Ask me about Communism.

[Guard Dog]

I would rather be dead than be under communistic rule, LoF, and I will die fighting, killing as many communists as I can before I do die.

How sure of that are you? Honestly, people who post on the internet hardly remind me of the sort who would fight and die for their beliefs.

 

Would you rebel against the US government, if there was a lawfully elected socialist or communist government?

 

Humor aside here, I would not need to rebel. There would be a number of states that would seceede. I'd just go there. Let me turn that one around on you though, if you lived in a now truely socialist America and say half the states seceeded to form a new nation in the mold of the original US Constitution would you advocate war against them for reunification?

[I want teh kotor 3]

Don'r worry Kill & KOTOR, this discussion is all academic anyway. LoF and those like him are a tiny fraction of a minority, and even if his ilk ever did gain any political power those of us who view individual rights as sacrosanct are the ones that own guns and are willing to use them.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are.

 

Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America.

 

Ya know, there are a whole crapton of dead Union soldiers would disagree with you.

[Masterfade]

Of course there are always two sides of the story, LoF, however I am primarily interested in my side of the story as you are on yours.

 

Oh, executing the mentally ill shows real reform. YES IT DOES!

 

I hold little love for communism but to be fair the Akmal Shaikh case had little to do with communism vs capitalism.

 

By all accounts the death sentence enjoyed strong public support in China. It's doubtful a democratically-elected Chinese President would be more inclined to go against public opinion and commit political suicide by granting Shaikh clemency, no matter how hard Mr.Brown pushed for it.

[Oblarg]

Don'r worry Kill & KOTOR, this discussion is all academic anyway. LoF and those like him are a tiny fraction of a minority, and even if his ilk ever did gain any political power those of us who view individual rights as sacrosanct are the ones that own guns and are willing to use them.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are.

 

Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America.

No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway.

 

People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people?

[Hurlshort]

Hunting is actually a pretty popular activity in rural areas.

[Gromnir]

Don'r worry Kill & KOTOR, this discussion is all academic anyway. LoF and those like him are a tiny fraction of a minority, and even if his ilk ever did gain any political power those of us who view individual rights as sacrosanct are the ones that own guns and are willing to use them.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are.

 

Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America.

No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway.

 

People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people?

 

1) it is part of the constitution

 

like it or not, it is a fundamental right on par with free speech. if you think it is antiquated then there is a process for getting rid of it. if it were genuine only nutcases who wanted to keep 2nd amendment, then it would have been dumped a long time ago. the problem with gun-control nutcases is that they know they can't swing an amendment, so they tries to pull off legal sleight o' hand without considering what that would mean to the OTHER fundamental rights. use commerce clause to render the second amendment impotent? well, then what is to stop folks from using the commerce clause to try and render the first or eighth amendments meaningless?

 

2) the US is the product o' a revolutionary government

 

right to bear arms were important to founding fathers not only to has an effective militia, but also 'cause folks like patrick henry knew that a well-armed citizenry is more difficult to push around. sudden create an oppressive tax without the approval o' The People? founding fathers knew that with armed colonials the tax man would feel far less secure in trying to collect. create a 2010 law to dispossess hillbillies from their land in the ozarks? *chuckle* good luck. 2nd amendment is not needed now, but 2nd amendment weren't created for now. imagine instead an oppressive federal government that is draconian and abusive. 2nd amendment makes Future revolutionaries and armed dissenters more possible and the founding father thought that such were a good thing.

 

you only asked for one, but Gromnir is generous.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

Humor aside here, I would not need to rebel. There would be a number of states that would seceede. I'd just go there. Let me turn that one around on you though, if you lived in a now truely socialist America and say half the states seceeded to form a new nation in the mold of the original US Constitution would you advocate war against them for reunification?

Why wouldn't I? A century and a half ago, certain states tried it because they were caught in a social era of savage barbarism, against a tide of left-wing thought. They would be put down just as thoroughly. It has been established for nearly fifteen decades that states cannot secede.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Don'r worry Kill & KOTOR, this discussion is all academic anyway. LoF and those like him are a tiny fraction of a minority, and even if his ilk ever did gain any political power those of us who view individual rights as sacrosanct are the ones that own guns and are willing to use them.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are.

 

Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America.

No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway.

 

People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people?

 

Even if they were illegal, the true psychos would have them anyway. Since I don't want to be defenseless if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I should have one too.

[Yuusha]

The tree of liberty may need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

What, one million dead Iraqis not enough for your accursed tree?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Iraq? We are talking about the US here. I have always maintained that Iraq's problems should have been handled only by the Iraqis.

[Guard Dog]

Humor aside here, I would not need to rebel. There would be a number of states that would seceede. I'd just go there. Let me turn that one around on you though, if you lived in a now truely socialist America and say half the states seceeded to form a new nation in the mold of the original US Constitution would you advocate war against them for reunification?

Why wouldn't I? A century and a half ago, certain states tried it because they were caught in a social era of savage barbarism, against a tide of left-wing thought. They would be put down just as thoroughly. It has been established for nearly fifteen decades that states cannot secede.

So, you are opposed to using military force to advance US goals and interests around the world but using it to kill and coerce Americans who want their freedom is ok huh? That really sums you up doesen't it? You do not believe in communisim because it is fair or right, you as much as say you favor it because it is oppressive and brutal. Interesting that you equate slave owning and the desire to live in economic and personal freedom together as savage barbarisim. You an Yushaa do have a lot in common. He is well known for posting long multi page rants on what a beautiful place the world would be if the nations would just rise up an kill all of the Americans.

 

I guess that does it. You sir are a lost cause and discussion with you is a little pointless.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It is that type of attitudes why I am favor of the US being isolationist nation. Still trade with other nations, don't get me wrong on that, but remove all favored trade statuses for all nations, remove all military personal from all other countries and place them to guard our borders, close all immigration into this country, and stop all foreign aid. Those who try to enter this country illegally are shot on sight. Rework our economy and budget so that we can pay off all foreign debts. And most of all remove ourselves from the UN, boot the UN out of the US, and remove ourselves from NATO.

 

If the rest of the world needs help from the US, screw them. I am so sick and tired of the US being called upon just to get our faces spat on.

[lord of flies]

So, you are opposed to using military force to advance US goals and interests around the world but using it to kill and coerce Americans who want their freedom is ok huh? That really sums you up doesen't it?

"Their freedom" to be brutally oppressed in a one-way economic system? Their freedom to be brutally oppressed? I recognize no such thing, which is something I would presume you could have figured out by now.

You do not believe in communisim because it is fair or right, you as much as say you favor it because it is oppressive and brutal.

Of course. This makes perfect sense. I love brutality, since I have opinions. Hurf a durf.

Interesting that you equate slave owning and the desire to live in economic and personal freedom together as savage barbarisim.

Yes, that's because slavery and capitalism are both outdated, brutalistic and backwards economic systems.

Those who try to enter this country illegally are shot on sight.

You're a wonderful human being, did you know that?

[Trenitay]

So they shouldn't have the freedom to be brutally oppressed by capitalism, but if it's communism doing it, well that's okay then.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Those who try to enter this country illegally are shot on sight.

You're a wonderful human being, did you know that?

 

What? Am I suppose to be nice to those who have no respect for our laws? Am I suppose to friendly to those who seek to invade my country? Hell fraking no.

 

Also I see more people being oppressed in communistic countries than the US. China for one. A full sixth of the population being oppressed by a communist regime. You don't think they aren't being oppressed? Tell that to the Tibetans. Tell that to those who are Christians in that country.

 

China is the enemy. Communism is the enemy of freedom.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Oblarg]

Don'r worry Kill & KOTOR, this discussion is all academic anyway. LoF and those like him are a tiny fraction of a minority, and even if his ilk ever did gain any political power those of us who view individual rights as sacrosanct are the ones that own guns and are willing to use them.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are.

 

Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America.

No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway.

 

People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people?

 

Even if they were illegal, the true psychos would have them anyway. Since I don't want to be defenseless if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I should have one too.

 

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Oblarg

[lord of flies]

What? Am I suppose to be nice to those who have no respect for our laws? Am I suppose to friendly to those who seek to invade my country? Hell fraking no.

Your country's immigration laws are ridiculous. They don't deserve respect. Immigrants are not invaders, they are human beings seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

Also I see more people being oppressed in communistic countries than the US. China for one. A full sixth of the population being oppressed by a communist regime. You don't think they aren't being oppressed? Tell that to the Tibetans. Tell that to those who are Christians in that country.

 

China is the enemy. Communism is the enemy of freedom.

Maybe if you say it enough, it will become true.

 

You really ought to realize by now that China is not, in fact, communist.

[Gorgon]

China and North Korea are so used to glorious leaders they don't have any experience or expectation of individual freedom.

 

The chinese just don't care enough about democracy to insist on it, the government in recent times has had a history of making concessions when it feels they are necessary. China could probably transition without bloodshed.

 

North Koreans keep their heads down and shut up or disappear without a trace.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Gorgon

[Trenitay]

Immigrants are not invaders, they are human beings seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

 

You really ought to realize by now that China is not, in fact, communist.

 

These are two points I actually agree with him on. Immigrants don't need to be shot. They need easier ways in to make a living. Isn't that what capitalism is all about. Opportunities.

 

And China is a dictatorship, it's not communist. Totalitarian does not automatically make it communist.

[I want teh kotor 3]

You really ought to realize by now that China is not, in fact, communist.

 

Ya know, I think the Chinese Constitution would disagree with you.

[Trenitay]

I could write me up a little document saying that I'm a fuzzy three-horned unicorn. Does it make it true?

[Yuusha]

@Killian Kalthorne:

China is the enemy. Communism is the enemy of freedom.

Heh... You're one to talk.

 

I've always find it funny when a westerner claims that a certain group or people are 'terrorists' or 'enemies of freedom.' It's just so overwhelmingly hypocritical. Tell me something, with what moral authority do you or the mainstays of the western civilization regime speak, when in their own closet there are skeletons labeled Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, mass murder, war crimes, illegal invasion, torture, illegal detention, disrespect for international law, denial of due process... etc?

 

The fact is, the US with its capitalistic and militaristic approaches are a greater threat to freedom/world peace than all the communist governments combined.

---------------------------

 

You an Yushaa do have a lot in common. He is well known for posting long multi page rants on what a beautiful place the world would be if the nations would just rise up an kill all of the Americans.

Hey you misspelled my name...

 

Oh and this may come as a surprise to you, but people who see the US in a bad light are not as scarce as you might think. Hell even the vatican said the Iraq war wasn't justified. Meaning that many outside the US view the invasion of Iraq for what it is: A cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, the robe of freedom is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a capitalist's expedition becomes a Crusade.

 

You may think that your politicians have noble motives for all the wars the US waged (Iraq, Afghanistan etc), but before deciding what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?

[Killian Kalthorne]

A nation that cannot stand on its own is a nation that doesn't deserve to stand at all. If the US is so bad and so evil, then it is the right of the nations that it has caused harm to return it in kind. If they aren't strong enough to do so then that is their own fault. I am concerned with my rights, my freedoms. Not the Iraqis. Let the Iraqi government take care of the Iraqis, or vice versa.

[I want teh kotor 3]

A nation that cannot stand on its own is a nation that doesn't deserve to stand at all. If the US is so bad and so evil, then it is the right of the nations that it has caused harm to return it in kind. If they aren't strong enough to do so then that is their own fault. I am concerned with my rights, my freedoms. Not the Iraqis. Let the Iraqi government take care of the Iraqis, or vice versa.

 

This.

[Killian Kalthorne]

For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms.

 

Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

 

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool.