assault weapon ban

[TheoK]

But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.

[McGiver]

But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.

some people have more time to follow links and read every possible article they are recommended.
Others don't.
I, for one, have read both sides of each several issues for years.  Now I don't much bother.  I enjoy the back and forth banter between individuals.

[TheoK]

No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.

[McGiver]

No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.

what is your job in the anarchist movement?
Mine is to be a cheerleader, because I have too much to lose and believe that the system cannot be reformed.
You have time on your hands.  Have you recruited a flock of like minded people? Have you began to disrupt the system.  Lobby for lawlessness.
I say, that you too are comfortable.

[TheoK]

I discuss with like-minded people, mostly on the net, though. It's extremely hard to "recruit" people.

Most of the time I also feel "What the hell, those brainwashed morons want to be oppressed by psychopaths" 

[RageBeoulve]

[TheoK]

I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later 

["couldbecousin"]

I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later 

  The Romans would probably have taught themselves to swim in the icy ocean water! 

[RageBeoulve]

I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later 

I wrote a satirical gun control proposal that suggested we lock all guns in prison and use nuclear weapons and drone strikes against gun owning "terrorists".

[odeon]

The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.

And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.

Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.

This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.

I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.

WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business.

It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.

I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.

I'm game if you are.

Gun laws are wrong from the beginning, because no one has the moral right to deny you to defend yourself with the means necessary - especially considering the fact that gun laws are made up not to stop citizens from shooting each other but to stop the citizens from successfully defending themselves against a corrupt government.

Proof?

The Romans forbade everyone but the Pretorian Guard to carry weapons in Rome.
The Japanese banned swords for everyone but the military and the aristocrats in the 17th century.
The Nazis forbade the jews to own both firearms and sharp knives.
The "liberal" government in Sweden in 1926 proposed and got through the first Swedish gun law. It is a known fact that communists and social democrats used to carry guns on their meetings.

I meant proof from this century.

[TheoK]

Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?

[odeon]

Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Check the about the ACRU page. This made me LOL:

That it is the purpose of government to secure our God-given rights, not to restrict them, nor to invent new rights.

And a few paragraphs later:

That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.

Of course, it is in their best interest to provide suitable statistics, considering that last part:

That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.

http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html

I do not see a problem man. You don't think people should have freedom of religion? You don't think that the judiciare is supposed to do what we tell it to do?

Whats the problem?

You didn't think those two paragraphs were contradicting each other? Seriously?

As for your claim, did you check out my link?

[odeon]

But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.

First you make an assumption without proof and then you make conclusion based on that assumption. Isn't there a name for that sort of thing?

[odeon]

No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.

Or--the horror--I disagree with you.

[odeon]

Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?

Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.

But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.

And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.