I never understand why peasants would want other peasants including themselves to be defenseless. I can understand the upper class wanting the peasants to be defenseless, but I think a lot of people have Stockholm syndrome, where they side with their captors for survival.

When you don't want anyone to have guns, you are unintentionally saying only criminals should have guns. You can't get rid of guns, and in the end if you want only your captors to own them, well that just makes you a good slave.

If they had concealed carry in France, some of those people could have fought back. Instead everyone was just a bunch of helpless victims. Gun free zones are victim disarmament zones. It's what the military calls a kill zone.

(February 21, 2016 at 1:53 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: If they had concealed carry in France, some of those people could have fought back. Instead everyone was just a bunch of helpless victims. Gun free zones are victim disarmament zones. It's what the military calls a kill zone.

This is a ridiculous assertion.  No surprise coming from a ridiculous person, I suppose.

People always underestimate how difficult it is to actually fight back, even if you DO have a gun.  Why do you think cops go through months of training so they can handle these situations?  Life isn't a video game or a movie, where everyone is a crack shot and can pick up a gun and fire no matter the circumstances.  Real life is much different than that.  In real life people get nervous, they're taken by surprise, and there's several other factors involved.  An untrained person isn't going to take out an attacker even if they do have a gun.   It's nothing more than a fantasy concocted by people who masturbate to images from Guns & Ammo Magazines.  

I also don't think you know what a peasant actually is.

(February 21, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(February 21, 2016 at 1:53 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: If they had concealed carry in France, some of those people could have fought back. Instead everyone was just a bunch of helpless victims. Gun free zones are victim disarmament zones. It's what the military calls a kill zone.

This is a ridiculous assertion.  No surprise coming from a ridiculous person, I suppose.

People always underestimate how difficult it is to actually fight back, even if you DO have a gun.  Why do you think cops go through months of training so they can handle these situations?  Life isn't a video game or a movie, where everyone is a crack shot and can pick up a gun and fire no matter the circumstances.  Real life is much different than that.  In real life people get nervous, they're taken by surprise, and there's several other factors involved.  An untrained person isn't going to take out an attacker even if they do have a gun.   It's nothing more than a fantasy concocted by people who masturbate to images from Guns & Ammo Magazines.  

I also don't think you know what a peasant actually is.

Sounds like someone who hasn't fired a gun, and felt the power, and learned to respect it. You have to go through training to get concealed carry, and people tend to train at the shooting range regularly. Why do you think only the police should be allowed to own guns? The police are there to investigate crimes, and follow up, and arrest people. They are not there to stop crimes from happening, although they can if they are around. Banning weapons is a very communist way of thinking, and considering the link of atheism to communism, it's no wonder we have so many leftists who want to give up their rights for top down centralized control.

Extreme leftists are so disconnected from reality because their ideology is based on deception and lies, but since they believe it themselves, they don't see it. Most police and military think people should be allowed to be armed.

Even the head of interpol says citizens should be armed, after the attack on the mall in Kenya.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-...d=20637341

"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."

I'd prefer not to have in a police/security state, and would rather have the freedom to defend myself.

(February 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: Sounds like someone who hasn't fired a gun, and felt the power, and learned to respect it. You have to go through training to get concealed carry, and people tend to train at the shooting range regularly. Why do you think only the police should be allowed to own guns? The police are there to investigate crimes, and follow up, and arrest people. They are not there to stop crimes from happening, although they can if they are around. Banning weapons is a very communist way of thinking, and considering the link of atheism to communism, it's no wonder we have so many leftists who want to give up their rights for top down centralized control.

Sounds like someone who masturbates to his guns & ammo magazine.

Training at the shooting range?  Seriously.  That's not training.  Police go through much more training than that. 

I also don't think you know what Communism is.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Most right-wingers couldn't define communism if their life depended on it.

(February 21, 2016 at 6:21 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(February 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: Sounds like someone who hasn't fired a gun, and felt the power, and learned to respect it. You have to go through training to get concealed carry, and people tend to train at the shooting range regularly. Why do you think only the police should be allowed to own guns? The police are there to investigate crimes, and follow up, and arrest people. They are not there to stop crimes from happening, although they can if they are around. Banning weapons is a very communist way of thinking, and considering the link of atheism to communism, it's no wonder we have so many leftists who want to give up their rights for top down centralized control.

Sounds like someone who masturbates to his guns & ammo magazine.

Training at the shooting range?  Seriously.  That's not training.  Police go through much more training than that. 

I also don't think you know what Communism is.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Most right-wingers couldn't define communism if their life depended on it.

Well I don't even own a gun, but have fired them, and will not support giving up my rights.

Why don't you enlighten the forum with what communism is, give me an example of the country that has implemented it the best.

For those that don't know what a gun is:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

Very well, I'll educate you on what communism is, though I'm not sure it'll actually sink in.

Communism has little to nothing to do with gun control. Communism is a political philosophy that maintains that the means of production should be owned by the public. The ideal of Communism is to create a classless society in which everything is controlled by the working class. Under communism there is no concept of private property. This is much different from Socialism, which is what you'll see most Atheists supporting. Communism and Socialism are very different. Conservatives tend to try to lump the two together in order to push their anti-socialist rhetoric, often ignoring that there are varying degrees of socialism. In fact we already have a number of socialist policies in this country. Our education system for example, though conservatives would love to do away with public schooling. Despite the benefits provided. It's just another failed attempt to try to link things you see as negative (gun control, communism, and atheists) to one another, all under one label.

(February 21, 2016 at 8:05 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Very well, I'll educate you on what communism is, though I'm not sure it'll actually sink in.

Communism has little to nothing to do with gun control.  Communism is a political philosophy that maintains that the means of production should be owned by the public.  The ideal of Communism is to create a classless society in which everything is controlled by the working class.  Under communism there is no concept of private property.  This is much different from Socialism, which is what you'll see most Atheists supporting.  Communism and Socialism are very different.  Conservatives tend to try to lump the two together in order to push their anti-socialist rhetoric, often ignoring that there are varying degrees of socialism.  In fact we already have a number of socialist policies in this country.  Our education system for example, though conservatives would love to do away with public schooling.  Despite the benefits provided. It's just another failed attempt to try to link things you see as negative (gun control, communism, and atheists) to one another, all under one label.

Thanks for the reply. Honestly I agree to an extent with a very limited form of socialism, as I like public roads instead of private toll roads, and social security, among other things. I don't want everything privatized, and agree some things should be collectivized for the good of the community. However, here's the problem. How do you know it will not become a corrupt system just like every other system in the world? Why would communism or socialism be exempt from corruption? Seems to be that corruption would be more prevalent since everything is centralized in socialism or communism and really just a way to control capital.

As far as gun control, look at the gun control rates of leftist nations especially those more related to communism. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a pyramid of power. On the left represents labor, on the right represents management, but above them both represents banking, which represents the money which is needed by both. For me the reason I don't support socialism or communism is because i've looked into who is funding the movements since Lenin. Really it's just a pyramid scheme, and will never be fully realized because it's not meant to be realized. It's meant to be the bait that people will buy into and swallow and in the end the totalitarian regimes always aquire the power.

This is why I continue to post the presentation of KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov who's job it was to expand communism based on lies which they knew of, but those that were adopting it's values were too naive to understand, until they ended up dead or in a forced labor camp.

I mean even look at the socialist nations today. They are starting to collapse, or have achieved more by moving away from socialism. The left has become totalitarian, in trying to control every aspect of society. Since they represent labor, they really don't know what they are doing but I'm sure have good intentions.

Socialist nations are collapsing? Name three.

(February 21, 2016 at 8:26 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: As far as gun control, look at the gun control rates of leftist nations especially those more related to communism. 

What about it?

But while you're at it, look at the gun crime of those same nations.

(February 21, 2016 at 8:26 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: I mean even look at the socialist nations today. They are starting to collapse, or have achieved more by moving away from socialism. The left has become totalitarian, in trying to control every aspect of society. Since they represent labor, they really don't know what they are doing but I'm sure have good intentions.

Which socialist nations? I don't see Germany collapsing or the Scandinavian countries. Countries that are in trouble are the ones more exposed to the financial crisis because of their right wing policies which is a problem with financial system, not socialism.