Gun Control

**Leo Volont** · 06-03-2006 06:09 AM

Gun Control
The American 2nd Constitutional Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

There are arguments in principle for Gun Control, and then there are practical reasons for why any Society would establish a Sanctioned, Authorized and Accountable Monopoly of weapons exclusively under the Controls of Civil Government. Most instructive, in both instances are the Laws of the United States in contrast to the applied behaviors of the United States. While still flourishing its 2nd Amendment with its rights to bear arms, with no small consideration being that the Gun Lobby ( The All Powerful National Rifle Association, which now picks the major candidates from both main political parties, or at least holds the power of effective Veto) that pays out just less bribe money to the Politicians than the Number One Lobby, that being the Lobby for Zionist Aggression, the United States, in regards its actual behaviors is the first to suppress Private Ownership of weapons, or even the existence of “Well Regulated Militias”, if they should exist in those lands and nations now being occupied by the United States. We can see for a fact that the Armed Forces of America are taking deliberate and concerted actions to not only disarm those with private military powers, but are actually conducting a War of Annihilation against those bearing Private Arms. Indeed, it might just as well be a second name for their “War on Terror”, as a War against any Armed Rebillion or capacity for Armed Rebellion.

Or we can look at the Policies of the American State Department, which ever insists that “Well Regulated Militias” disarm themselves, in the face of Aggressive Forces that have the approval and sanction of the Americans. We have the Americans demanding that the Catholics in Ireland unconditionally lay down their arms, while the Irish Protestants can maintain their arsenals and deploy British Mercenary Troops to front for their Aggressions. And we have the same American Demands in the Middle East – that the Palestinians Victims of Zionist Aggression unconditionally roll over and completely disarm, all while America grows the Israeli Armed Forces by 4 Billions dollars of Weaponry each year (though I suspect a few hundred Million are kicked back into the American Political Lobbying Machine – keeping the Pump well primed for future Allocations). So it would appear, that without the accompaniment of a great good deal of bribery money, to give backbone to American Resolve to maintain the universality of the Second Amendment, that practical considerations would have all rebellious organizations disarmed, or at least those inimical to the interests of the Best Paid American Political Lobbies.

One would hope that people who believe in Democracy would consider the Power of the Vote to be sufficient for any popular redress for whatever grievances might arise. And in an Age which almost universally deplores “terrorism”, it would make a wise man question how any Independent Militias, and especially how armed individuals, are in any way “necessary for the security of a Free State”, when it would seem that the only effect their arms could bring to bear is to assassinate politicians with whom there is some disagreement, or to hold political bodies under armed duress who would otherwise decide Public Policy differently, if they were permitted to be “Free”. So we have a contradiction in this Constitutional Terminology, where instruments of coercion are supposed to be guaranteeing “Freedom”. At most, America should admit that Private Arms and Roving Militias may only guarantee Rebellion, for which they are happy enough, as their Country was conceived out of a successfully murderous Rebellion. And yet their own extremely bloody defense in their own Civil War shows that Americans are not so universally in favor of Rebellion, not when it is themselves struggling to hold onto Political Power.

We must awake and acknowledge that what is Born of Rebellion need not maintain a Rebellion. The French, the Russian, and the Chinese Revolutions have all admitted, that while Arms and Violence were at first expedient, that the continued Threat that Private Arms have on the Political Process and adversely upon Society (in Crime, Accident and Suicide Rates) are against any measure of interest or advantage. Indeed, although the West is loud to denounce the Chinese suppression of the Tiananmen Square Rebellion, one finds a measure of inconsistency in that the West also had loudly denounced the “Cultural Revolution Rebellion” that occurred back in the Sixties, and was also accompanied by ‘talk’ of Democratic Reforms, but in practice was only a movement favoring a younger and more predatory set of politicians against those already established in power, as who else would resort to Rebellion when every avenue is open to Institutional Involvement, as any Chinaman is perfectly free to join their Communist Party. The difference between the Murderous Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square was that China had taken the intervening 30 years to assure that the civilian population would be disarmed. So, now, China grows at a healthy 8% a year. Yes, I suppose that the Americans do wish that China had reverted back into revolutionary chaos. As it stands now, with its clever and crafty Population not expected to be at constant armed conflict with itself, China is on its way to be the undisputed Most Powerful of World Economic Powers – as each New Chinese Dynasty has always been. America, on the other hand, with its Rural Whites already armed to the teeth, and with its Minorities now arming up (as young Gang Members can hardly be expected to sell their AK-47s just because they turn 21) we can anticipate that eventually America will be impeded with a serious bout of internal armed conflict. All those Gun Nuts will think they are fighting for “Freedom”.

**Howie** · 06-03-2006 08:20 PM

Gun control means use both hands!
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

**Merlock** · 06-03-2006 08:37 PM

Fire arms are the most pathetic and cowardly weapon ever created.
Cold weaponry is the only type of weaponry to ever associate itself with anything remotely reminding honor, valor and bravery where as "guns" are a show of pure cowardice, weakness and lack of will.

**bradybaker** · 06-03-2006 10:01 PM

I'm sure most of you have seen Bowling for Columbine. Moore compares the gun deaths in the US to other countries around the world, including Canada.

While constructing his countercultural ideological framework he pinpoints America's 'culture of fear' as the root cause.

What does he fail to mention? Gun control.

Canadian gun control (while not that great) is worlds better than the US. This is why we have so many fewer gun deaths per capita than our neighbours to the South.

Gun Control = Good.

**Leo Volont** · 06-03-2006 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Merlock
Fire arms are the most pathetic and cowardly weapon ever created.
Cold weaponry is the only type of weaponry to ever associate itself with anything remotely reminding honor, valor and bravery where as "guns" are a show of pure cowardice, weakness and lack of will.

But everything is a blessing or a curse depending how the dynamics are applied.

In the World of only cold steel blades and knuckles, the Community would hang precariously between the moral choices of its strongest and most practiced warriors, and if they would turn out to be evil and selfish, then the Community would be entirely out of luck. Might would make right.

However, in the World of guns, and particularly in a World in which Legitimate Authority and Law Enforcement would have a monopoly on Fire Power, then even police officers of average physical capabilities could blast some intimidating Warrior into a dead moral neutrality.

Indeed, we only need to take a look at the History of Fire Power. The World have been at the mercy of those wealthy enough to purchase Horse, Blade and Armor. The owners of Horse Blade and Armor became the Ruling Aristocracy. They were powerful enough even to threaten Kings, Popes and Emperors. But those such as Louis the IVX and Napoleon were able to ply their imaginations and discern their opportunity to overturn these Tyrannical Aristocracies of Horse, Blade and Armor.

Of course, certain precautions should have always been observed, and that would have been to require that Governments at the highest level should have maintained a strict monopoly on this fire power... not even allowing for hunting rifles or any of that nonsense. Because where there is a high degree of private ownership of Fire Power, then Government and Law and Order become too precarious. Again we return to effective Aristocracies of Arms. Any stupid jerk with a gun can be Lord of the Village, or an 10 men with guns can take over a town -- 100 men a province.

We need to do what Louis the IVX did, and that is to offer an outragious proportion of Wealth to any one group that successfully defeats and disarms all other groups. Then we can all stand back and watch while armed maniacs kill each other off. and the last remaining group becomes the Official Police once the blood bath has drawn to a close.

And what about Nuclear Weapons? Well, the World should place trade sanctions on America until it disarms itself. It is ridiculous that America makes so much noise about every other Country being such a threat, when, the last time we counted, the most serious threat of all are themselves the Americans.

**Leo Volont** · 06-04-2006 12:00 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker

What does he fail to mention? Gun control. *

.

The tacit argument against gun control in America is the Racist Argument. The White Supremacy Groups, that is those who make up the bulk of the National Rifle Association, all suppose that they require more and more arms in order to be secure in the Race War that they all expect will occur someday.

But they are all being stupid.

They should have done a count back in 1970 which would have indicated that the great majority of fire arms were under the direct control of White People. It would have been in their best self interest to immediately clamp down on any future fire arms sales, just so they could sustain the superiority in numbers that had already been established.

Instead, more and more firearms are being bought up by minorities, and not just any minorities, but actual Paramilitary Gangs -- we could even classify them as Militias.

Now, if and when the Race War does finally ignite, who do we suppose will stand the best chance for success -- a bunch of fat middle aged white guys with hunting rifles and duck guns, or the Black and Hispanic Paramilitary Militias with their auto-pistols, and rapid fire assault rifles?

The only hope the White People will have is in poisoning the drug supply and the cheap wines and malt liquors.

**Howie** · 06-04-2006 02:05 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

I'm sure most of you have seen Bowling for Columbine. Moore compares the gun deaths in the US to other countries around the world, including Canada.

While constructing his countercultural ideological framework he pinpoints America's 'culture of fear' as the root cause.

What does he fail to mention? Gun control. *

Canadian gun control (while not that great) is worlds better than the US. This is why we have so many fewer gun deaths per capita than our neighbours to the South.

Gun Control = Good.[/b]

OMG.
Another victim of Mr. Moore.
Not You Brady!

<!--QuoteBegin-Leo
The tacit argument against gun control in America is the Racist Argument. The White Supremacy Groups, that is those who make up the bulk of the National Rifle Association, all suppose that they require more and more arms in order to be secure in the Race War that they all expect will occur someday.

You will find that any group that is falling to a new generation of people who do not think along the same lines have to take a hard line stance on everything. Otherwise you give an inch and they take a foot.
If you get the armed citizen article it points out many times where the use of a firearm saves families and individuals lives. They make a good point. But it is a small point, which is the same way that counter arguments are made. Out of context tot the entire situation.

It is a shame that the use of firearms for a sporting use is not even an argument anymore.
The one thing that should be the main argumentative point. New generations of people are falling away from this and turning to shooting guns at a video screens instead. Shooting people no less.
Don't spend any quality time with your youth and.........heaven forbid kill an innocent bird out in nature, in the field. But rather let the youth grow up playing violent video games unsupervised.

White supremacy. What an ignorant statement.
People who subscribe to Cat fancy are a bunch of pussies too! That is similar to such a biased view.

**Leo Volont** · 06-04-2006 02:13 PM

There is no longer an Argument for "sporting use" because the fire power being discussed has nothing to do any longer with sporting applications.

Nobody is talking about the sale of Remington Model 700's or about long barrel duck guns.

The issue is hand guns, machine guns, and assault rifles. Paramilitary Hardware.

**Howie** · 06-04-2006 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Leo Volont
There is no longer an Argument for "sporting use" because the fire power being discussed has nothing to do any longer with sporting applications.

Nobody is talking about the sale of Remington Model 700's or about long barrel duck guns.

The issue is hand guns, machine guns, and assault rifles. *Paramilitary Hardware.

Originally posted by Leo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo)</div>

Instead, more and more firearms are being bought up by minorities, and not just any minorities, but actual Paramilitary Gangs -- we could even classify them as Militias. [/b]

And who are they fighting against? > One another. Inner city violence!
Do you think that these groups you describe have the ability to organize themselves enough to actually be categorized as a militia? A gang is about as far as I see it going.
The advantage they will have is numberts. For they will not be the Minority at current growth rates.
The fact is that these weapons that are called assault rifles have not made a difference in shooting crimes.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leo
Now, if and when the Race War does finally ignite, who do we suppose will stand the best chance for success -- a bunch of fat middle aged white guys with hunting rifles and duck guns, or the Black and Hispanic Paramilitary Militias with their auto-pistols, and rapid fire assault rifles?

Again... these assault rifles are only targeted because they have the ABILTIY to hold more ammunition. The people who buy them do not have the ABILTY to use them.
Statistics have shown that the amount of shooting crimes have nothing to do with the use or ability to have 30 rounds as opposed to 5,6, 8 or 10.

**Alric** · 06-05-2006 05:30 AM

I hate to sound like the crazy one here but I have to say it. Almost all of the major atrocities in history were done by governments often against their own people. Your a smart man Leo I am sure you could name atleast 5 countries which had governments that murdered their own people.

I know it may sound barbaric but guns are needed to protect people from their own governments which can grow out of control and abuse its powers, and then its population.

**Alric** · 06-05-2006 05:48 AM

I would also argue that the right to bear arms is also protected by the 9th amendment, as the right to defend yourself. If you are attacked or someone breaks into your home, it is highly unlikely that a police officer will get there in time you help you. Your only real option may be to defend yourself or allow the attacker do as he wish, which may even include killing you. For that reason I can't fault anyone for carrying a weapon.

Thread: Gun Control

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Gun Control

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions