It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
I will not disagree to much on your point here. However, the people who support the second amendment typically argue that they have a right to hunt. But that is not the "purpose" for the Amendment.

The purpose is irrelevent to the effects.

The Supremes have ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect sawed-off shotguns as sawed-off shotguns are not military weapons.

The Supreme Court is wrong. Yes, it can be wrong, because there is actual meaning contained within the Constitution. Just because it is the Supreme Court that is officially empowered to interpret it doesn't make it's interpretations correct.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Okay, first off, I'm an actual revolutionary. I study revolutions, who and why they happen, etc.

Studying ants doesn't make you an ant.

Studying revolution doesn't make a revolutionary. Being a revoluitionary makes me study revolution. I want to know what worked, what didn't, and why. I actually hope to be able to make a revolution here someday, though I admit it's extemely unlikely.

Are you saying American victory in Iraq is a guarantee?

I think it's extremely likely. There are a few scenarios in which the U.S. could lose. The U.S., however, won't be militarily defeated. It will withdraw because of the trouble it will cause back home.

So great, if the U.S. is occupied by a foeign power, then yes, and armed public will be instrumental in liberating the U.S. In the event of a dictatorship, it will be pretty useless.

Also, consider, without armed resitance, Al Sadr would be in jail, his papers shut down, and America would be riding the Iraqis from the backside right now. Instead, America has to be a little more careful about how it treats the Iraqis.

That's not their goals. That's a side effect. They wanted to drive America out. Instead they've blown their wad and found their suuport failing.

You say you are a revolutionary, but where is your gun? You are a student, but can never be a leader if you are not willing to be a soldier first.

As I have repeated, my having a gun is irrelevent. Anyway, radicals with guns attract an inordinate amout of police attention, and frequently find themselves dead. I'm not going to die just to satisfy you.

The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns.

It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped.

What do you mean "just helped". How can you deny an armed populace was an integral part of the American revolution?

We wouldn't have beaten the Brits without the French. It was French forces that defeated the British.

And we don't need to be armed now to form irregulars in the event of civil war.

What civil war? What revolution? There are hundreds of possibilities of revolution and civil war.

Perhaps the . . . war would be more of a series of anarchistic lynchings and mob battles. Maybe it would be a quiet revolution, with a series of assasinations and sabotage directed at supporters of opposing causes.

I'm not interested in being a terrorist. Our movement is not interested in being terrorists. We reject terrorism. Terrorism is the weapon of the narcisist, of the individual, and the impatient. It alienates people from your movement and only leads to a popular backlash. Communists organize to lead a popular revolution.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned


Joe, the Federal ban on assault weapons was clearly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it banned military style weapons. However, a California ban on the same weapons is nominally constitutional unless it interferes with a Federal law or interstate commerce.

I know. But I was jest saying how stupid the gun ban was. If a gun is semi, it should not matter was it looks like. If you home load, you can make almost any gun more powerful as long you do not overload the firing chamber.

[Patroklos]

I'm an actual revolutionary

Precious.

I hope to be a millionaire someday, doesn't make me one.

Maybe I can shoot you in a protest one day, fullfill your dream!

[chequita guevara]

[Patroklos]

Common, what kind of relotutionary uses roles eyes?

You have to spout a quote from a thouroughly refuted philosophy, then go burn something in your own neighborhood with no connection to who your fighting.

[NeOmega]

Studying revolution doesn't make a revolutionary. Being a revoluitionary makes me study revolution. I want to know what worked, what didn't, and why. I actually hope to be able to make a revolution here someday, though I admit it's extemely unlikely.

I know you do. You think your enlightened words and ideas may one day rouse a nation from it's slumber. Just like every other person in America who thinks they know a thing or two about politics.

Unless the government listens to people like me and pulls out, yeah. Or unless they keep listening to people like Rumsfeld, and refuse to committ the forces necessary.

I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such.

That's not their goals. That's a side effect. They wanted to drive America out. Instead they've blown their wad and found their suuport failing.

How do you figure? Support failing?

You say you are a revolutionary, but where is your gun? You are a student, but can never be a leader if you are not willing to be a soldier first.

Anyway, radicals with guns attract an inordinate amout of police attention, and frequently find themselves dead. I'm not going to die just to satisfy you.

Satisfy me? Radicals also find themselves in jail, and forgotten, set up. Regardless of gun or not. How can you get police attraction if you keep it a secret? It's not a toy, or a red corvette, it's a tool. Nobody needs to know about it. It should not be shown, it should not be seen, and it should not exist.

I would love to tell you whether I own one or not. But no-one knows if I do, or not.

The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns.

Where else would they attack you, if you always have your gun? And why are you calling them terrorists?

It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped.

What do you mean "just helped". How can you deny an armed populace was an integral part of the American revolution?

We wouldn't have beaten the Brits without the French. It was French forces that defeated the British.

The French could have never have done it without us either. They lost the French and Indian War.

What civil war? What revolution? There are hundreds of possibilities of revolution and civil war.

Perhaps the . . . war would be more of a series of anarchistic lynchings and mob battles. Maybe it would be a quiet revolution, with a series of assasinations and sabotage directed at supporters of opposing causes.

I'm not interested in being a terrorist. Our movement is not interested in being terrorists. We reject terrorism. Terrorism is the weapon of the narcisist, of the individual, and the impatient. It alienates people from your movement and only leads to a popular backlash. Communists organize to lead a popular revolution.

Regardless of your goals, why are you so quick to give up one of your rights? Would your new Communist America ban all guns? Would the popular revolt be able to continue if it tried? Or would it get bogged down in a face to face, bloody civil war?

I am not a soldier, nor do I hope to be one, but I am a human. I understand that the pain of a loved one killed or maimed may never die, and may actually burn hotter as age begets more loneliness.
I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy, is much more difficult to defeat than a professional, whose goal is wealth and riches, and a nice life and a nice home. The suicidal have nothing to lose, and nothing ot live for except war.

I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins. Your signs and chants would be nothing. You ever read books about the Black Panthers? They were infiltrated, confused and destroyed by the FBI, those who could not be subjugated were killed. Your popular revolution will never come on your own timing, that is what the US government is for. If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power. You will be forced into a reactionary stance. More than likely any one who opposes will go down, one by one, by neighbors who know little about politics, but enough about money to see the value of a hefty reward.

I just don't understand why anyone, would be willing to throw away any right given to them by their government so quickly. It will solve very little, except perhaps lessen the amount of homicides in gang wars, and suicides will switch over to razor blades or illicit drugs.

[MrFun]

I don't think I can recall ever hearing a satisfactory answer as to why United States has the highest gun-related, violent crime rate in the world.

[Patroklos]

Because we have so many well off people to rob.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MrFun
I don't think I can recall ever hearing a satisfactory answer as to why United States has the highest gun-related, violent crime rate in the world.

1. not true at all.
2. true for industrialized nations
3. I'll get my text from the other site... alot of Europhiles may be disappointed....
4. we have many guns per capita
5. the drug war makes the black market a living for many.

This is from an old Almanac I have, 1997:

top 10 crime rates (per 100,000), the United States and UK are not mentioned:

1 was Dominica, with 22,432
4 was Sweden, 5 was New Zealand, and 6 was Canada.
10 was Gibralter 10,039

Most burglaries (per 100,000 population, again)
1 Virgin Islands 3,183
2 Netherlands
3 Israel
4 New Zealand
5 Denmark
7 England and Wales
8 Austrlia
10 Greenland with 1883
US was unranked, with 1041

This is a count of arrested, not necessarily convicted. So American lax crime system cannot be blamed.

The highest crime rate per 100,000 up to 1997 was 5950, in 1980. Note that is only about half that of New Zeland and Canada.

One thing I must note about the American crime wave. It is largely a myth. The inner cities have mystiques that are untrue. A white man most certainly can walk through downtown South Central, and not even be harassed, at 3 AM in the morning. It is possible, yes a crime could occur, it is just highly improbable.

The threat alone of an armed "victim", is a great depressant on crime... and it makes a gas station clerk at 4 AM in the morning feel a lot safer. Our murder rate is high. We just happen to have the world's most powerful media, so all of our sins are exaggerated internationally.

The top ten in highest murder rates in 1997, started with Swaziland, with 30, ended with Peurto Rico with 24, Colombia and the Phillipines fell in betweeen, with other 3rd world countries. US had 9.

If someone wants ot look up the stats for 2004, be my guest, but a doubling of the crime rate to rank in the top ten between 1997 and 2004, would be a crimewave never before seen.... So I am sure America will stay out of being ranked as one of the most crime infected nations, and even industrialized nations.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Our murder rate is high. We just happen to have the world's most powerful media, so all of our sins are exaggerated internationally.

Saying our murder rate is high is kinda an understatement, considering the gap between United States, and the industrialized nation with the second highest murder rate, isn't it??

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MrFun
Saying our murder rate is high is kinda an understatement, considering the gap between United States, and the industrialized nation with the second highest murder rate, isn't it??

Do you have the numbers?

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/international/msg00013.html

I found this one pretty satisfactory... wordl comparison was actually kind of difficult for me to find on google.

BTW, Mexico and Colombia are way, way, way higher, like ten times.... and the drug war is incredibly hot in those countries.

EDIT: link has old stats... which is about all I can find on google.

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun
I don't think I can recall ever hearing a satisfactory answer as to why United States has the highest gun-related, violent crime rate in the world.

violence is part of our culture. Of this, I'm sure. (watch the top 10 hollywood movies for confirmation)

[Patroklos]

I do believe the energies can be directed to construtive purposes, not wholly, but to an extent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega

I know you do. You think your enlightened words and ideas may one day rouse a nation from it's slumber.

Not exactly. Revolutionaries don't convince people that a revolution is needed. Objective conditions do that. Revolutionaries just try and guide it to a successful conclusion.

I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such.

Very likely. That doesn't mean we'll be defeated.

How do you figure? Support failing?

LotM posted a thread about how al Sadr's support is drying up. His followers are smashed and demoralized, and without the Mosque, they have no money coming in. Very likely, they are finished as a force. I suspect many of the fighters will merge into the nationalist movement, however.

Radicals also find themselves in jail, and forgotten, set up. Regardless of gun or not. How can you get police attraction if you keep it a secret?

There are records of licenses and background checks, I assume.

The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns.

Where else would they attack you, if you always have your gun? And why are you calling them terrorists?

If they engage in terror tactics, what else should I call them?

Regardless of your goals, why are you so quick to give up one of your rights?

Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to excercise it. I have a right to whatever religion I want. That doesn't mean I have to be religious. I have a right not to have a gun also.

I'm not aguing against the right to have guns. I'm arguing that having them won't stop the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship and wouldn't overthrow it if it did become one.

Would your new Communist America ban all guns?

No, we believe in the right to own guns.

I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy,

Revenge isn't a good goal. Victory is a good goal. Revenge doesn't get us there, and might even hurt our chances.

The suicidal have nothing to lose, and nothing ot live for except war.

There are times when that may be called for. It should only be an option when the purpose is to save others. I don't think Allende should have made a final suicidal stand. I think he should have fled, to lead an opposition from abroad.

I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins.

Not always. Sometimes the side with the most firepower refuses to use it.

Your signs and chants would be nothing.

And yet with them, the Bolsheviks made a revolution.

You ever read books about the Black Panthers? They were infiltrated, confused and destroyed by the FBI, those who could not be subjugated were killed.

Yep, cuz they had guns. The government targetted them because they had guns. The whole reason the SWAT team was invented was to deal with the Black Panthers. They were gunned down in their sleep, ambushed at ralleys, murdered in their prison cells. Guns may have made them feel more macho, made their testosterone pump, but the really good work the BPP did was non-violent, like their school breakfast programs, their free grocery give aways, getting doctors to recognize sickle cell anemia as a serious disease, etc.

Your popular revolution will never come on your own timing, that is what the US government is for.

They never do.

If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power.

Revolution in America will come when something shakes the legitimacy of the government, such as the Great Depression or a disasterous war. That breaks people's faith in the government. At that moment, there's a window of opportunity for a mass revolutionary party to overthrow the government and create a new one.

If a revolutionary party has been successful in building a mass movement, if it has won the hearts and minds of a significant part of the population and also the military, then a revolution might succeed. All of the important work of building to that point can be done without a gun.

You will be forced into a reactionary stance.

If the objective and subjective conditions don't exist, you don't have to bite. We're far from the subjective conditions, and the objective conditions are beyond our control.

More than likely any one who opposes will go down, one by one, by neighbors who know little about politics, but enough about money to see the value of a hefty reward.

In which case, a gun won't help me, and might get me killed.

I will, however, let you in on the fact that comrades who live in poorer white areas are buying guns, for self-defense against extreme rightists. People on the right fringe are talking about a struggle against King George, and thinking that if George is re-selected, the left will revolt and there will be a new civil war. In that case, I did suggest to the comrade that she buy a gun (or two).