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. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    I oppose aggressive violence and especially institutionalizing it. I see the statements made in this thread supporting gun control as a call for aggressive violence to be used to enforce the gun control. That's my issue.

    The collectivist comments were in reference to putting the collective above the individual to justify the aggressive use of force, not that a collective is an aggressive use of force.
     
  2. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    so, not being able to buy Ak-47s over the counter is inflicting 'aggressive violence' on you?
    hmm, there are shit load more gun laws here in australia then in the US, and we have a lot less shootings. this is blatantly a bad thing and a violent assault on my liberty. :'(
    yr worst fears of 'aggressive violence' against yr persons may actually stop you from getting gunned down at school or in the mall. oh, THE HORROR!!! :o

    sorry, was kinda being stupid. like i noted, i haven't seen it, thus it MUST be reactionary!
     
  3. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    So then you don't oppose security cameras on the streets, curfews, diet controls, limiting peoples risky behaviors, drug control, forced medication, locking up people with dangerous points of view and any other nanny state bullshit because it makes people safer, healthier and more compliant for the betterment of the collective right?
     
  4. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Yeah, who would want to be free when you can be safe. If you pass enough laws you just might be able to outlaw death as well.
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Fuck that, i give up. bgrass and ghoul you both are trolls, you refuse to hear anything and you are brainwashed by the fake illusion of freedom given by your state. there's nothing to do with you, you both are lost causes. Hopefully you are not real anarchists and everyone know it except yourselves.

    In your anarchist society children could buy ak-47 like they buy bubble gums, they could buy anthrax or agent orange, own nuclear weapons, they could have tanks and other war weapons, they could cultivate GMO, etc. You even believe that collective-suicide sects should be allowed and tolerated, as well as brainwashing and alienation of the children.

    Anyway, who want to be safe when you can be free ?

    You both are dumbass and you have nothing to do with anarchism. I wasted enough time with you, you are like NGNM85's twin brothers : you refuse to listen, refuse to question yourself, and think you are always right.
     
  6. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Same could be said for you. If someone doesn't agree with you then they are idiots, dumbasses, trolls, and so on. If they don't agree with you they are wrong. Get over yourself and realize that others will have opinions that differ from yours. Learning involves sharing ideas, even when they conflict.
     
  7. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    So I'm a troll because I oppose people asserting ownership over other people through the aggressive use of violence? Didn't no opposing authoritarianism on an anarchist board would get you labeled as a troll.
     
  8. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I've asked you several times exactly what it is you believe in and you have ignored the question, if you don't know Anarchist philosophy or don't care for it what are you doing here? As far as I can tell you are being a troll when your main objective is to argue against anarchist ideals across the board and pick up exactly where NGNM left off. This isn't healthy debate or sharing of anarchist principle's as a community its just contrarianism and obstruction. Ungov has a great grasp on what is and what isn't anarchistic ideal and from what I can tell from you, you absolutely don't. So please if this is your goal to gum up these forums with endless antagonism to serious debate, please go somewhere else with your rhetoric, you've become more than tiresome.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    No not because they doesn't agree with me, but because their ideas are incompatible with what i'm fighting against. And I'm not the one who decide what is against anarchism, the movement does.

    Learning involve sharing ideas, but sharing ideas is useless when the persons are as closed-minded as you and even after 7 pages they still refuse to listen and question themselves. You are too brainwashed by the fake illusion of liberty given by your constitution and your shitty state.

    You don't listen anything, you refuse to answer question, you dodge the arguments instead of clearly admitting how your politics of individualist freedom would be dangerous (examples with nukes, chemicals, and everything i listed). We are losing our time debating with you.

    And yes you both are trolls because you act like them, you're here only for intellectual masturbation and to prove others wrong, you sound exactly like that NGNM85 idiot who we banned from here.

    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


    Even punkmar77 who have said he used to own guns and is in favor of an armed revolution (which i also am) clearly understand my point. This prove that both of you just refuse to see it
     
  10. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    i didn't think there would be any "buying" in an anarcho society? :) just giving you a hard time ungov. I understand what you are saying. I hope Bgrass and Ghoul's children if they ever had any in their own anarcho society would buy guns at age 4 and shoot themselves. Then if they felt sad about it they'd be hypocrites.

    Seriously guys, if you aren't anarchist and just want to argue anti-anarchist points, get the fuck off this forum. go start your own gun-nut forum.
     
  11. HCdancingsux

    HCdancingsux Active Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    May 18, 2010
     
    I agree with anxiety69. Ungovernable is missing the point. He has good intentions, but he's ironically still trying to find a way to regulate shit, but with Anarchy, you just cant. That's the point.

    In an anarchist society people are returned to a state of nature- fend for yourselves. There is no system for keeping people, including other people's children and their weapons, under control.

    Children should be very informed in this society, so that they might also make a logical choice.

    Also, the people who choose to live without guns are not necessarily in danger. They can just start there own commune. Those who are okay with guns but don't prefer to use them, can hide behind their friends that do have guns.
     
  12. Adam182

    Adam182 Experienced Member Experienced member


    86

    0

    1

    Jun 1, 2010
     
    Now if there were to be a anti gun police that wouldn't be Anarchy...Anarchy says there would be no law enforcement therefore this doesn't work...now what ILuvEire said that the society would control themselves that could happen but there is that select few that ruin the point of Anarchy and peace
     
  13. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Letting people do what the fuck they want, what bullshit is this? Survival of the fittest, the strong, right on, maybe you can move on to eugenics to justify you dream of might is right and fuck everyone. That's the problem with the US idea of 'freedom', they only care about their own, and fuck everyone elses. Whether the individual, or the state, same applies, and the results are also the same, murder at home, murder abroad. I suggest, after the world revolution, we round up all the guns, bombs, nerve gas, nukes, and other wonderous tools of mass death, dump them all in the USA, and fucking sink it.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Commerce would still exist, just not with money ;)

    Oh really? Where did anxiety69 say that ?? lol...

    You sound like another naive person who think anarchism is disorder without any form of morale and ethics to follow. You are the one who is completly missing the point, anarchism is all about order and self-organization. We are not against structures and order, we just want the people to decide of the guidelines to follow by themselves. Did you klnow the circle A logo means (A)narchism in (O)rder ?

    Obviously you don't know much about anarchism.... i don't even know where to start. Seriously, inform yourself before telling others they are wrong.

    :lmao: holy shit, i don't want to be part of your big joke if no one can control the children having weapons.

    Oh yeah anarchism would be a perfect world where the children would understand anything and wouldnt want to play with guns, yeah right :lmao:

    Another one who doesn't understand anything and probably didn,t even take the time to read my arguments on this topic... great

    totally agreed !

    :lmao: :thumbsup:
     
  15. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    hmmm.. it's nice to be agreed with and all, but i didn't say any of that stuff! I was just being a smart ass nitpicker as a way to be funny, parodying many so called anarchist users on this site, i didn't tell Ungov he was trying to be a regulator or anything... though to dismis his points without even taking them into account is silly because he has obviously read a lot and thought at great length about anarchism... something I can't claim I've done at the same level, and it's doubtful you can either.

    so you can put words in my mouth, but i'm likely to barf them back out. :ecouteurs:
     
  16. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    Why do you want my kids to have guns and shoot themselves? Why do you think I would want kids to have guns, or have people sell kids to guns, or that I'm pro gun to begin with. I'm not pro anything, other than liberty. I don't own a gun, or any purposeful weapon at all. I would oppose anyone that would sell guns to kids, or irresponsibly let their kids handle guns. I'm not for chaos or "lawlessness", only against the use of aggressive violence. I don't understand that just because someone opposes using aggressive violence, means your pro what the violence was intended to prohibit. Just because I'm against using violence to prohibit prostitution, it does not mean I would pay a women for sex, doesn't mean I would sell my own ass on the corner or not even support women selling their bodies, but just that I oppose the aggressive use of violence to hurt these people who have hurt no one or threatened to hurt no one. Just because I oppose violence being used to prohibit drug use, does not mean I want to be a junky or support drug abuse, casually use drugs myself or even think its ok for people to alter their state of mind, but just that I believe it is immoral to initiate force to control people for something that does not directly harm anyone other than the potential harm to themselves. The same goes for gun control. I'm not pro gun, I'm anti aggression.
     
  17. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Where did i say that ?

    Because if we don't let your kids have guns, it would be claiming ownership over them (like you said), it would be going against freedom (like you said), it would be violence and state control (like you said) and it would quickly turn into stalinism, white power, state repression, and prohibiton of everything, or whatever else you said in your lot of bullshit

    Yes you are pro guns. You begun the discussion by saying "more guns less control" and you spend most of your time on this forum to defend guns and blame the ones who disagree with guns everywhere.

    Then you are very contradictory with what you have said. You are now willing to do everything you blamed us to do. You are now claiming ownership over others. Remember that you said you can't deny the right to a group to own guns, no matter how large is the percentage of people supporting you. This include kids. And anyway remember your arguments : guns arent dangerous, guns doesnt kill peoples, peoples kill peoples, and anyway if a kid want to kill someone he doesnt need weapons to do.

    So i'll repeat the same arguments you brought up : if you oppose to kids with guns you are also going to need to start a prohibition of knives, baseball bats, etc...

    Oh wait... are you going to tell me that guns is not the same thing as a knife ??? Maybe finally, you do understand the difference since you think kids can use a knife but not a gun ????


    For the rest it's just blah blah blah blah.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    PS: it's funny how both of those guys still refuse to answer what their political ideas are ;)

    They are definatly not anarchists, they are here only to find a battleground for opposing political ideas, intellectual masturbation and consently trying to prove us wrong. TROLLS
     
  19. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    I think the discussion is getting jumbled up. It wasn't you, but anxiety that wanted my kids to get guns and shoot each other. It wasn't me who said anything about more guns anything. I don't think I've said anything pro gun, only anti aggression. Also my position is not contradictory. Like I said in my last post, just because I oppose a violent response to an action, does not mean I endorse that action. As far as kids and guns/drugs/sex/...... goes, my position differs as I don't see kids the same as adults and possibly not having the mental/emotional/maturity capacity to make those decisions, and although the child may consent, the adults action could still be seen as an act of coercion or gross negligence, which if continued could warrant a violent response. I would not institutionalize a rule/law against it and I would set the burden of proof very high to warrant a violent response, but it is an action that may require force to be applied to protect against the coercion of children or the gross neglect that creates an eminent threat of harm to the child or others. But children and guns is not really the argument, but guns in general and the violent prohibition of the guns in general.

    My position is based upon the principle of non aggression, which is all my argument is. Don't initiate force. People are going to do what they will, but until they start threatening to do harm, you have no business laying hands on them.
     
  20. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    I though I've made my political beliefs pretty clear. I oppose the use of aggressive violence, I support self ownership/governance which stems from my belief that no man is above another. I don't self identify as an anarchist or libertarian, not because those words don't fit, but because of all the bullshit that get lumped in with them. I have been told that I sound like a Tolstoyan, which I believe comes from my moral position on the use of violent force, but I've never read anything by him. I've never read really much of anything by any anarchist/political writers and I don't feel the need. My position is pretty simple and cut and dry. To change my position, I would have to change by belief in self ownership and see some as above others to justify the aggression and ownership over others, which isn't going to happen.

    And I'm not trying to necessarily prove you wrong, because the root of the issue, the application of violence, I believe we are on the same page. I only want to expose the disconnect and inconsistency that comes when ideas like community, democracy, greater good, society and other constructs of men cloud the issue. Just like ideas of governments and nations cloud the root moral issue with most everyone else. Just like most will know its wrong to point a gun at someone and force them to pay them money, even if they are starving. But when you point out the taxes are theft at the point of a gun, justifications for the aggression abound, which come from make believe ideas like government and nations. And rather than looking for a voluntary non violent way to achieve the goals of safety, social security, roads and so on, they fall back to the false authority in the state to secure their goal. But now, rather than seeing government or the nation/state as justification for false authority, I see direct democracy, community, some check list of ideas you have to hold to be an anarchist and again the illusion of safety being used to justify aggression. I look through all that to see what really is. People interacting with other people, and I will consistently oppose some people using aggressive violence against other people.
     
Loading...