Fuck the ATF

Please don’t make me say what I don’t say.

ducon said:

Please don’t make me say what I don’t say.

I could say the same about you.

O_o
I said that an axe is an arm by destination, but that a nuclear warhead is an arm by design. I’m against arms by design, big and small.

ducon said:

I’m against arms by design, big and small.

OK, then that pretty much puts you in the category of the utopists that would rather live in an idealized, weaponless land full of happy unicorns and singing flowers. I'm glad we cleared that up, since that position is really off-topic when discussing weapon policy in the context of real world states' internal affairs (and utopic elsewhere).

Why is it utopic? I think that equilibrium by terror is much more utopical, and that it denotes a society in which I don’t want to live.
Moreover, the competition of the biggest dick, with arms or with enything else, is not my cup of tea.

ducon said:

Why is it utopic?

Pretending that all weapons magically disappear, that multinationals like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin stop making ICBMs etc.

ducon said:

I think that equilibrium by terror is much more utopical, and that it denotes a society in which I don’t want to live.

Then change planet. It has literally marked human history, and violence (or its deterrence value) has regulated human relations more than any other factor in history. That is actual practice written down in any history book. The rest is pure theory and pipe dreams.

ducon said:

Moreover, the competition of the biggest dick, with arms or with enything else, is not my cup of tea.

Again, change planet. You can't realistically go anywhere in life without stomping on someone's feet or competing with someone over something, or having to prove that one of your symoblic dicks is bigger than someone else's symbolic dick, at least in some areas.

The only way to avoid this and to blissfully ignore it is to:

• Be dead.
  
• Find niches in life where there's little/no competition (sometimes this may be something none else thought of/wants to do, and sometimes it's just something that's more of a solitary fight, but still a fight nonetheless).
  
• Delegating your fights to someone else. This can take many forms such as having hyper-protective parents, being under someone's wing of protection/favor or living out of a big pre-existing fortune and retiring "outside" of things, leading a detached, neutral, distanced existence. But then again someone must have fought for this fortune before you/for you.
  

Open your mind and read anti-violence books, where conflicts are solved without violence? Social darwinism is pure crap.
About unicorns, I believe in the purple and invisible one.

ducon said:

Open your mind and read anti-violence books, where conflicts are solved without violence?

That would be diplomacy. And failing that, violence always followed. None wants to be the one that yields, the one that says "OK my opponent, have it your way, I won't do anything to stop you, I will even turn the other cheek".

Still I can't see how we went from a thread about over-zealous domestic gun control to utopian anti-violence and anti-weapon dreams. Unless you're a deity that can make ALL humans non-violent and weaponless AT THE SAME TIME, these ideas can't work. If you leave even one human with a knife and the assertiveness to use it on the others to have his way, he will.

So, because something exists, we should not think about how to think differently and refuse it; instead accept it and just follow the leader?
Why an army exits? Because another army exits. That’s crazy.

Maes said:

OK, then that pretty much puts you in the category of the utopists that would rather live in an idealized, weaponless land full of happy unicorns and singing flowers. I'm glad we cleared that up, since that position is really off-topic when discussing weapon policy in the context of real world states' internal affairs (and utopic elsewhere).

Wait just a minute, who doesn't want to live in a better world? You? People who would rather keep the status quo that they happen to benefit from?

ducon said:

So, because something exists, we should not think about how to think differently and refuse it; instead accept it and just follow the leader?

Think and dream as much as you want. Just be careful when you're trying to apply your dreams/ideas to the real life.

ducon said:

Why an army exits? Because another army exits. That’s crazy.

Trick question: who disarms first?

Bank said:

Wait just a minute, who doesn't want to live in a better world? You?

Ha, got me there, but only because of poor wording on my side. I wanted to say that ducon actually belongs to those people who promote utopic/unrealistic ideas in contexts where solid, down-to-ground solutions are needed. Gun control laws are pretty down-to-ground. Dreams of a weaponless world like there has NEVER been are not.

I too would like to win the lottery, have a private island with a harem with 200 of the world's finest women and an army of servants to do my bidding, but I know it's never going to be. I never stop dreaming about it though :-p

Bank said:

People who would rather keep the status quo that they happen to benefit from?

I wish I actually had ANY actual kind of solid benefits from this sort of affair. The very least I would would be typing this comment from aboard my 50m yacht. The closest I ever got to that was being a reserve officer in the Greek Army for a near-minimum wage :-p

P.S.: It's funny how on a forum about DOOM, a game where you're shooting demons with GUNS, there are so many utopian pacifists and gun-haters. I take all these people only do pacifist or at most, Tyson runs? :-p

It's only unrealistic for, and because of, people like you.

Belial said:

It's only unrealistic for, and because of, people like you.

Sure. I'm bad because other people before me were bad etc. etc. and this way we can track it down to the ONE, the ORIGINAL bad person: CAIN.

Go on, change the world if you can, I'm not going to personally stop you :-p

Maes said:

P.S.: It's funny how on a forum about DOOM, a game where you're shooting demons with GUNS, there are so many utopian pacifists and gun-haters. I take all these people only do pacifist or at most, Tyson runs? :-p

Doom it’s only a game with F2-F3, iddqd and so on, not real life.

ducon said:

Doom it’s only a game with F2-F3, iddqd and so on, not real life.

Yet another defeat for coherency, then. We can exchange witty one-liners until one of us "desists" but what would be the point?

I don't have problems with people believing in impossible things/miracles itself. I do have a problem when those beliefs lead a government to take ineffective laws that do limit my liberty for no fucking reason, though.

• A "concerned citizen", a "do-gooder" like ducon spreads some anti-gun FUD (perhaps malignantly, perhaps because his lobby tells him so, or because he really believes it), sometimes backed up by utopian dreams of non-violent worlds where all weapons and violent individuals don't exist.
  
• The government apparently gives "ducon" some credit (and any "ducon" for that matter), by enabling stricter ineffective "anti-gun" laws for law abiding citizens, even if it's for stuff like toy guns. But this doesn't matter, because it appears as if serious and immediate action has been taken, apparently in the name of public security and world peace.
  
• This apparent cooperation and "giving in" by the Government make it appear as if it's actually "listening to its citizens", "taking steps towards world peace", and last but not least, has ducon's vote guaranteed for the next term.
  
• The result: the police waste their time hunting down "criminals" shooting airsofts in their back yards, while normal citizens are supposed to bend over, unarmed, when the real crooks arrive. Depending on how strict the law was before, they may be worse off or see no practical change.
  
• Double gain for the government: now it has more subjugated individuals, who have lost even more of their self-determination, as they got the message that they can't even spit without goverment permission. Good going, "ducon", and any "ducon" out there!
  

See the vicious circle?

I do, and it's all in your head, along with the usual rhetoric based on fear.

Double gain for the government: now it has more subjugated individuals, who have lost even more of their self-determination, as they got the message that they can't even spit without goverment permission. Good going, "ducon", and any "ducon" out there!

Yes, because we all know The Government is out to get us, take away our freedom and make us their slaves.

This is why I don't bother discussing 'guns'. Coming from a country with no 'gun culture' I just don't get any of the arguments that the anti-control people throw at me.

Most of those people strike me as fearful of their own goverment, of other people and the world in general, usually pessimistic in their outlook on life and trying to push their views proclaiming that 'that's how things are', 'that's how the world works', 'that's how governments are' etc.

Fuck that, I'm not buying it.

If I got a permit and bought a gun I expect the typical reaction among my friends and family would be surprise and questions like 'What the hell do you need that for?', which is exactly how it should be. If it were any different I'd have to start questioning their sanity. They would probably do the same in regard to my sanity if I started telling them a gun is just a tool, like a knife or hatchet.

If zdoom.org didn't prune it's Off-Topic forum I'd link to my first ever run in with a gun nut way back when. You'd see me display the same disbelief they'd show if I had used the comparisons you and Mr. Freeze have used.

I think the reasons for that are simple. Your scenario of a big bad crook coming to kill you just isn't likely to happen. In Poland if you're the victim of a homicide, the perp is most likely a member of your family, drunk or drugged, who stabbed you or beat you to death with whatever they could grab first. Frankly I don't see how easier access to guns would change that. Out of the 50 or so gun homicides we have each year most are related to gang warfare. You're more likely to be shot by accident on a walk in the woods by some retard out hunting than 'protecting your home' or whatever scenario you pick from the ones you love to use as justification for loosening up gun control laws.

That is all. I don't intend to write another wall of text on guns anytime soon.

That, and his safety by no means should outweigh my freedom to explode things because exploding things is fun. If a few people die it doesn't matter. People breed like rabbits.

Belial said:

I do, and it's all in your head, along with the usual rhetoric based on fear.

What's the difference between "my" rhetoric and ducon's then, if they are both based on fear and concern?

Belial said:

Yes, because we all know The Government is out to get us, take away our freedom and make us their slaves.

Don't forget that just 20 years ago you were still behind the Iron Curtain. So perhaps anything with the word "democracy" on it still seems glittering and grand -in the West it has lost its shimmer long ago, and the billyclub of a democratically elected government's cop hurts just as much as that of a "commie".

Belial said:

This is why I don't bother discussing 'guns'. Coming from a country with no 'gun culture' I just don't get any of the arguments that the anti-control people throw at me.

Who said I'm against all and any control? I AM however against pointless bans such as the one mentioned in the OP. It's about FUCKING TOY GUNS PEOPLE. And I'm even more against do-gooders who think they have some actual power because they managed to lobby for a pointless cause (I'm sure the same people wouldn't dare question their countries' REAL weapon manufacturers, foreign policy, "War on Terror", Blackwater etc. because those are the real deal, backed by people that can hurt you. A lot.

Belial said:

If I got a permit and bought a gun I expect the typical reaction among my friends and family would be surprise and questions like 'What the hell do you need that for?', which is exactly how it should be.

How about sporting, marksmanship, hunting etc.?

Oh wait. The do-gooders also try to ban those at the same time by calling hunting "cruel". They do have a hard time banning shooting sports, but they usually "compromise" by saying "only cops/military should practice them". Really pathetic. I don't want a bunch of runty, quaking sissies lobbying me.

Belial said:

I think the reasons for that are simple. Your scenario of a big bad crook coming to kill you just isn't likely to happen. In Poland if you're the victim of a homicide, the perp is most likely a member of your family, drunk or drugged, who stabbed you or beat you to death with whatever they could grab first.

Well, let's say that between scenarios:

1. Crook finds me unarmed and makes me his bitch.
   
2. Crook receives 56gr of hot, macho, manly lead in the torso
   

I prefer b). You are free to choose a) of course...just don't interfere with my right and ability to choose b).

Belial said:

the perp is most likely a member of your family, drunk or drugged, who stabbed you or beat you to death with whatever they could grab first.

Wow. I wanna leave behind these car-jackings and home-invasions and live THERE!

oh but wait...We're tryin' to SPREAD USA-flavored democracy! So...nevermind.

Hey...We're buildin' these Wal-marts just as fast as we can! Be patient. Coming soon to YOUR neighborhood!

Walmart sells toy guns. You'll know the end is near. ;p

Maes said:

How about sporting, marksmanship...

Air guns. Have fun.

hunting etc.?

'What the hell do you need that for?'
'Hunting.'
'Why would you want to kill animals?'

Some fucktard shot my friends dog when they were on a walk in the countryside, afterwards he said he thought it was a wild dog because it had no leash on.

Hunting should only be allowed when it's contracted by the state company that owns the forests for population control.

Try hunting some food at the supermarket,

Belial said:

Air guns. Have fun.

Hell yeah, I do have one :-) And yeah, it's fun, cheap to own and operate, and relatively safer and less fussy than a real firearm. Sorry if it's Russki-made, though :-p

However people like the ATF would like to ban even lesser "weapons", go figure. P.S.: I got mine when I was over 16 with parental consent, so it's not unregulated. And it has a black plastic stock instead of wood so it looks more "tactical" and "aggressive". Suck it down, pussies!

Belial said:

'What the hell do you need that for?'
'Hunting.'
'Why would you want to kill animals?'

That's another can of worms we could open. However I wholly agree with the next statement:

Belial said:

Hunting should only be allowed when it's contracted by the state company that owns the forests for population control.

The technical term for that is "selective hunting" or somesuch. I would advocate that, as do some members of ecological and otherwise "green" parties, but not without controversy. For example, the famous mountaineer Reinhold Messner was forced to resign from his candidacy with the Italian Green party after being a testimonial in a Beretta hunting rifle ad.

Still, this was caused more by his being targeted by a satirical TV magazine at the time called "Striscia la notizia", who tried deliberately to enrage him and succeeded, ridiculing him for falling for their trolling tactics in front of the camera and millions of people, rather than him practicing hunting.

As Marco Boato, a deputy of the Italian Green party said at the time:
"He [Messner] has expressed a legitimate position in the worst way possible: the Greens are against unregulated hunting, but there is not an unanimous ideological repudiation of the "selective" hunting practiced by Messner"

(from the original article, in Italian)

ducon said:

O_o
I said that an axe is an arm by destination, but that a nuclear warhead is an arm by design.

Peaceful nuclear explosions :-p

ducon said:
You talk about axe control, I answer that some arms are arms by design, and others are arms by destination.

Yeah, that's the difference between weapon and arm. Anything can be a weapon, while arms are designed to be weaponry.

Maes said:
P.S.: It's funny how on a forum about DOOM, a game where you're shooting demons with GUNS, there are so many utopian pacifists and gun-haters. I take all these people only do pacifist or at most, Tyson runs? :-p

It might be a good argument for the idea that violent media can help sublimate aggression. But DOOM does invite liberal-minded people, because it's too over-the-top and irreverent for strict conservatives. You still get the arguments between the more libertarian and the more socialist sides of the coin.

Don't forget that just 20 years ago you were still behind the Iron Curtain. So perhaps anything with the word "democracy" on it still seems glittering and grand -in the West it has lost its shimmer long ago, and the billyclub of a democratically elected government's cop hurts just as much as that of a "commie".

For all their troubles, maybe they learned something behind that curtain. Most of the NGOs espousing the word democracy are the ones that favor slapping "democracy" on someone else.

Maes said:

Peaceful nuclear explosions :-p

The problems might well outweigh the benefits.

The largest excavation experiment took place in 1962 at the Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site. The Sedan nuclear test carried out as part of Operation Storax displaced 12 million tons of earth, creating the largest man-made crater in the world, generating a large nuclear fallout over Nevada and Utah. Explosions in oil and gas fields did indeed stimulate production, but in some cases the fuel was so radioactive it was unusable.

The "Gas Buggy" site, located 55 miles east of Farmington, New Mexico, still contains nuclear contamination from a single subsurface blast in 1967

Cowards, all of them. Afraid of every single little thing.. Bunch of wusses I say!