You are saying "I want the gub'ment to come and take that guy's AR-15 because only the government should have guns!" and that would be a great idea if governments didn't abuse their power on a regular basis.

Obama is one of the folk for firearm control, and he cried a little on tv for the dumber folk to applaud him for being "caring" and sensitive ,etc. Now which regime in the US government has supplied the most weapons to other governments? The Obama regime.

What about others like Diane Feinstein who are vehemently pro-gun control? Well she supported things like bombing Serbia and Kosova, war in Afghanistan and Iraq and funding those wars, so she's another hypocrite.

What about Europe? Well there's Germany, which raided the home of a family because the mother wasn't taking her kids to school, another show of force from Merkel and how she thinks the government should own children.

France? They're attacking folk in Mali to try and preserve their colonial (oh wait , can't say that, I mean diplomatic) interests there.

Great Britain? Come on, they're the poster boy for out of out of control aggression.

Sweden? Forced sterilization for thousands of folk because they weren't pure Swede, hardly a example for anyone. Just more hypocritical-ness.

This is why I cannot take anti-gun folk seriously. They support stronger governments , and that kills way more than any criminal could. They worry about folk getting ahold of small revolvers while they force folk into indoctrination centers to "learn" , bomb farmers, and give jet bombers to medieval fundamentalist kingdoms.

Even if you don't support that stuff (aside from public education, statists love that) you still support taxation which is extortion, punishing folk for victimless crimes (hey a gun no one is using, you're a criminal!) and hurting poor folk by making minimum wages and printing off lots of money.


It's very hypocritical is what I am saying.

I thought you'd have real arguments against gun control, not a display of how politics are dirty... Plus there's no relation between imperalism and national gun control.


Although I agree with some stuff you said, I won't go point by point on which I agree and which I don't. I'll just hardly disagree on the German case. Not sending your kids to school, or not providing home schooling as an alternative, is an attack to their rights of having a chance at a good college or work. Not offering your kids a chance to go to school is the same as condemning them to have a miserable life. If they want to drop out when they're teens, it's their call, but it should be their choice, and not the parents.


I strongly believe in the concept of liberty. I'll define that any person has the right to have a total freedom, as long as this liberty doesn't affect others liberty. Following this concept, preventing your kids to go to school is a direct attempt on their freedom.


I apply this same context to gun control. People shouldn't have access to guns at will, because indoubtly some people will abuse this freedom to take away other's liberty not to get shot at school.

Public schooling is worse for children than the parents teaching them , even worse than no teaching at all. Way too much indoctrination, lowered literacy rates (in the US at least) , and is a hell for children. It's not free, it's paid for by robbing folk and is more expensive than regular teaching. Anyways, she was homeschooling.

We should ban cars, because if you can use it to ram someone, anyone can and will do it. That's effectively what you're saying, that if someone can use something to hurt, it shouldn't exist. No metal forks or knives either, way too dangerous. And no government, those have killed more than any other artificial thing.

@MSGB, I'll say this once: public schooling works, most of the countries at the top of educational benchmarks actually ya know fund their schools, that may be a good idea.

Also, you just condemned the poor to a life of staying poor. Thanks, pro-poverty cyclic.

Lastly, Team Guns was talking about applying it to a level that doesn't disrupt modern society (eliminating guns doesn't disrupt modern society, if you didn't notice)(I'm assuming, I hold a similar stance)

do you know what i wish for in christmas

not for gifts

i wish 4 no bullet in my head

for i am a waco

Public schooling works when it's not mandatory, and mostly in countries with low literacy rates. In places like Europe and America it has failed to help humanity (unless enforcing nationalism is helpful).

Minimum wages enforces poverty , , trying to get as many folk as possible to go to college raising the price of college then printing money to pay for it devaluing money enforces poverty and other anti-voluntary exchange things enforces poverty.

Banning guns most definitely disrupts modern society when you have millions of folk being instantly criminalized and have paramilitary death squads going house to house looking for guns.

if we were politicans and u told me that u wanna abolish minimum wage id be with u there bub. too bad we wont b politicans rite

and if u ever run for office 9.999999999 out of 10 times ud lose cus ur a extreme minority

Fortunately.

free market should set wages not the GOVERNMENT

Public schooling works when it's not mandatory, and mostly in countries with low literacy rates. In places like Europe and America it has failed to help humanity (unless enforcing nationalism is helpful).

Unless you're talking about a different europe, I really don't see how public schools on the old continent failed. In france, the best schools and colleges are public. About literacy rates, try ending with public school, it will have a great effect on society!

Minimum wages enforces poverty , , trying to get as many folk as possible to go to college raising the price of college then printing money to pay for it devaluing money enforces poverty and other anti-voluntary exchange things enforces poverty.

I fail to see the relation between all of those stuff. Without a minimum wage, the market would instantly devaluate the average wage on the US because of the laws of market. Raising the price of college doesn't help people to get on them, it's quite the opposite. I doubt the gvt printed money to pay for college students, gvt makes profit by lending money to them. Devaluating money doesn't necessarily increases poverty if there's a raise in wages that compensate the inflation. Lastly I didn't understand the anti-voluntary thing.

Banning guns most definitely disrupts modern society when you have millions of folk being instantly criminalized and have paramilitary death squads going house to house looking for guns.

There is no record proving that such a thing would happen. I actually can't even see how you pulled that lol.



Please explain your positions, they're all ideas badly formulated with no data or arguments to prove any. I hardly managed to read what you writed.

Edited 4/18/2016 17:29:52

Getting more folk into college raises the prices of college and the governments reaction has been to try and get more folk into college which has raised the prices. Now they're printing money devaluing it in a attempt to pay for all of this inflating it. The minimum wage affects folk who are unskilled laborers the most, making most of them unemployable.


In the US there are millions of folk with guns, making the ownership of guns illegal makes millions criminals. And there already paramilitary death squads in America, they're called the police.

Anyone have a band-aid? I cut myself real bad on all this edge.

General, you didn't really answer all of the problems I pointed out in your argumentation.

Getting more folk into college raises the prices of college and the governments reaction has been to try and get more folk into college which has raised the prices.

Again, that's not the direct reason of why college prices raised in america. In Europ they've stayed roughly the same in most places, even though more people attend college then ever (both in numbers and %). What caused the raise in prices was the government giving unlimited ammount of credit to students willing to attend the university instead of making public colleges tuition free like thy should have. Public and private colleges alike just took profit on this.

Now they're printing money devaluing it in a attempt to pay for all of this inflating it.

Again, I doubt gvt is printing money just to pay for teens to go to college. You can say they're doing the same to afford a huge army. Gvt money isn't a fixed block, money flows all over the places, you can't say 1 dollar for college come specifically from the printed press. Also, it's too easy to think gvt is giving away this money, it isn't, the federal gvt is anything but naive, they lend this money and make profit on students.

The minimum wage affects folk who are unskilled laborers the most, making most of them unemployable.

Taking away the minimum wage would do more evil then good. With a new labor force willing to work for less, the average pay of the hole society would drop.

In the US there are millions of folk with guns, making the ownership of guns illegal makes millions criminals. And there already paramilitary death squads in America, they're called the police.

Gun ownership wouldn't be criminalized overnight you know? It would probably give a huge time for people to get rid of their guns. But I wouldn't even go that far on a first move, if the US just kept record of every gun owner, sale and prevented them to get on the bad hands, that would already be an improvement.

I think you also are exagerating the police problem. Sure, the problem isn't little and much needs to be done, but you can't just say that every policeman is a member of a deathsquad. Generalization most of the time is wrong.

It would be done slowly not all at once making thousands of criminals, the government could buy all the guns from their owners or they could let people keep their guns but no more guns can be bought in which case guns will slowly become nonexistent among members of the public

Socialists have nothing to do with "gun control", some liberals or conservatives are for gun control, whereas some socialists are also for gun control. This is a personal commitment.

Major are you unable to create a thread with any different topic? It is more like you are rambling like old people.

I apply this same context to gun control. People shouldn't have access to guns at will, because indoubtly some people will abuse this freedom to take away other's liberty not to get shot at school.

I'd agree, but this generally fails and does the opposite. In France, I think the latest estimate on guns was that 4/5 are illegally gotten.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership, pretty free gun laws, and a lower murder rate than most other European countries. Austria also has pretty free gun laws, and also, of course, a lower murder rate.

Edited 4/18/2016 20:12:39

Great Britain? Come on, they're the poster boy for out of out of control aggression.

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU SAY? IT'S THE ENGLISH FOLK THAT ARE VIOLENT, GOD DAMNIT.

I'd agree, but this generally fails and does the opposite. In France, I think the latest estimate on guns was that 4/5 are illegally gotten.

Yea, but that's a direct consequence of any restriction. There's little you can do about this if not lifting the ban. I happen to believe things would be worse if there was no gun laws in France. Imagine now if every radicalized muslim could get a gun? We would see much more terrorist attacks then we do today. We would also see a few of the problems related to gun violence we see in the states there.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership, pretty free gun laws, and a lower murder rate than most other European countries. Austria also has pretty free gun laws, and also, of course, a lower murder rate.

I hardly see a strong corelation between less crime and free gun laws. There's much more to put into account, or else the US would be the safest country in the world, right?

Guns laws are very restrictive in Spain and Germany, the homicide rate there is smaller then 1 per 100 000 citizens.

You are saying "I want the gub'ment to come and take that guy's AR-15 because only the government should have guns!" and that would be a great idea if governments didn't abuse their power on a regular basis.

Obama is one of the folk for firearm control, and he cried a little on tv for the dumber folk to applaud him for being "caring" and sensitive ,etc. Now which regime in the US government has supplied the most weapons to other governments? The Obama regime.

What about others like Diane Feinstein who are vehemently pro-gun control? Well she supported things like bombing Serbia and Kosova, war in Afghanistan and Iraq and funding those wars, so she's another hypocrite.

What about Europe? Well there's Germany, which raided the home of a family because the mother wasn't taking her kids to school, another show of force from Merkel and how she thinks the government should own children.

France? They're attacking folk in Mali to try and preserve their colonial (oh wait , can't say that, I mean diplomatic) interests there.

Great Britain? Come on, they're the poster boy for out of out of control aggression.

Sweden? Forced sterilization for thousands of folk because they weren't pure Swede, hardly a example for anyone. Just more hypocritical-ness.

This is why I cannot take anti-gun folk seriously. They support stronger governments , and that kills way more than any criminal could. They worry about folk getting ahold of small revolvers while they force folk into indoctrination centers to "learn" , bomb farmers, and give jet bombers to medieval fundamentalist kingdoms.

Even if you don't support that stuff (aside from public education, statists love that) you still support taxation which is extortion, punishing folk for victimless crimes (hey a gun no one is using, you're a criminal!) and hurting poor folk by making minimum wages and printing off lots of money.


It's very hypocritical is what I am saying.

The reason I want gun control is to make sure people don't have excessively dangerous weapons that don't have many legitimate (legal) uses. While some are overcontrolling, not all people of one front are for something or against it.

Also, there were legitamite reasons for bombing Serbia (human rights violations) and maybe some for Afghanistan (radical Islamic group took control, although that is quite shaky), but I will agree that Iraq was a stupid idea. But, does all of this make her a hypocrite? For us to get a conclusion, we would need her logic on why gun control is a bad idea.

On the German case, more context needed. Did she force her kids not to go for a really long time? Is there a homeschooling alternative there? While I would support some government action (question her on her actions), Germany went too far.

For France, lots of context needed. Is it Boko Haram?

For Sweden, when did that happen?

This is why I cannot take anti-gun folk seriously. They support stronger governments , and that kills way more than any criminal could. They worry about folk getting ahold of small revolvers while they force folk into indoctrination centers to "learn" , bomb farmers, and give jet bombers to medieval fundamentalist kingdoms.

Even if you don't support that stuff (aside from public education, statists love that) you still support taxation which is extortion, punishing folk for victimless crimes (hey a gun no one is using, you're a criminal!) and hurting poor folk by making minimum wages and printing off lots of money.

This isn't a black and white issue. Stop making it one. Also, NOT ALL OF THEM (us) ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING REVOLVERS. No matter where you go for education, many people will try to push their ideologies onto the young. The best way to stop all indoctrination is to ban education of all kind and keep them at home away from all contact (sarcasm). Also, banning public schooling would either take them home (bad idea in most cases) or private schooling (no comment). Also, what are you referring to with the "bomb farmers" comment? Also, while taxation could be extortion, the connotation for extortion does not apply to taxation all the time. Also, the reason I would punish people owning an assault rifle is that they are dangerous AND there are not a lot of legitamite (legal) uses for them: not because other people do not have it. Also, minimum wages help the poor by making sure they have wages that can keep them alive. Also, the US mint is not responsible for all money minted (Fiat money).

All I'm saying is that this is not a black and white issue and should not be treated as so.

how du u guys expec me to shoot up my scool if i dont hav any guns?!

eric n dylan wood be ashamd of u foolz

Yea, but that's a direct consequence of any restriction. There's little you can do about this if not lifting the ban.

That's why I am saying to not ban guns, it only makes things worse.

I happen to believe things would be worse if there was no gun laws in France. Imagine now if every radicalized muslim could get a gun?

What makes you think they can't? Now, I am for background checks of some sort, no selling to folk who are on the wanted list, or something like that, but not heavy.

I hardly see a strong corelation between less crime and free gun laws. There's much more to put into account, or else the US would be the safest country in the world, right?

As you say, there is more to put into account often, but it seems to be that freer gun laws make for less gun murders. Comparing countries that are on the same geographic site, and the same development level, there are outliers on both sides, 'course, but it seems to me that freer gun laws make for less murders, except in countries that can more easily enforce gun laws (like Japan, as it's gun laws have been about for a long time, and it's immigration policies are very strict - hard to smuggle things).

That's why I am saying to not ban guns, it only makes things worse.

I don't think it does. People who have money and are really willing to buy guns always will. But the low tier thugs and normal citizens won't be able to. In my opinion it is a better thing. Why normal citizens shouldn't be armed (you'll probably ask me)? Because a normal citizen is doomed to live like any other. One day that person can be reasonable and the other day it's husband/wife cheats and then we have someone that dies.

A gun is different then a knife, killing becomes too easy.

What makes you think they can't? Now, I am for background checks of some sort, no selling to folk who are on the wanted list, or something like that, but not heavy.

They can, but it is HARDER. Guns used on the Paris attacks were all from contraband. To acquire those, they needed funding from ISIS, contacts and places to hide their guns. It offers many chances for the intelligence agencies to find them, as well as it forces less organized terrorists to make attacks with knives for example.

As you say, there is more to put into account often, but it seems to be that freer gun laws make for less gun murders.

I doubt it... Freer gun laws reduce other genre murders and transfer it to guns. It's easier to kill with a gun then a knife for instance. In the US, the vast majority of murders is commited by guns. In the UK it's the opposit.