Friends in Las Vegas, please check in.

[peejaye]

That's "The Establishment" for you RedVex! Do as we say, not as we do!

[nitron]

A simple solution would be that all the people who hate guns move to countries that share there sentiments, and those who approve of gun ownership go to there respective ones.

[Ts RedVeX]

As simple as that!

[Stavros]

"Talk to an arse-hole (especially a communist one) and it will shit on you." - RedVex
"Give people democracy and they will start building socialism for you" - Karl Marx
Obviously, you two commies think that the state should have all the power over its citizens while in fact it should be the other way around. It is the citizens who work their asses off to pay tax for the police and military to protect their values from those of other other civilisations' and cultures'. The state should be at its citizens' service.
After reading your comment on Solidarnosc etc. in Poland I already know you have read the wrong history books, so I assume you can save us you lectures. Citizens need to retain their weapons in case bandits like you push it too far...
And really, it doesn't matter who you make your scapegoat - blondes with blue eyes, workers from a shipyard, miners, prostitues, blacks, whites, muslims, jews, women, or members of sexual minorities - intelligent people will always be able to recognise your plans sooner or later.

A) I am not a Communist, and never have been;

B) I don't think the State should have all the power over its citizens, and agree that in fact it should be the other way around -because that is what a social democracy is and should always be. The question is, do you believe democracy is the best form of government, and if not, what do you believe in?

C) I don't know what you think a bandit is, but I am not one, and as I pointed out above it is not about making scapegoats of Black people for carrying weapons in public but defending the public with legal means that are also accountable to the citizens; individuals carrying weapons are not accountable to anyone, that is not freedom from tyranny but a threat to public safety.

D) I am willing to concede you have a different perspective on the transition in Poland, but whereas I have listed at least two sources on the history, I could have listed another 10-20 which I have read over the years, whereas you have cited no sources at all and merely present your interpretation as 'facts' on the basis we should acknowledge your superior argument because, what, you are Polish? I can find Poles who disagree with your version, whose version is the right one? And dare I suggest, as you appear to do, that you will dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a Communist as if that concluded the argument in your favour?

I will now apologise for an error in my previous post which I wrote from memory and without checking the sources. When California passed a law to prohibit the public carrying of weapons, it was passed in 1967 (the 'Mulford Act') not 1968 as I said, and related to an incident in May 1967 when armed members of the Black Panther Party entered the State Capitol Building in Sacramento. There is an account of the incident and the law here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b014efe0db2f40

Finally one notes that the current argument pivots on the constitutional right to bear arms and public safety, and whether or not one cancels out the other. Given that enough US citizens have been shown to be a threat to the freedom of others, the case for taking military grade weapons away from all citizens is beyond argument. It does not violate the Constitution, and it protects public safety with more efficiency than what exists at the present.

[nitron]

Sure , why not? If it's important , I mean if one thinks that preserving ones life as much as possible and bent on total safety , then as a personal value , they should move. Even plan for it, save up and leave.
As for myself I don't have a problem with guns, but I can see how other folks get nervous and can't fault them for seeking out strict safety controls. So , why not let them go to such countries.

[MrFanti]

So the bottom line is that it's irresponsible people that are the problem. Not the alcohol nor the guns!

But for the hypocrites that can't see this, and only want to ban guns (even though alcohol kills more people than guns), well here we go again......

Mother killed, passenger, children recovering after crash with drunken driver

http://www.koco.com/article/mother-k...-crash/8555744

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti, your "your can't ban unless you ban that" argument has been shown conclusiveley here for the nonsense it is. You seem to be there only one who hasn't realised that.

RedVex, kinda love the way that you assume that in this anarchic, survival of the first worried you seem to think that you will be one of there survivors.

The probable reality of that world is that some one like me turns up with a bigger gun than you have, murders you and takes everything you have.

Every "anarchist” I ever met looked a lot more like a victim than a victor to me.

[Ts RedVeX]

Stavros you are clearly against liberty, and advocate that the state has all the power over its citizens. It tells people what they can or cannot do - that is not freedom. Freedom is when you decide whether or not to have a gun and whether to shoot clay pigeons or another person with it. You want the state to have monopoly on weapons, and who knows what else. Of course later you say you had only quoted some philosophers.. You advocate social democracy, whose name speaks for itself. - Which is a system where 2 winos from underneath a local bridge have the same vote as 2 educated engineers. Needless to say that probably none of these four have any idea of how to run a country. Personally, I think a monarchy is by far the best system our civilisation has come up with, as if you have a stupid king then at least there chance that the following one is going to be smart. Democracy, is a system where the majority of idiots always has advantage over the minority of the wise.

If there is no need for one to own an ak47 or whatever then they will simply not get one. There is no need to regulate that.

You could link to 100 books about Polish history and it would not make any difference as each and every one of them is also a mere interpretation. You may as well say that you believe in God because The Bible reads there is one, or that you believe in Spider-Man because you read multiple the comics or saw a film about him.

Nazism is also known as German national socialism for a reason. Oh and guess what! It also had to do with worker's party... Calling a pile of shit "poo" doesn't change the fact that it is a pile of shit.

[broncofan]

Redvex I said I had nothing against you but I certainly don't like being called a Communist or a bandit or accused of wanting to violate the civil liberties of minorities by someone with such a dim view of mankind. Since you invoke your background to bolster your bizarre interpretation of European history, I might as well invoke mine.

I'm Jewish and I see much more of a threat to civil liberties from your brand of megalomania, your dehumanizing view that people should have guns so that the strong can devour the weak, your callous statement that people who were murdered simply don't now how to use guns, and your paranoid tendency to see everything you dislike as a Communist conspiracy.

The implication that someone's right to live depends on their ability to fight is much closer to the spirit of Nazism than anything else I've seen here. You mentioned people with Alzheimer's a few pages back. What do you think happens to them if they don't have any surviving family members? Should they starve? Should they be robbed and murdered? Are they untermensch? Two can play the hyperbole game. But then again, I don't insist you take my word on any of this because I'm Jewish. Maybe others can tell you what your pseudo-scientific survival of the fittest argument sounds like...

I'm interested to hear Mr. Fanti, a supposed American patriot, discuss your defense of monarchy. You two do know the United States was founded to rid itself of external control from the British Monarchy? I find it strange that you suggest guns are a tool of liberation and then advocate a system where the entire government is run by one person with unlimited power based purely on family lineage.

[filghy2]

Sure , why not? If it's important , I mean if one thinks that preserving ones life as much as possible and bent on total safety , then as a personal value , they should move. Even plan for it, save up and leave.

Another well-considered contribution to the debate! Your are unaware, I take it, that immigration is heavily restricted? That there already millions of refugees around the world trying to move from dangerous countries to safer ones? I suppose we should also stop worrying about human rights in other countries and just tell those people to move somewhere else if they don't like it.