question about "the left wing"

[Jamie D]

You need to account for all of the guns in existence, and those that would be acquired in the black market.

There are guns buried all over Australia.

[Shantel]

You need to account for all of the guns in existence, and those that would be acquired in the black market.

There are guns buried all over Australia.

One of the Aussie girls on a different site had chatted with me about this and acknowledged that she owned a British .303 Enfield in mint condition and a few thousand rounds of ammunition in storage. When the former Soviet Union collapsed the forbidden privately owned arms came out and a few scores were settled before things settled down. Here in America the idea of arms control or even confiscation is ludicrous because there are millions in private ownership that are unaccounted for and will never be found.

[amZo]

There is something you guys are missing.
If guns are not allowed to be used or owned, no one will sell them legally.
Its kind of obvious if someone is using a gun so it would make it easier to find the one breaking the law.

I'm not missing the first point. You're correct, the government would make me a law breaker because I will always have a gun, I think most people will. The government is very good at making good people law breakers. I forgot who said this and I'll have to paraphrase... 'government's greatest tyranny is the creation of numerous obscure laws which make all citizens law breakers, then the government can go after citizens based on their own discretion and desires.' Wow, I took a lot of liberties with that one, maybe I'll have to claim it as my own. 

Regarding the second point, making drugs illegal hasn't made finding the law breakers particularly effective or efficient, I'm not sure how it would in the case of guns. And the penalties are poorly enforced fairly or rationally.

[Emo]

Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.

[Shantel]

Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.

Were you born with a spoon in your hand so that you could feed yourself? Pretty shallow logic Emo!

[Emo]

Were you born with a spoon in your hand so that you could feed yourself? Pretty shallow logic Emo!

You dont need a spoon to feed yourself. Ever heard of a sandwich? Lol

[Emo]

Also its not shallow. Its simple.

[Hikari]

Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.

I have to agree while I generally support gun ownership with some caveats I find the idea that people somehow have a right to guns to be ludicrous. Perhaps there ought to be some right to self defense but that doesn't = guns. There could be a discussion about what is necessary for self defends but instead we get knee jerk reactions about the right to own a particular piece of technology.

I am also highly suspect of the people saying that if firearms were licsenced or banned that they wouldn't comply. I don't recall seeing any population go into full on revolt from firearms restrictions. After all while there may be illegal guns in austraillia they aren't being turned on the government to take back the rights to have them, and despite cultural differences I doubt there would be anything beyond a few isolated instances of the government having to fight I compliant citizens.

I could be wrong but for all the vitriol and rage over the Brady bill I don't recall any sort of armed resistance to it. I see lots of talk about things like this but by and large states pass restrictions that might have political ramifications but it doesn't cause civil disobedience in large swaths of the population.

[Shantel]

I could be wrong but for all the vitriol and rage over the Brady bill I don't recall any sort of armed resistance to it. I see lots of talk about things like this but by and large states pass restrictions that might have political ramifications but it doesn't cause civil disobedience in large swaths of the population.

True and as long as there is plenty of entertainment and benefits available for the masses nothing will happen. I'll be stockpiling some beer and cheetos for the Superbowl myself. 

[amZo]

Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.

That's okay, you have the right to get annoyed by my 'generic' yet excellent arguments. 

I'm curious what bothered you and how you feel it's wrong though...

[Shantel]

I don't recall seeing any population go into full on revolt from firearms restrictions.

Not as a direct result but as an indirect extension of first having that right taken away followed by the loss of other freedoms and an extended period of government oppression, revolution eventually follows.

As a kid in the late 1950's I followed the Cuban Revolution intently, citizens were fed up with their oppressive government regime and banded together under the leadership of Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra mountains and took on the army of Fulgencio Batista the despotic ruler of the island nation, they were armed with sporting rifles and shotguns that had long been banned by the repressive regime, some brought in on boats by tourist supporters. However most of the rebels didn't know that they would fall under yet another oppressive regime later.

Then Nicolae Ceaușescu was a Romanian Communist politician. He was General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party from 1965 to 1989, and as such was the country's last Communist leader and was also the country's head of state. I watched on TV as he and his wife Elena were tommy gunned and turned into swiss cheese by a citizen force who had enough of their oppression, they got their guns from sympathetic army supporters.

In both cases the initial loss of freedom began with a government gun control program and someone with a mindset like Michael Bloomberg who thinks he knows what's best for everyone, then he takes your 16 oz soft drinks and it never stops there.

[amZo]

In the 20th century, there were roughly 120 million people murdered under totalitarian regimes. The U.S. has approximately 15,000 gun deaths per year (many of these are violent criminals BTW). It would take the U.S. 8,000 years to reach 120 million gun deaths (did I mention most are criminals?).

Something else, I bet these regimes reported low crime rates. Just a hunch.

[Emo]

That's okay, you have the right to get annoyed by my 'generic' yet excellent arguments. 

I'm curious what bothered you and how you feel it's wrong though...

I dont like violence. Unless its the olympics, what else would you use guns for?

[amZo]

I dont like violence. Unless its the olympics, what else would you use guns for?

I hear ya, I don't like violence either! Or the Olympics. 

[LordKAT]

I believe the right to guns was in the beginning so that no one could oppress the people of our nation as the founding fathers were oppressed. So that free men would always be able to revolt should the government become the monster.

[Hikari]

@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".

To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.

And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.

[Shantel]

I believe the right to guns was in the beginning so that no one could oppress the people of our nation as the founding fathers were oppressed. So that free men would always be able to revolt should the government become the monster.

Yes it's the truth as it was intended when they wrote it LordKat and the thoughts and intentions of mankind's heart hasn't changed one iota from that of the earliest man.

[Shantel]

@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".

To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.

And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.

I pointed out that the individual ownership of firearms was initiated well in advance of each of those countries having been taken control over by despotic dictators without which it never could have happened, that's the bottom line and it's what always happens before a nation quickly loses it's remaining constitutional freedoms, the private ownership of firearms is the only thing that puts the spine in a constitution. This is where the rubber meets the road on freedoms period. You don't think the will of the people would be sufficient in and of itself without something intimidating to leverage government do you? You aren't going to tell me that those self aggrandizing politicians are there in DC to do nice things for you and me I hope.

[amZo]

@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".

To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.

And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.

I don't think anyone argued arms control was the cause but rather a tactic, an obvious one IMO.

Regarding Cuba, I see no need to argue that point. It did remind me of my old friend I had in S. Florida who's parents had fled the tyranny of that evil regime. I can't imagine having family lined up and shot by the government, being forced to flee with nothing to a foreign country. It was Jose who introduced me to the ideas and novels of Ayn Rand. I'll never forget how stunned he was I didn't know what 'Atlas Shrugged' was about. I just don't know how anyone can support a system that could do things like this to a fellow human being, but that really is the challenge all free thinking people face. Has been for all of time I think.

[Shantel]

Thought this is relevant and fits into the conversation nicely here.

Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book, Rules for Radicals. He was born January 30, 1909 in Chicago, Il., and died June 12, 1972. He was educated at the University of Chicago, was married to Irene, and wrote the books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Called "the father of the community-organizing model", he reportedly inspired both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, let's take a look at what it takes to create a social state according to Saul Alinsky. There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

1. Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.

2. Poverty: Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control: Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

6. Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.

7. Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.

8. Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Does this sound familiar?

I once wore a uniform and we stacked the corpses of those following this ideology up like cordwood, so is it any wonder that others here like myself would be in diametric opposition to what seems to be happening right here in the US and elsewhere in western societies?