1A. Case in point. You think that the capitalist class should control the workers until your chosen elite of bureaucrats can take their place as the dominant social class. State capitalism is not socialism. I suppose you're right in that it is practical though, practical to deprive the workers of their autonomy and to reduce the costs of any disagreements to such an order. 

1B. No you're not. Unless you believe the working class should determine for itself whether or not it should be armed, you're not a socialist. Your first post cheered on corporate power over the interests of the common person to keep an alternative means of political action. 

2. I explained quite well, you just chose to ignore it. The liberal-democratic state is controlled by the bourgeoisie and the state bureaucrats whom work for their interests. Their goal is to disarm the workers to make any revolutionary action less effective and to consequently make their rule less costly. Putting the power to "privilege" whom can or cannot own guns into the hands of the capitalist class necessarily means (by the very material interests of the capitalist class) the eventual disarmament of the working class. It is why Orwell and Marx both made it clear that the working class should not budge on this.

3. And I gave the reason. Which you will never address, because you don't honestly believe in socialist principles of worker control and democracy. Instead you propose that capitalist institutions dominate the common man, with no qualms in suggesting so.

4. Yet you didn't comprehend (or address) the actual statement made. Social protections can come from many different organizations. Merely having a large swath of the workforce refusing to allow themselves to be disarmed is an example of social protection. It has nothing to do with the concept of freedom pushed in your response. 

5. That is a pretty nonsensical position. Either you believe gradual changes within capitalism and the liberal-democratic state are sufficient to achieve socialism (which makes you a reformist) or you believe revolution (of some kind) is necessary. These are how these positions have been defined in socialist literature and they are necessarily defined in a way so as they are mutually-exclusive and binary. You can take the position that you are a revolutionary who supports social reform, but that doesn't make you a reformist but a revolutionary who is okay with reforms until there are revolutions. 

See ya again soon, SuaveStateCapitalist. Keep on the good fight for state-capitalism and the stamping out of worker's autonomy! Bye, bye!

NRA membership has gone way up. Narrative went from ''Never Again'' like it should be, to ''Lets ban guns'' agenda pretty quick. Not coincidence that david hoggs dad is ex fbi, that cameron ainksly(if i spelled it right) who's been one of the main figure heads of the main kid group having dinners and meeting with Ohr, Fusion GPS wife.

Too much of the agenda is showing for a gun grab rather than an actually debate on things like mental health and the complete incompetence of law enforcement in Florida and the FBI

17 kids died because no body did there stopping this nut.FBI didn't do anything.police didn't stop
The cop stood out side and there was other guards with gunsThey didn't stop it.dont blame the NRA my guns never killed nobody
In Chicago 50 people are shot dead every week from illegal hand gun's liberals don't say anything

actually, nah, i'm not going to participate in political threads for a while. 

This guy murdered 3 teenagers/young adults drunk driving and was released on bail: http://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/camillus-man-accused-of-driving-drunk-killing-3-people-released-from-jail-on-bail/989969759

If a guy shot up 3 teenagers the NRA would get attacked; the second amendment would be under threat; the shooter would get life in prison/death penalty (rightfully so); constant media coverage; etc. etc.

Another drunk driver who has had 2 DUIs in the past killed someone and only got 4 years in prison.

If you drink then you have no room to complain about guns.

"Lol so first you believe that the guy who allied with the German capitalists is a socialist"

lmao... ok i'll change my question... do you agree that hitler controlled the economy of germany through his government?

after you've answered that question tell me whether its socialism or capitalism that cedes control of the means of production to government

"now you believe that the Soviet Union is an example of tyranny of the majority."

now there's really only two ways that i can interpret this since you have acknowledged that the soviet union was democratic

either you don't think that the soviet union was a tyranny which would be a tragedy

or you're just being dishonest

" Oh also nice doublethink, there you agree with me that democracy in the Soviet Union was eroded by authoritarianism"

the only way you could say that is if you didn't read my post... i mean you quoted it... did you not read it?

so are you really trying to tell me though that you don't understand that a democracy can be authoritarian?

you don't think that its possible for the majority of people in a society to vote the rights of the people in their society away to government?

2A should be taken out, it's been the cause of so much death

the-pi-guy said: o_O.Q said: "The point is that guns aren't the only way to achieve freedom." against an armed oppressor they are the only way   "No.  The entire world of conflicts in the middle east or Africa or anywhere else are nothing compared to world war I or II." i didn't realise that the world wars represented the entirety of human history outside of the present day   "From Jefferson, governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  " what do you understand from this quote?: ""Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote."" the problem with democracy is that if the majority decides that it is just to strip away the rights of all then all are forced to comply the reason why america was called a "constitutional republic" with "creator endowed rights" is because they understood that they people could be led quite easily to destroy themselves by revoking their rights for greater security so they put down certain base rights and formed government around that democracy does not inherently recognise creator endowed rights, the will of the majority of the people becomes law and as a result  "democracy is indispensable to socialism" "against an armed oppressor they are the only way" Only if the armed oppressor is bigger, or less ethical.     "i didn't realise that the world wars represented the entirety of human history outside of the present day" I didn't realize you were unable to understand the facts beyond the examples that I gave you.   There is data going back several centuries.  The world is absolutely safer today than ever before.   Even the world wars were less deadly than most of human history. "the problem with democracy is that if the majority decides that it is just to strip away the rights of all then all are forced to comply" This is why there is a necessity to have an educated populace.  This is the danger of having propaganda, fake news, etc.

"Only if the armed oppressor is bigger, or less ethical. "

i think that being an oppressor and being ethical at the same time is kind of an oxymoron don't you think?

"I didn't realize you were unable to understand the facts beyond the examples that I gave you.  "

i was pointing out that it was fallacious to use the world wars as representations of how things have been throughout human history

"This is why there is a necessity to have an educated populace."

education does not taken away the limitations that cause people to be selfish, or envious or greedy etc etc etc

in fact it amplifies those traits in many instances

therefore, the idea that we can simply teach people out of wanting to be malevolent is a waste of time

it does not take multiple people to wield a machete or knife

let me present a similar argument to yours - 4 people can ride in a car but it does not take 4 people to operate a car

"Lets say in the first link where 33 people were killed by 4 knife wielding assailants, but instead each one had an AR 15 what do you think the death toll would be. "

suppose they decided to build bombs instead?

or suppose they decided to rent 4 pick up trucks and run people down?

"david hoggs dad is ex fbi, that cameron ainksly(if i spelled it right) who's been one of the main figure heads of the main kid group having dinners and meeting with Ohr, Fusion GPS wife. "

what are you implying?