Never became fully functional. A major criticism is it was to automated and lacked enough personnel working with the machines to be of use.

It was a great science experiment. But it was a bad government project. Libertarians would limit government spending on things like this and strictly ensure that they were run under the auspices of a science project. We would leave the private sector to develop these types of systems.

Its also relevant to the big DoD projects we are beginning to implement in our own country. With very little net return for our investment and focus on coercive control.

I urge you to read the wiki article linked. I can't state it any clearer.

Things like this are the domain of Universities and Research. Not governance. And when a government focus's on projects like this to the ultimate goal of stifling "strikes" this is a misuse of government.

[runlvlzero]

Marx was basically just showing that capitalism is not 100% perfect. Just another of his brilliant insights. Certainly nobody knew men could make mistakes before Marx came along, right?



Technology does put people out of work. However, people have this knack for figuring out new types of work. The destruction of jobs has been one of the great. I'm sure happy that we don't need 90% of the population to be farmers anymore. I don't think Steve Jobs would have made a very good farmer, but he was pretty good with electronics.

He was even more better at manipulating the legal system and dominating Intellectual Property. Not that we should do away with these things. But Steve Jobs crossed the line and I think put more out of work than he employed with his out of control business practices.

[runlvlzero]

Mind you he used the current legal and corporate/government framework in place to build his empire.

M$ way way worse 500x, does not exonerate Jobs though even if he was rebelling from his evil daddy Vader Gates.

[Orruar]

Mind you he used the current legal and corporate/government framework in place to build his empire.

M$ way way worse 500x, does not exonerate Jobs though even if he was rebelling from his evil daddy Vader Gates.

Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have increased the standard of living for humanity as a whole far more than any politician ever has...

[runlvlzero]

Linus Torvalds even more so and not for just Rich Americans.

[r00t]

bill gates and steve jobs known globalist stooges

[runlvlzero]

Richard Stallman a god damned saint!

And Brian Kernighan and Dennis_Ritchie.

[r00t]

Linus Torvalds even more so and not for just Rich Americans.

this. every embedded system from gas pumps, traffic lights, your car, etc etc uses Linux because it is FREE, unlike windows or mac os x

[r00t]

Richard Stallman a god damned saint!

And Brian Kernighan and Dennis_Ritchie.

k&r more influential than the bible, rms eats his toe fungus tho

[runlvlzero]

bill gates and steve jobs known globalist stooges

http://i.imgur.com/56xeLFE.jpg

[runlvlzero]

People mistake GNU as free as in beer. But many people were and are payed to develop for Linux. SuSE, Redhat, all made money and employed people. Solaris as well. And Berkleys BSD made great things happen in the realm of networking and routing.

[r00t]

Well yea, the GNU license says I can put Linux on a DVD and sell at COMPUSA so long as I release the source if someone asks for it

[r00t]

oman and the LGPL you just gotta release the object files I think which are like p much 100% machine code alrdy

[runlvlzero]

Its not perfect though as it specifically forbids things like staticly linked DLLS. But its a trade off. It makes it hard to use GNU game libraries in for profit games. But people who develop SDL and OpenGL code all get payed a little for their efforts.

[runlvlzero]

oman and the LGPL you just gotta release the object files I think which are like p much 100% machine code alrdy

u read mah mind

-nerdgasming

[hatelore]

You all speak jibber jabber, comparing Russia? LOL Russia is a shit country, and you would feel the same way if you were standing in below zero temps waiting in a mile long line only to get potato skins to eat. That did happen too by the way. Fuck Russia and Communism both.

We have the best system available for a good society. The problem is, the system requires its people to be good honest citizens. Get it? Government of the people for the people? At the end of the day, everyone with a Government job is an individual. If those individuals come from a society made up unmoralistic people who refuse to help there neighbor or even help a poor kid dying in the street. People who would rather sit around and take video of you dying in the street with there cell phone rather then help you. Then these are the fruits of our labor. What you see happening today in our society , is because our society has degraded to this level.

There wasn't a problem with guns back in the old days, young kids walked around and hunted with 22 rifles, like we used to with bb guns. People helped the old lady cross the road, etc etc. Our society is shit now, and it will only get worse. The question you should ask yourself is " Why the fuck wouldn't I want to own a gun in this society?"

[hatelore]

And you are all a bunch of pussies, this is rnf, quit agreeing with each other, talking about sucking tv dick etc and flame on! Thats why RnF exists. Too many pussies in rnf nowadays.

[runlvlzero]

You all speak jibber jabber, comparing Russia? LOL Russia is a shit country, and you would feel the same way if you were standing in below zero temps waiting in a mile long line only to get potato skins to eat. That did happen too by the way. Fuck Russia and Communism both.

We have the best system available for a good society. The problem is, the system requires its people to be good honest citizens. Get it? Government of the people for the people? At the end of the day, everyone with a Government job is an individual. If those individuals come from a society made up unmoralistic people who refuse to help there neighbor or even help a poor kid dying in the street. People who would rather sit around and take video of you dying in the street with there cell phone rather then help you. Then these are the fruits of our labor. What you see happening today in our society , is because our society has degraded to this level.

There wasn't a problem with guns back in the old days, young kids walked around and hunted with 22 rifles, like we used to with bb guns. People helped the old lady cross the road, etc etc. Our society is shit now, and it will only get worse. The question you should ask yourself is " Why the fuck wouldn't I want to own a gun in this society?"

Easy for me to answer. Sporting, hunting. And as a patriotic duty to have just incase all shit hit the fan (could be any kind of shit from Russia, China, Alien Invasion, our society collapsing). But just stored in the last case in a safe for use as a militia. Fuck can be stored at the militia house for all I care.

But do not want Federal government fucking with my local militia regulations. Should be between me and my neighbors and fellow people in the city/neighborhood.

Yes I would go to regular meetings to organize and plan how this stuff would work. And then I would be more than happy to say fuck it, no individuals need guns in their homes at that point. Totally willing to compromise that far. But under the right conditions.

As we move to a more egalitarian worldview (less racism, less sexism (including gay/lgbt) something like this will be much more workable. Once we work out social boundaries in regards to the internet and privacy things will improve to. Its not an either or situation.

In the 50's something like that might have stifled the evolution of our society to a more fair and balanced one. (Yes we made progress since I was a little kid in elementary school with 1 single black person in my entire grade)

[runlvlzero]

And you are all a bunch of pussies, this is rnf, quit agreeing with each other, talking about sucking tv dick etc and flame on! Thats why RnF exists. Too many pussies in rnf nowadays.

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ --__ \\ : e
x \ \/ _--~~ ~--__| \ | x
* \ \_-~ ~-_\ | *
g \_ \ _.--------.______\| | g
o \ \______// _ ___ _ (_(__> \ | o
a \ . C ___) ______ (_(____> | / a
t /\ | C ____)/ \ (_____> |_/ t
s / /\| C_____) | (___> / \ s
e | ( _C_____)\______/ // _/ / \ e
x | \ |__ \\_________// (__/ | x
* | \ \____) `---- --' | *
g | \_ ___\ /_ _/ | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \__/\___/ | |s
e | / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

[runlvlzero]

Fuck that pussy! ^

[Malice_Mizer]

There wasn't a problem with guns back in the old days, young kids walked around and hunted with 22 rifles, like we used to with bb guns. People helped the old lady cross the road, etc etc. Our society is shit now, and it will only get worse.

I love "Golden Age" philosophers.

By the 1950's, did you know that over 200 anti-lynching bills were attempted in the Congress to curb the horrendous violence of lynch mobs across the country? None of them passed.

As soon as you jump on the, "Things aren't as great as they used to be! Our society is shit now!" bandwagon, how about you entertain the experiences of a vast majority of the country (women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc.)? Christ, your privilege is oozing out of your every pore, buddy.

[runlvlzero]

The art of forum trolling is to skirt the bans and do as much mental damage as you can.

Hopefully those of you who've seen the original are getting flash backs and my art copypaste goes under the radar.

[runlvlzero]

I love "Golden Age" philosophers.

By the 1950's, did you know that over 200 anti-lynching bills were attempted in the Congress to curb the horrendous violence of lynch mobs across the country? None of them passed.

As soon as you jump on the, "Things aren't as great as they used to be! Our society is shit now!" bandwagon, how about you entertain the experiences of a vast majority of the country (women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc.)? Christ, your privilege is oozing out of your every pore, buddy.

Yeah we have made great progress in some ways.

Also this thread has the maximum amount of eyes on it at 3k+ views trolls now is the time to attack! (just lettin slip a few more sekrets for hatelore)

First you must build a pleasant looking hell and fill all the rooms before you add the lava and acid.

[NegaStoat]

I own four firearms (pistols x2, rifle, shotgun) all acquired at various states in my life after getting out of the Navy. It's a bit much, but I don't feel the need to purchase more or sell the ones I have.

Because Zombie Apocalypse, man. I've yet to see an argument that beats Zombie Apocalypse.

[r00t]

It's insane to remain unarmed in modern/future America

[Rellapse35]

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ --__ \\ : e
x \ \/ _--~~ ~--__| \ | x
* \ \_-~ ~-_\ | *
g \_ \ _.--------.______\| | g
o \ \______// _ ___ _ (_(__> \ | o
a \ . C ___) ______ (_(____> | / a
t /\ | C ____)/ \ (_____> |_/ t
s / /\| C_____) | (___> / \ s
e | ( _C_____)\______/ // _/ / \ e
x | \ |__ \\_________// (__/ | x
* | \ \____) `---- --' | *
g | \_ ___\ /_ _/ | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \__/\___/ | |s
e | / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

lulz

[hatelore]

I love "Golden Age" philosophers.

By the 1950's, did you know that over 200 anti-lynching bills were attempted in the Congress to curb the horrendous violence of lynch mobs across the country? None of them passed.

As soon as you jump on the, "Things aren't as great as they used to be! Our society is shit now!" bandwagon, how about you entertain the experiences of a vast majority of the country (women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc.)? Christ, your privilege is oozing out of your every pore, buddy.


You come off as some big pussy in college, who probably hasn't even faced real life situations yet, just text books, that is probably black and hates white people... Yet you are on here trying to entertain is with Yer Big Werds and stuff ( See previous long winded posts by momo above ^ ) .
You shouldn't attempt to psychoanalyze me, You just come off as hateful. "gd bandwagon jumpers ~~~"

And you do realize that blacks do not make up a vast majority of our country ? Try about 13%. Last fucking time I checked too, people with disability have it pretty gd good compared to in other countries. Have you not been schooled about ada laws in college yet? Don't worry, when you get out into the real world, you may experience them and how a good percentage of them are bullshit, you know... When you move out of the dorm and grow up.

You take a timeline out of what I say and totally go into another world on your post, You don't know how to pay attention or what? We weren't talking about how the poor black man is held down in a wheel chair with a broken leg and collecting disabilities.

Step into my office.

why?

CAUSE YO FUCKIN FIRED!

[hatelore]

Man that is just horrible.

[r00t]

while we're making fun of malice's white guilt I thought it would be a great opportunity to remind everyone throughout history, in every society, only slaves have been disarmed

[Rhambuk]

only slaves have been disarmed

genius

[r00t]

Sample Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995

Year Jurisdiction Statute
1640 Virginia Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. “Prohibiting Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” (Los Angeles Times, To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control, January 19, 1992)
1640 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)
1712 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.” (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
1712 South Carolina Race-based total gun ban. “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves.” [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D. J. McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
1791 United States 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
1792 United States Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]
1806 Louisiana Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code, ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)
1811 Louisiana Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Apr. 8, 1811, ch. 14, 1811 Laws of La. 50, 53-54, forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (Id.)
1819 South Carolina Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave. Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S. C. 28, 31 prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)
1825 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8provided that white citizen patrols “shall enter into all Negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and ammunition …” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.” (Id.)
1828 Florida Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)
1831 Florida Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)
1831 Delaware Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. In the December 1831 legislative session, Delaware required free blacks desiring to carry firearms to obtain a license from a justice of the peace. [Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion, p. 74-75 (1966).](GLJ, p. 338)
1831 Maryland Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Maryland entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 75) (GLJ, p. 338)
1831 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Virginia entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 81) (GLJ, p. 338)
1833 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Feb. 17, 1833, ch. 671, Sec. 15, 17, 1833 Fla. Laws 26, 29 authorized white citizen patrols to seize arms found in the homes of slaves and free blacks, and provided that blacks without a proper explanation for the presence of the firearms be summarily punished, without benefit of a judicial tribunal. (Id. p. 338)
1833 Georgia Race-based total gun ban. Act of Dec. 23, 1833, Sec. 7, 1833 Ga. Laws 226, 228 declared that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever.” (Id.)
1840 Florida Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Feb. 25, 1840, no. 20, Sec. 1, 1840 Acts of Fla. 22-23 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (Id. p. 337)
1840 Texas Complete gun ban for slaves. “An Act Concerning Slaves,” Sec. 6, 1840 Laws of Tex. 171, 172, ch. 58 of the Texas Acts of 1850 prohibited slaves from using firearms altogether from 1842-1850. (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University, Vol. 85, No. 3, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point”, T. Markus Funk, 1995, p. 797)
1844 North Carolina Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In State v. Newsom, 27 N. C. 250 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a Slave Code law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens. (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
1845 North Carolina Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Jan. 1, 1845, ch. 87, Sec. 1, 2, 1845 Acts of N. C. 124 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (GLJ, p. 337)
1847 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Jan. 6, 1847, ch. 87 Sec. 11, 1846 Fla. Laws 42, 44 provided that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)
1848 Georgia Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
1852 Mississippi Race-based complete gun ban. Act of Mar. 15, 1852, ch. 206, 1852 Laws of Miss. 328 forbade ownership of firearms by both free blacks and slaves. (JCLC NWU, p. 797)
1857 United States High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations” applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the Negro race … full liberty of speech … to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p. 417) U. S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.
1860 Georgia Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Dec. 19, 1860, no. 64, Sec. 1, 1860 Acts of Ga. 561 forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (GLJ, p. 337)
1861 United States Civil War begins.
1861 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Dec. 17, 1861, ch. 1291, Sec. 11, 1861 Fla. Laws 38, 40provided once again that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave, and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)
1863 United States Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln issued proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”
1865 Mississippi Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military“ and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p. 291, Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.] (GLJ, p. 344)
1865 Louisiana Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns, unless in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from “carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons … without the special permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280) (GLJ, p. 344)
1865 United States Civil War ends May 26.
1865 United States Slavery abolished as of December 18, 1865. 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
1866 Alabama Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black. [The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)] (GLJ, p. 345)
1866 North Carolina Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N. C. Sess. Laws 99 stated “All persons of color who are now inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)
1866 United States Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit any Negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D-Del) added “In my State for many years … there has existed a law … which declares that free Negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power …” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec. 1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”
1866 United States Proposed 14th Amendment to U. S. Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Senator Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Indiana) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the Negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Senator Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e. g. Florida has as “a misdemeanor for colored men … and the punishment … is whipping …” [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June1866)].
1866 United States Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who voted; temporarily disbanded in1871; reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the Negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge … ; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]
1867 United States The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H. Hyman, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 71)
1868 United States 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
1870 Tennessee First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and blacks could not. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.)165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as ”Suicide Specials,“ the ”Saturday Night Special“ label not becoming widespread until reformers and politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent concern about cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ”It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the “Saturday Night Special” is emphasized because it is cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the reference is to “******town Saturday night.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law,William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
1871 United States Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]. Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under color of any law, … of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which … he is entitled under the Constitution … shall be liable … in any action at law … for redress … .”
1875 United States High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U. S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)
1879 Tennessee Second “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Tennessee revamped its economic handgun ban nine years later, passing “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols,” which was upheld in State v. Burgoyne, 75 Tenn. 173, 174 (1881). (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)
1882 Arkansas Third “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers, which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)
1893 Alabama First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes“ on the sale of handguns in an attempt ”to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.“ (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
1902 South Carolina First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special deputies, which included the KKK and company strongmen. (Kates, ”Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States“ in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)
1906 Mississippi Race-based confiscation through record-keeping. Mississippi enacted the first registration law for retailers in1906, requiring them to maintain records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)
1907 Texas Fourth ”Saturday Night Special“ economic handgun ban. Placed ”extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt “to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
1911 New York Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law” enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun. Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25, 000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran, Racism and the Firearms Firestorm, Legal Times)
1934 United States Gun Control Act of 1934 (National Firearms Act) passed.
1941 Florida Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers … The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)


The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

Year Jurisdiction Statute

1954 United States Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools violates 14th Amendment.
1955 United States Alabama bus segregation ordinance held unconstitutional after boycott and NAACP protest.
1956 United States Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling called for by 101 Southern congressmen.
1957 United States Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks. Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order that Guardsman be removed.
1960 United States Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students in Greensboro, NC, refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more than 700, 000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.
1962 United States 3,000 troops were required to quell riots after University of Mississippi accepted first black student.
1963 United States 200, 000 people participated in March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. President John F. Kennedy assassinated in November.
1964 United States Omnibus civil rights bill barring discrimination in voting, jobs, discrimination, etc.; three civil rights workers reported missing in Mississippi, found buried two months later, 21 white men arrested, seven of whom an all-white federal court jury convicted of conspiracy only.
1965 California 34 dead in race riot in Watts area of Los Angeles, CA.
1966 United States First black U. S. senator in 85 years elected (Edward Brook, R-MA)
1967 United States Race riots in Newark, NJ, kill 26, injure 1, 500, with over 1, 000 arrested. Race riots in Detroit, MI, killed at least 40, injured 2, 000 and left 5, 000 homeless; was quelled by 4, 700 federal paratroopers and 8, 000 National Guardsmen. Thurgood Marshall sworn in Oct. 2 as first black justice of the U. S. Supreme Court.
1968 United States Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June.
1968 United States Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)
1988 Maryland Fifth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passes. Ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” i.e. inexpensive handguns, passes.
1988 Illinois Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois. Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives, including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants who objected or attempted to interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on December 16, 1988, as Case No. 88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was entered on November 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p. 98)
1990 Virginia Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects. The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made the city’s 14, 000 public housing residents second-class citizens. [Richmond Tenants Org. v. Richmond Dev. & House. Auth., No. C. A. 3:90CV00576 (E. D. Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p. 97)
1994 United States President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation was filed in 1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.
1995 Maine Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland, Maine, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.

[aowen]

The only thing the real world has taught me is how uneducated people who never went to college sound, which to be fair is an indictment of our k-12 education system. This thread has devolved even further into retardation perpetrated by loons who think that having their guns taken will be a step further to us turning into the USSR or China.

Chicago's gun ban means nothing. As someone who lived there and still has family in Chicago, I can say that to get a gun all you have to do is drive outside of Cook county, in some cases less than a 20 minute drive, to get a gun and bring it back. Illinois state law is super lax regarding guns, so if some gang bangers from the south side want to go pick up a gun, it's not hard for them.

I like how Obama is portrayed as this crazy socialist guy that wants to take everyone's guns. Let me tell you something about Obama, and all of his predecessors, that Noam Chomsky, who I am sure is the anti-christ to some people here. When he was asked what he thought about Obama at a lecture, he replied "Well, I was looking at a picture with Obama, GW Bush, and all of the other former presidents that are still alive, and I thought to myself, this is a picture of a bunch of huge criminals." So stop pretending like everyone that doesn't share your viewpoint must want to bend both knees before Obama.

[aowen]

And to add, Obama isn't a socialist, he's a fucking Plutocrat like the rest of the cunts that control most of the shit in this country.

[r00t]

You proved the premise of the thread: Banning something doesn't stop people from obtaining it and possessing it. Last time I was in Chicago I was walkin down the street with my flask of hennesy and a blunt of some grade A pakalolo

[r00t]

The criminals (from Chester the friendly neighborhood crackhead molestor, to Obama's gangster government) are armed, and you don't want me to be?

naw naw

[runlvlzero]

r00t and OP wins this thread =)

[aowen]

You proved the premise of the thread: Banning something doesn't stop people from obtaining it and possessing it. Last time I was in Chicago I was walkin down the street with my flask of hennesy and a blunt of some grade A pakalolo

I didn't prove shit, and you most certainly didn't. I have just demonstrated how ineffective a law is without a concerted effort. Guns would be harder to get in Chicago if Illinois and neighboring states actually banned hand guns as well. Then if a person wanted a gun, they'd really have to fucking want it because they'd have a hell of a road trip on their hands to go get one. In fact, if they were banned nationally, which is what is proposed, they'd have some smuggling to do. Also, more enforcement would be necessary, rather than just confiscating guns after they have been used to commit crimes. Asserting that Chicago is a microcosm for what America would be with bans is a stupid argument.

[Rellapse35]

The criminals (from Chester the friendly neighborhood crackhead molestor, to Obama's gangster government) are armed, and you don't want me to be?

naw naw

[r00t]

The point is you can't ban the guns or get them off the streets. You gonna do door to door collections like the Nazis? America already saw two peaceful revolutions in the past 4 years (Tea Party and Occupy), can you imagine an act of war? You know what kicked off the original American revolution? Why were the British at Lexington and Concord? That's right: take the guns away.

[Rellapse35]

Try and take the guns away from the rednecks and see what happens lulz

[runlvlzero]

The point is you can't ban the guns or get them off the streets. You gonna do door to door collections like the Nazis? America already saw two peaceful revolutions in the past 4 years (Tea Party and Occupy), can you imagine an act of war? You know what kicked off the original American revolution? Why were the British at Lexington and Concord? That's right: take the guns away.

This is why the people even thinking of asking for guns are the most Amoral in their disregard for their fellows. If people aren't suffering in droves now. And they know there are better alternative ways to alleviate suffering in this country.

Yet their priorities are to target individuals with guns with force.

Sure thats DEFINITELY not going to result in more suffering.

Thats about as logical and rational as I can get.

And why I am sure there is some horrendous conspiracy when the media disregards peaceful protests from Patriotic bikers in DC, yet slams this stuff all over the TV tubes.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/09/11/2-million-bikers-to-dc-motorcycle-riders-roll-into-washington/ That is how you keep your Republic strong folks.

[aowen]

The point is you can't ban the guns or get them off the streets. You gonna do door to door collections like the Nazis? America already saw two peaceful revolutions in the past 4 years (Tea Party and Occupy), can you imagine an act of war? You know what kicked off the original American revolution? Why were the British at Lexington and Concord? That's right: take the guns away.

Occupy and Tea Party stuff were not revolutions. Do you understand what a protest is? Occupy was a worldwide protests, they had people at St. Paul's in London too, and it wasn't even all aimed at governments, it was also aimed at corporatism.

The rest of what you said is too retarded and irrelevant for me to even waste my time talking about the American revolution.

[runlvlzero]

Not by creating more and more waco like incidents and running MK ultra on victims of 911

[r00t]

Occupy and Tea Party stuff were not revolutions. Do you understand what a protest is? Occupy was a worldwide protests, they had people at St. Paul's in London too, and it wasn't even all aimed at governments, it was also aimed at corporatism.

The rest of what you said is too retarded and irrelevant for me to even waste my time talking about the American revolution.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9][10] About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations.

[r00t]

Please tell me how you're gonna get the guns out of our hands, redcoat

[aowen]

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9][10] About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations.

I have extensive knowledge of the American revolution. I know the British were there to take their weapons supplies. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with what is going on now, or has even 1 iota of validity as a comparison.

[Rellapse35]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su1S29FO_5w

[r00t]

The only way to get guns out of Americans hands is to use guns

It is a paradox, like most harebrained liberal schemes

[Hasbinbad]

That is not what paradox means.

Slightly ironic; not a paradox.

[r00t]

par·a·dox someone who does two things that seem to be opposite to each other or who has qualities that are opposite

[r00t]

It is a paradox that computers need maintenance so often, since they are meant to save people time.

It is a paradox that liberals want to use jackbooted armed thugs to take my guns

[r00t]

paradox [ˈpærəˌdɒks]
n
2. (Philosophy / Logic) a self-contradictory proposition

[Rellapse35]

That is not what paradox means.

Slightly ironic; not a paradox.

Stick to what you are good at, changing bedpans. lulz

[Hasbinbad]

It is a paradox that computers need maintenance so often, since they are meant to save people time.

It is a paradox that liberals want to use jackbooted armed thugs to take my guns
You and alanis morisette should write songs bro

[Hasbinbad]

Alanaez Mor00tsette

[Hasbinbad]

game, set, match.

[Daldolma]

I didn't prove shit, and you most certainly didn't. I have just demonstrated how ineffective a law is without a concerted effort. Guns would be harder to get in Chicago if Illinois and neighboring states actually banned hand guns as well. Then if a person wanted a gun, they'd really have to fucking want it because they'd have a hell of a road trip on their hands to go get one. In fact, if they were banned nationally, which is what is proposed, they'd have some smuggling to do. Also, more enforcement would be necessary, rather than just confiscating guns after they have been used to commit crimes. Asserting that Chicago is a microcosm for what America would be with bans is a stupid argument.

Okay, so we're revoking a fundamental right for all 48 contiguous states and ramping up border security to prevent weapons smuggling. We're then substantially increasing enforcement (and presumably infringing upon privacy) to make sure people don't have guns.

Just remind me quickly: why are we doing this? What is the impetus for granting the government such a massive windfall of power while preventing law-abiding citizens from owning tools uniquely capable of providing self-defense?

I won't even get into the argument about whether banning guns would actually have the desired effect. Let's pretend it does. Let's pretend we're at 0 gun deaths a year after banning firearms. You're going to revoke a fundamental right for 300,000,000 based on 15,000 deaths a year? You're going to quite literally eliminate the possibility for entire populations of people to defend themselves because people kill other people with guns?

Seems pretty questionable to me. And why stop there? Heart disease kills 2.5 million Americans a year. Should we not ban foods with saturated fat? And soda? Do you know how many lives could be saved if the government just set a mandatory nutritional plan for the country? Literally millions per year. Alcohol and cigarettes would be long gone, too. Those are exponentially more dangerous than guns.

I assume you're not on board with all of that. I wonder why. If your argument is the human cost, then why not take every measure to preserve human life? Why get excited about a relatively minor cause of death, from a population view, when other bans could be far more effective at saving lives?

[r00t]

When people quote things like gun death statistics it just make me want a gun even more lol

[hatelore]

I didn't prove shit, and you most certainly didn't. I have just demonstrated how ineffective a law is without a concerted effort. Guns would be harder to get in Chicago if Illinois and neighboring states actually banned hand guns as well. Then if a person wanted a gun, they'd really have to fucking want it because they'd have a hell of a road trip on their hands to go get one. In fact, if they were banned nationally, which is what is proposed, they'd have some smuggling to do. Also, more enforcement would be necessary, rather than just confiscating guns after they have been used to commit crimes. Asserting that Chicago is a microcosm for what America would be with bans is a stupid argument.

Are you seriously that dense to think the American Government would do an outright ban on hand guns? Lol. Can you please pass that badass shit you are smoking good sir?

[hatelore]

I got five on it.

[Orruar]

Occupy and Tea Party stuff were not revolutions. Do you understand what a protest is? Occupy was a worldwide protests, they had people at St. Paul's in London too, and it wasn't even all aimed at governments, it was also aimed at corporatism.

The rest of what you said is too retarded and irrelevant for me to even waste my time talking about the American revolution.

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the occupy movement was just dudes looking to pick up chicks.

[Orruar]

I have extensive knowledge of the American revolution. I know the British were there to take their weapons supplies. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with what is going on now, or has even 1 iota of validity as a comparison.

Past history of taking guns away has no validity when discussing the possibility of taking guns away? You have a strange notion of validity.

[Orruar]

It is a paradox that computers need maintenance so often, since they are meant to save people time.

It is a paradox that liberals want to use jackbooted armed thugs to take my guns

A paradox is something that is impossible. Your examples are just irony.

[runlvlzero]

The chances of ridding American civilians of all guns. Is very close to zero. There is no where in the world like that. I bet people still find ways to smuggle guns into NK. Especially from the Chinese border.

[runlvlzero]

Still validating that it is close enough to zero to be effectively impossible.

Its certainly not possible any time this decade without massive amounts of bloodshed.

Still close to impossible to do in a ethical or moral way.

[r00t]

A paradox is something that is impossible. Your examples are just irony.

Not according to Merriam & Webster

[r00t]

420th reply

[Elmarnieh]

Marx was basically just showing that capitalism is not 100% perfect. Just another of his brilliant insights. Certainly nobody knew men could make mistakes before Marx came along, right?



Technology does put people out of work. However, people have this knack for figuring out new types of work. The destruction of jobs has been one of the great. I'm sure happy that we don't need 90% of the population to be farmers anymore. I don't think Steve Jobs would have made a very good farmer, but he was pretty good with electronics.


I don't care about Marx's intent. I care that a logical fallacy was presented as not only a reason to support an economic system but as a law. If you knew both of these laws to be untrue then don't post them and certainly don't present them as laws.

[Elmarnieh]

If the USSR was the only communist country to run into starvation issues, you might have a point.

It seems as if you beleive I was arguing against you. I was and am supporting your position and highlighting the other horrible pitfalls of a socialist or communist system.

[Elmarnieh]

Firearms in the hands of citizens is something that is here to stay in the US. In the last 20 years the firearm laws have been massively liberalized where now private carry of firearms is legal in all 50 states in some manner. Gun owners as a segment of population are growing if one looks at unique NIC checks (some surveys report it as shrinking but they don't take into account the underreporting that is rampant among gun owners). The largest growing market is female gun owners. The more people who undertake firearms the less traction gained by the anti-gun fearmongering.

If you don't like guns you have a choice - don't own any. If you don't like others having guns I suggest you learn to deal with it because it isn't going to change nor should anyone's rights be infringed due to others being timid or prudish.

[Orruar]

I don't care about Marx's intent. I care that a logical fallacy was presented as not only a reason to support an economic system but as a law. If you knew both of these laws to be untrue then don't post them and certainly don't present them as laws.

I didn't post them as laws. I was agreeing with you on the absurdity of those supposed economic laws. Marx has been so thoroughly discredited that it's shocking anyone still believes his ideas.

[Orruar]

It seems as if you beleive I was arguing against you. I was and am supporting your position and highlighting the other horrible pitfalls of a socialist or communist system.

Ah, I thought you were taking the "but the USSR weren't real communists" line. My misunderstanding.

[r00t]

http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/58663.JPG

[Rhambuk]

People saying these "rich white kids need a dose of reality" c'mon seriously?

I grew up in maine, almost everyone owns a gun but there are so few robberies/break ins/crime that it doesn't even matter if you had an arsenal no ones coming for you.

Guess im just a lucky privileged white kid, instead of spending all of your money on guns/ammo to keep your stuff safe, how about you move to a safer neighborhood where its not necessary to be on complete lockdown.

blahblahblah spoiled white kid here with no clue of reality because only those that have lived in the ghetto and been shot at know what the real world is like.

gimme a break

[r00t]

I grew up in maine, almost everyone owns a gun but there are so few robberies/break ins/crime that it doesn't even matter if you had an arsenal no ones coming for you.


more guns less crime proven again!

[Rhambuk]

So having a gun in your house lowers crime for the community?

you having a gun stops street muggings? store burglaries? other houses being broken into?

US Law all citizens required to own a loaded shotgun in their house to keep the community safe...

[Elmarnieh]

So having a gun in your house lowers crime for the community?

you having a gun stops street muggings? store burglaries? other houses being broken into?

US Law all citizens required to own a loaded shotgun in their house to keep the community safe...

It has both stopped those things in progress and prevented those from happening.

Here is an example of a criminal declining to rob a place because he saw a citizen carrying a firearm in the establishment: http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

[Rhambuk]

if he sees a person with a firearm sure.

how does root having a shotgun under his bed deter crime? unless he has a sign on his door that says owner carries loaded weapon, and a shirt that says armed at all times. no criminal is going to assume he has a shotgun or there would never be crime.

its not the fact that people have guns or what they do with them, its that they are so fanatical in their beliefs that if they don't have a gun theyre doomed to be robbed raped murdered...

If thats the kind of place where you live, get the fuck out then instead of going just as crazy as the criminals in your self defense.

heading out, probly wont check this for a few days =p

[r00t]

So having a gun in your house lowers crime for the community?

you having a gun stops street muggings? store burglaries? other houses being broken into?

US Law all citizens required to own a loaded shotgun in their house to keep the community safe...

I would have to answer yes, gun owners prevent crime in all of these situations. For instance, criminals don't know which houses are packing heat. Probability is much higher you'll get broken into in a gun free city versus bumfuck redneckville where it's known everyone has a rotty & shotty. If we didn't need guns we wouldn't need locks on our doors either, our decaying society is on the verge of collapse our only course is to stockpile immediately

[Orruar]

if he sees a person with a firearm sure.

how does root having a shotgun under his bed deter crime? unless he has a sign on his door that says owner carries loaded weapon, and a shirt that says armed at all times. no criminal is going to assume he has a shotgun or there would never be crime.

its not the fact that people have guns or what they do with them, its that they are so fanatical in their beliefs that if they don't have a gun theyre doomed to be robbed raped murdered...

If thats the kind of place where you live, get the fuck out then instead of going just as crazy as the criminals in your self defense.

heading out, probly wont check this for a few days =p

The possibility of the owner of a home having a gun most certainly does reduce crime. Not just for that home owner, but the community as a whole. This is because the criminal must assign some probability to running into an angry gun wielding owner, and assess the cost of such a circumstance to the benefit of getting free stuff. This is, unless the criminal knows exactly which houses have guns and which do not.

[Rellapse35]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790051/thumbs/o-MAYRA-ROSALES-FAT-facebook.jpg

[r00t]

http://i.imgur.com/7rvkJXf.jpg

[r00t]

http://i.imgur.com/PEba6Vd.jpg

[r00t]

remember, safety first ya'll

http://i.imgur.com/bFmLFNN.jpg

[runlvlzero]

Heh you cant legislate away stupid.

[Rellapse35]

remember, safety first ya'll

http://i.imgur.com/bFmLFNN.jpg

pro

[Rhambuk]

http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad326/Kinamur37/MAPS.png

[Orruar]

Minnesota is the worst on tornadoes? No way.

[runlvlzero]

poster is propaganda by the illuminati

[Rhambuk]

poster is propaganda by the illuminati

Damn illuminati and their pleated jeans!

[runlvlzero]

How else do you think they fund their posters?

[hatelore]

http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/58663.JPG


Exactly how you load em, ol boy knows his home defence yo~

[hatelore]

Straight Bird shot in the front yo~

[Rhambuk]

My home defense.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420347264741876&set=a.199270783516193.39064.160608904049048&type=1&ref=nf

[Rhambuk]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1375796_420347264741876_166544911_n.jpg

internets dumb

[Elmarnieh]

My home defense options are many and varied.

[Galelor]

Most of these comments come from middle or upper class folks that have no grip on reality outside of their suburban world. And most people that own guns aren't 'gun nuts' but uninformed and clueless kids (that become uninformed and clueless adults) classify them that way. Most of these people probably don't have families or anything worth protecting or have ever been in a position where their life has been at risk. Look at any natural disaster, even one that just happened here in my own state of Colorado, which has little in the way of natural disasters. The first thing that happens is looting and robbery. While I'm not worried about my possessions as they are replaceable, if a natural disaster were to happen or someone broke into my house, and my family was put in jeopardy, I would without a doubt put a bullet into someone and risk going to prison then let someone else take/hurt my family. I think any father would be willing to sacrifice that for their family.

And many people I know are like me in that I own guns, and yes, I enjoying going to the range, but I hope to never have to use them against somebody. And as far as lasers and other accessories, I'm not into that, but it's just like anything else. I'm a computer nut, so I like to have the latest and greatest hardware/software/cooling equipment. Other people get into guns just the same. You'll always have people on the extreme, but assuming that anyone that doesn't hate guns is a gun nut or a 'prepper', is purely naive.

I stopped reading at this post because it is /thread.

I live in Chicago, and have to drive through some bad areas to get to good areas. I drove past a gang murder by accident the other night, and beat the cops there by 10 seconds (after 2 guys had been killed...) Had I not been late where I was going, and left 5 minutes sooner I may honestly not be here right now... Most violent crime in Chicago happens in areas no one posting on this forum would ever go. Those citizens deserve to defend themselves too. Additionally, even in the nice areas of Chicago, there are still robberies, rapes, home invasions, and other violent crimes. The city is a very harsh place. Check out the crime statistics on the Chicago police website, they post all reported crimes+location and put them on a map for easy viewing.

I have two guns in my home. They are accessible and can be loaded quickly. I will be licensed when conceal carry is in place. I will carry when outside my home.

*I am honestly shocked that laser sights are illegal in Chicago because for short range they are an aiming assistance. Citizens carrying guns legally may hit their target more often. This sounds like a positive to me...

**The second amendment clearly states and obviously means citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you believe this amendment is old/worthless/miswritten, I suggest that you think about how you would feel if the same was said about the other amendments. Honestly, if you don't like our constitution, find somewhere else to leave.

[Elmarnieh]

Many gun control laws run counter to safe firearm use.

Laws against suppressors increase the rate of hearing loss.
Laws agaisnt "Saturday night specials" reduce the ability for the non-criminal poor to access means of self-defense agaisnt violence.

[r00t]

http://i.imgur.com/FnMB45E.gif
http://i.imgur.com/0zImWwJ.gif

[r00t]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1272868_711125952235652_2143543830_o.jpg