Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Guns and anarchist society

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by ungovernable, May 16, 2010.

  1. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Yes you are contradictory.
    So you are saying that you are against kids having guns but you are also against controlling the kids to prevent they get weapons ?? Fucking stupid.
    That's like saying you are against AIDS but you refuse any treatements for the disease.




    To me it sound like individualism and maybe even liberalism.

    I confirm: you are neither an anarchist nor a libertarian

    So you are religious...

    Yeah it was already obvious that you don't know shit about anarchism and that you are closed-minded and refuse to learn. But trust me (and i'm sure others will agree with me), YES you really seriously need to inform yourself and read about anarchism.

    But if you refuse to learn there's nothing we can do with you. Looks like you want to be an ignorant.

    Yeah that's never going to happen, nice proof of your closed-mindness, you totally refuse to question yourself. You are definatly an enemy of collectivism and therefore not an anarchist.

    So you are against a revolution ? Once again you refuse to answer me and you dodge the questions. Debating with you is so pathetic.

    Let's repeat myself again:
    Authoritarism ?? hahahahaha wow you are as stupid as NGNM85. Direct democracy and collective decisions isn't authoritarism, i already explained that many times to idiots like NGNM85 i ain't going to waste my time again just because you refuse to hear.

    like i said on the other topic:
    then you are probably against a revolution, because a revolution is negating the freedom to the bourgeoisie and the ruling class. Remember what you said: it does not matter how little the percentage is, you just can't impose something by violence, even if it is imposed by a large majority.

    So you are against a revolution, you are against collectivism and you are against capitalism because it is ownership over the bourgeoisie, violence against the ruling class, and negation of the right to be rich and make money


    Direct democracy CAN'T be authority. Whatever the fuck the people choose, it's the people's will and you CAN'T oppose to that. If you oppose the choice of the people then YOU are the authoritarian. You are not fighting authority, you are fighting the people and you are fighting democracy.



    You are a gun nuts who want hippy politics. How funny.


    Seriously, you are a fucking troll. You are the same problem than NGNM85 : you post here only to prove us wrong and you said yourself that you will never chnage your ideas or question yourself. You only participate to discussions to critize peoples , call them authoritarians and try to prove everyone wrong, when there is a shitload of interessing debates you could participate to. But you prefer conflict and intellectual masturbation instead of focusing on the few things that unite us and giving your point of view to productive debates. You are a troll.
     
  2. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    haha, a self-styled expert on revo theory who doesn't feel the need to read anything. oh, if only i was so right all the fucking time too!
    Seriously, ungov, stop bothering. Yr talking to a person who is willfully ignorant, yet still a fucking loud mouth know-it-all.
     
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    yeah i am losing my time, that's like talking to a wall... every time i tell myself to stop but then i can't resist to reply to the load of bullshit he post :p
     
  4. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    know the feeling
     
  5. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    If reading of anarchism in action is what makes you an anarchist in the first place, I'm glad I only said I seem to have anarchist leanings <_<
     
  6. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    It's not just reading about Anarchism Rath, its putting theory to action and applying it to your daily life in as much as is possible without picking up a gun and starting a one man revolution. bgrass has a firm grasp on what he thinks is right but it isn't anarchism, its pacifism and as such he refuses anything else but that dogma which is fine for him but he doesn't need to clog debates on an anarchist forum if he's refusing to even contemplate anarchist theory. :ecouteurs:
     
  7. bgrass

    bgrassExperienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    My position is not pacifism. I will defend myself and others if and when necessary.

    Now show me how my belief is wrong. Here are the two statements you can rip apart and are at the principles that I base all my political positions on. Aggressive violence is an assumption of ownership over the individual and owning people is wrong. Which one do you guys disagree with and which position is incompatible with your view of anarchism.
     
  8. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Aggressive violence is not so much an assumption of ownership as it is as an attempt at dominance. Aggressive violence would only demonstrate ownership if it is repeated, imo. The onset of aggressive violence determines whether or not ownership (i.e. dominance) over the other person is or will be established. Only if this relationship of superior and inferior is established does ownership come into play, if you ask me.
     
  9. bgrass

    bgrassExperienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    Your correct. The rapist doesn't necessarily believe that the woman he is raping is his property, just that he is going to dominate her and take what he wants. If he were to believe that he can rape her at will and it is justified, then he has made an assumption of ownership. Just like if your robbed at gun point, the mugger doesn't necessarily believe, he owns you, hes just taking what he wants. However, when the state institutionalizes using violence to coerce through law it is an assumption of ownership by the state and those that support/voted for that state aggression.

    So I may have been a little to simplistic in what I stated, but the moral position is still the same. Dominating others and owning others is still wrong in my opinion.
     
  10. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    True, regardless. However as stated before ownership also implies a certain methodology if it is connected to violence :)
     
  11. HCdancingsux

    HCdancingsuxActive Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    May 18, 2010
     
    What you are describing sounds more like a socialist democracy. If there is order in anarchy than who's going to maintain it? I thought we were trying to get rid of authority! So what I want to know is, what the fuck is self organization to you?
    Maybe you should look over what I said again and you'll see that I was talking about the same damn thing.
    To me 'self' organization means:
    Teach your children well and keep an eye on them.
    Avoid confrontation.
    Keep guns in your commune if you want, and if someone doesn't want to live with guns, they go somewhere else.

    If you think I am naive based on how much knowledge I have of anarchist literature, then you are probobably right. I am trying to read more and that's why I joined this website. Yet, in this supposedly anarchist discussion, I feel as though everyone is just trying to build themselves up to gain moral power over everyone else. That just won't work! Instead of trying to teach and share with me, you choose to belittle me. With smart ass comments and internet icons. All I did was disagree!
     
  12. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    1

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    I agree with you right here dude, but thats the way it is with forums. People trying to build themselves up and gain moral power. At least they choose not to ignore you which tends to happen with most of my views on shit on here. And if you dont know much about anarchism, thats fine. Noone is better than you on here because you dont know everything about everything.
     
  13. Ivanovich

    IvanovichExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    2

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Well, I was going to reply to that, but then noticed it was you, so thought best I ignore it. Ok, this is the way it is, everyone had a right to their little bit of freedom, but unfortunately there are times when these little bits of freedom might overlap and conflict. This is inevitable, so the question is how to resolve it. So, you can get together and discuss it with your local community, and come up with a few house rules, and with a bit of mutual understanding and respect, everyone is happy, most of the time. Nobody has to get shot, or thrown in a cell, or nailed to a tree, or anything like that. Yeah, mutual respect, remember that one. This don't apply to nutters, obviously.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Bullshit. We recommanded you tons of texts, we referred you to historical examples, books, philosophers, etc... You ignored everything. You refuse to learn, YOU are the one to blame. Blame nobody but yourself.


    A social democracy ?? Wow you are a fucking ignorant. I just told you the circled A anarchist symbol means anarchism in order.

    Proudhon said himself that anarchism is order minus power.

    For fuck sake start to read some theory before saying bullshit, because you are a total ignorant.

    Anarchism is ALL about organization and ORDER. Stop pretending you know what anarchism is all about when you ignore the very basic principles.
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    It happenned today:

    A taxi cab driver shot 12 people and injured at least 25 others across Northern England Wednesday before apparently killing himself. The body of a man fitting Derrick Bird’s description was found in a wooded area with a gun. Police think that Bird, a 52-year-old father of two, began his rampage in the town of Whitehaven by murdering two fellow taxi drivers and wounding a third. He then drove along the coast firing his shotgun apparently at random.

    Do you think someone could have killed 12 people and injured at least 25 others without firearms ? No. He would have been stopped way before.

    We don't want let this happen in an anarchist society. Someone who owns guns without doing anything can quickly turn into a mass murderer. It is too easy to pull a trigger.

    You can say whatever you want to defend guns, but without guns today 12 people wouldn't be dead and 25 others wouldn't been injured.

    And the guns defenders like some people on this thread share the guilt because you defend the guns he used to commit those murders.
     
  16. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    this simpsons quote sums it up nicely.

    CLERK
    I’m sorry, but the law requires a five-day waiting period. We’ve got to run a background check.

    HOMER
    Five days? But I’m mad now! I’d kill you if I had my gun.
     
  17. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Jeffery Dahmer killed 17, no firearms. Dr. Harold Shipman killed at least 215 people without a firearm. The Green River killer killed as many as 90 women and again no firearm. I could go on and on but I won't because those people make me sick.

    Don't get me wrong here. I am in no way condoning the actions of any of these sick fucks. It is tragic, but it is the actions of sick fucks like these that result in murder. You will never be able to outlaw people like this. They obviously have total disregard for the law as well as human life. They will always exist and will always do horrible things.

    On some level I agree with you. I honestly do. I wish we could make the world safer. I wish things like this would never happen. But they will because it is part of human nature. Until we as a species move beyond this, I will use whatever means I have to defend myself and those around me from those types should I have the misfortune to meet them.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Yes but none of them could have killed all those peoples IN A ROW

    And just imagine them with a gun in their hands. You think it would have been better ???

    Anyway, mental ill serial killers is a special case not to be compared with others killers.

    Facts are still that without a gun, there wouldnt be 12 dead people today and 25 injured. IT'S A FACT.

    I'm not saying we can erradicate the problem, i'm saying we can greatly help to make the problem smaller, like other countries did.

    For once in your life, question yourself.
     
  19. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I question myself and the world constantly. I have also studied years and years worth of sociology, and psychology and have come to understand the human condition. We are savage apes that kill. We really are not evolved too much further than chimps. Chimps display the same aggression towards others of their species. They will also use whatever tools available to commit these act just as humans do.
    All killers are mentally ill in some way or another. Whether it be Schizophrenia, anti social disorders, a psychotic break (most likely the case in what you described) or some sort of sociopathy, sane rational people will not behave in this manner. That is my point.
    Yes I do actually. The reason they were able to accumulate such high body counts is because they DIDN'T use a gun. Guns are loud and attract attention. Yes mass murders are terrible but it is not the guns. It is the people. Look at 9/11. 3000 people dead and not one shot fired.

    I carry a .380 and have never used it outside of a range. I hope I never will. I know that there is no level of anger I could feel that would make me use it in any situation other than to save my own life or someone around me. I like to think if I were placed in that situation there could quite possibly be fewer innocent people harmed. My whole position is not in defense of guns but the defense of the ability to defend myself as well as others.
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Doesn't looks like this. You stick to your ideas even if there is major flaws.

    Great for you. Now, start studying anarchism because you seriously need to.

    Your problem is that you don't make any difference between these tools. to you, an assault rifle is the same thing than a knife and it's not more deadly.

    That's totally retarded. So i guess all revolutionnaries are mentally ill, Mesrine was mentally ill, Charlie Bauer is mentally ill, Ravachole was mentally ill, Emile Henry was mentally ill, Emiliano Zapata was mentally ill, same for the spanish revolution, makhnovtchina, etc etc etc...
    That's seriously stupid you put all murders on the same level as the worst mentally illserial killers

    Anyway that's off topic.


    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: so it's better if the killers use guns because it is louder wow you are more and more funny... I'm losing my time with you, i don't even know why i still answer you. But you are too hilarious, that's stronger than myself

    oh, and ever heard of silencer smartass? I'm sure a gun nuts fanatic like you know what it is. Your argument of loudness isn't worth shit.

    Totally off topic..

    And anyway in your society things like that would happen more often since you would allow anyone to buy and own any kind of explosive, jihad terrorists will even have the right to buy rocket launcher and nuclear bombs !! woohoo !!

    Great. You are so cool. Typically american. Why don't you join the NRA?

    Typically american again. You are brainwashed by the propaganda of insecurity.

    Anyway why the fuck would you need a gun to defend yourself ? Remember what you said, firearms assault is just a minority and blah blah blah so why dont you use a knife ?

    You seem so obsessed by defending yourself and others. Join the police dude. Or become a superhero.
     
Loading...