Victim disarmament zones

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A 10 second Google > Wikipedia run came up with:

"Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns."

and

"In December 1918 during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks made it a crime for citizens other than members of their own party to own guns. Bolsheviks were allowed to own one rifle and one revolver."

First of all, as said before, wasn't true communism, as then everyone would have the same standards applied, and no one would own anything.

Same goes for china. That's called party favoritism and has nothing to do with communism.

However, I did say those countries were wrought with guns. And they are, legal or not

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You signed a social contract, get over it. It means everyone can have guns, and so you get no option to the contrary.

Actually I said it's a tacit agreement, you're just an idiot. Second I also said while there is social contract, that doesn't mean you live in a static environment where no change can happen within the system. So you're argument is retarded. When I referred to a social contract, which is what democracy is founded upon, I was saying you have to working within the confines of the system to institute change, rather than trying to do away with the government/system entirely

[Orruar]

Ok, so this guy's argument has come down to "Soviet russia and China were not communist enough for my tastes."

Yeah, for real.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok, so this guy's argument has come down to "Soviet russia and China were not communist enough for my tastes."

Yeah, for real.

They weren't communist at all. They were authoritarian/totalitarian regimes with strong hegemonic structures in place. Super not communist

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually I said it's a tacit agreement, you're just an idiot. Second I also said while there is social contract, that doesn't mean you live in a static environment where no change can happen within the system. So you're argument is retarded. When I referred to a social contract, which is what democracy is founded upon, I was saying you have to working within the confines of the system to institute change, rather than trying to do away with the government/system entirely

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

Keep in mind that in the other thread, nobody said anything about doing away with the government/system entirely.

[Hasbinbad]

china and russia are communist in the same way that america is democratic

[r00t]

You can do away with it entirely, go move to some socialist SHITHOLE in Europe where you'll be treated like a CHILD

[Vaildez]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

china and russia are communist in the same way that america is democratic

We are a Constitutional Republic.

[Vaildez]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can do away with it entirely, go move to some socialist SHITHOLE in Europe where you'll be treated like a CHILD

But it's just soo much easier to let someone else think for you!

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My argument is retarded because it's your exact same argument turned around to this situation. Perhaps now you have a chance to learn from your previous mistake. Or perhaps you'll continue to fight tooth and nail to not learn anything.

Keep in mind that in the other thread, nobody said anything about doing away with the government/system entirely.

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed