The pics thread

[SomeGuyDude]

Metal does have a very, very white heterosexual gun-toting motherfucker image to it. Makes it weird when you don't fall into some of those categories.

 

[Draehl]

Well said, it's shitty how there's such a double standard...

 

[Der Morgenstern]

I blame Pantera.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

But... but they're so cute

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Hi Damnromulans! ^_^

Onder: Yes it is. I got into extreme metal at a really early age before i knew anything about NSBM... I got a lot of those patches at 14-15. Just recently got the vest. I am going to take the patch off (mind you it was sewed on like 2 months ago), but was quite conflicted because i think people would drive themselves crazy trying to weed out every band and their members racial beliefs. But I did order a bunch of patches last week, so it'll be replaced soon.

I've interviewed and kept in contact with a few national socialists. I study sociology and my area is deviance, so quite familiar with the ideology now. Though I try not to support them in any way (by not buying their merch or buying their C.D.s) it is difficult because a lot of BM sprang from nationalism (the whole Norse/pagan themed BM didn't just pop out of nowhere even Shagrath of Dimmu Borgir signed his letters with swatiskas in the 90s), so being in this genre it's difficult to know the ideologies of everyone. Graveland's ideologies are obvious now, but a lot of other BM isn't. A friend of mine went to see Kampfar and they were sieg hailing all throughout their set. Never heard of them being NS, but they are apparently. Even K.K. Warslut from Destroyer 666 is apparently a "nazi" too, and i love that band. :/

I don't have a problem with nationalism (many family members of mine supported the black panthers so it's always surrounded me in some sense), I do have a problem with racism though. Not that it matters, but NS who "hate" other races apparently aren't actual NS but white nationalists, which are different. Though it's hard to draw the line because the line is different for everyone, i doubt i could ever interview a white nationalist hahaha.

The "original" Nazis weren't necessarily racists. Anti-Semites, yes, but they were relatively indifferent regarding non-whites. It's funny, because I hate racism and nationalism, though I listen to quite a bit of NSBM. Didn't know that about Kampfar either.

 

[Summerian]

Not a gun guy myself, but do believe the laws are about right as-is. We currently have access to enough firepower than if a sizable enough portion of the population dedicated themselves to overthrowing a tyrannical government they could do so. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment. It's not so rednecks and the mentally unstable can get their jollies and ego boost from shooting big guns. It's to act as a deterrent to an oppressive government hostile to the interests of the people.

no no no
A tyrannical government would have to have the military with them. The US military would take out a rebellion as easy as a hot knife cut thru butter. Small arms is a myth sold by the gun lobby.
And then there's the nukes. An oppressive government might use'em. Certainly would threaten with'em.
When USA goes real bad, it'll last for decades. And the people will be happy about their new strong leader.
If the 2nd amendment was about people protecting
themselves against such a government the NRA would be named NNA - National Nuke Association. Nukes are today the only real arms against an undemocratic takeover of USA.
Nukes for all?

 

[Summerian]

The real hypocrisy is when (a minority but definitely bigger a proportion of them than the far right makes up of white people)Muslims fucking burn down embassies, kill random Muslim policemen and generally act like animals at the zoo because someone made a low budget shitty film about their prophet but continually call for the annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel (plus the Jews in it), treat middle eastern Christians like trash, kidnapping the girls and keeping them as sex slaves(yes, in 2012, not 480AD) and running them over with armoured cars for daring to protest about the conditions they're in. They also export intolerance wherever they go, for example, Pakistan persecutes a minority sect of Islam (well it actually persecutes all the minority sects of Islam and none Muslims but still..) called Ahmadiyas. Now some of these Ahmadiyas have come to the UK as asylum seekers and guess what, the Pakistani extremists have set up offices in the UK and started wailing their wails. Something has to change.

HA! muslims?
You need to take a closer look at the christian right in USA. The money they have. The hate they spew. Bigots, the lot of them. With so much power.
Something has to change alright.
Even if there were 100 milion militant muslims in the world they wouldn't come close to being more of a threat then the christian right.
Attacking the poor, atheists, science, democracy, you name it. The love they have for the old days. The romantic ideal of the past when the church dictated every day life.
Attacking reason for christ sake!
PRO RAPE!? WTF!?!

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/culture_war/the_american_taliban.html



muslims?
Couldn't care less...
Tend to the taliban in your own back yard first.

 

[Einherjar86]

no no no
A tyrannical government would have to have the military with them. The US military would take out a rebellion as easy as a hot knife cut thru butter. Small arms is a myth sold by the gun lobby.
And then there's the nukes. An oppressive government might use'em. Certainly would threaten with'em.
When USA goes real bad, it'll last for decades. And the people will be happy about their new strong leader.
If the 2nd amendment was about people protecting
themselves against such a government the NRA would be named NNA - National Nuke Association. Nukes are today the only real arms against an undemocratic takeover of USA.
Nukes for all?

Ah, so your solution is: "Bend over and take it like a bitch."

 

[Summerian]

Ah, so your solution is: "Bend over and take it like a bitch."

Americans have to get it and put good people in power.
Then it'll fix itself.
USAs problem is a psychological and political one.
Probably isn't a fix or cure. Truth hurts too much.

 

[Einherjar86]

Americans have to get it and put good people in power.

The belief that changes comes from the top down is part of the problem, actually.

 

[skeptik]

The fact remains that the greater population would be utterly powerless against the US military if the government had to defend itself against a citizen uprising. Because they have, you know, tanks and jets and missiles and stuff. The second amendment is outdated and irrelevant anyway. Constitutional fetishism is stunting growth.

 

[Zephyrus]

"We have these things called aircraft carriers. You can land planes on them."

My favorite Obama quote to date.

 

[Einherjar86]

The fact remains that the greater population would be utterly powerless against the US military if the government had to defend itself against a citizen uprising. Because they have, you know, tanks and jets and missiles and stuff. The second amendment is outdated and irrelevant anyway. Constitutional fetishism is stunting growth.

I agree with all but your first comment, and even then it's only conditional. The argument that we should have stricter gun laws "because the guns won't help us that much anyway" is ridiculous.

The largest component of this whole argument is "if." "If" the population opted for revolution, then we'd need our guns (supposedly); but the chances of any "revolution" happening are slim, and the chances of the entire population participating are even slimmer. So then the question becomes: are we doing ourselves more harm than good by having fewer gun regulations? My initial reaction would be yes; simply put, the more guns in circulation, the more gun-related incidents. It's statistics, pure and simple.

The crux of the argument lies on that "if." If the population "rose up," and if the entire population participated, and if the entire population had access to guns... then I think it's a pretty safe bet that the military wouldn't stand a chance. It might be a Pyrrhic victory, but the population would eventually win out by sheer force of numbers. So claiming that the guns wouldn't do much isn't viable, in my opinion.

But if we're talking realistically, the chances of total revolution happening seem slim. If the only argument for the pro-gun-bearers is the right to defend themselves against their government, and if the possibility that they're going to actually fight their government is slim to nil, then I'd say guns are doing us more harm than good.

 

[skeptik]

1) I never said anything about gun control.

2) I do firmly believe that you're wrong. What can a machine gun do to tanks and missiles and bombers? Hell, they could just drop a nuke. You can own all the assault weapons you want, and all the military would have to do is drop a bomb on your house.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

The kind of sci-fi shit the military has would lay to waste any bullshit citizens uprising that started here.

The 2nd amendment was written at a time when the military and the citizenry had basically the same access to everything. All the rifles and handguns in the world aren't gonna mean shit when you're getting tactical bombed from a jet that's flying above radar level and then a tank comes rolling in with a mounted gun that fires 600,000 rounds a minute and can take out a fucking house in three seconds.

Yeah, good luck with that uprising, guys. I'm sure a little semi-auto will do a fat lot of good.

You gotta remember, the US military is theoretically capable of defeating any OTHER MILITARY in the world unless we're talking pure nuclear holocaust and mutual destruction. It wouldn't matter if the entire citizenry banded together and tried to revolt. It'd get shut down in a matter of days. The main reason the Iraq/Afghanistan wars went as long as they did was that we HELD BACK, because the goal was to root out insurgents and not simply destroy the whole nations.

 

[Einherjar86]

1) I never said anything about gun control.

2) I do firmly believe that you're wrong. What can a machine gun do to tanks and missiles and bombers? Hell, they could just drop a nuke. You can own all the assault weapons you want, and all the military would have to do is drop a bomb on your house.

1) I don't understand. It was a conversation about gun control. And you mentioned the 2nd Amendment. Explain further why this comment was necessary.

2) You think the United States would drop a nuke on its own soil? If a revolution pushes our government to that point, then you can rest assured it's fucked itself just as much as it's fucked those it dropped the bombs on. Furthermore, you don't think the entire population of the United States can appropriate junk metal and rubble in order to thwart the machinations of some 10,000 tanks?

And finally: do you actually believe that every member of the military would participate in a fully-supported civilian uprising? They have families, and are actually citizens themselves. The scenario of a popular uprising against a totally committed ground military is really unlikely.

 

[A1a23]

Metal does have a very, very white heterosexual gun-toting motherfucker image to it. Makes it weird when you don't fall into some of those categories.

 

[skeptik]

1) I don't understand. It was a conversation about gun control. And you mentioned the 2nd Amendment. Explain further why this comment was necessary.

It was necessary because you said "The argument that we should have stricter gun laws "because the guns won't help us that much anyway" is ridiculous." I didn't make that argument, so I felt it warranted being pointed out, seeing as how you said it while replying to me.

2) You think the United States would drop a nuke on its own soil? If a revolution pushes our government to that point, then you can rest assured it's fucked itself just as much as it's fucked those it dropped the bombs on. Furthermore, you don't think the entire population of the United States can appropriate junk metal and rubble in order to thwart the machinations of some 10,000 tanks?

We're talking about an utterly absurd hypothetical that you yourself brought up involving the full participation of the populace that was fully armed. You think that's any more likely to happen than the government using nuclear weapons as a last resort against utter annihilation? And no, I absolutely do not think that the citizenry is capable of stopping a well-trained military with shitloads of bombs and missiles and jets and aircraft carriers. Not to mention other, more ephemeral and powerful advantages like control of information.

And finally: do you actually believe that every member of the military would participate in a fully-supported civilian uprising? They have families, and are actually citizens themselves. The scenario of a popular uprising against a totally committed ground military is really unlikely.

Again, this is the absurd hypothetical that you yourself raised. Nothing I said is any less likely than the entirety of the US populace rising up in unison armed to overthrow the government. My point is simply that anything the civilian population can throw at the government, the military could handle and then some.

 

[Einherjar86]

It was necessary because you said "The argument that we should have stricter gun laws "because the guns won't help us that much anyway" is ridiculous." I didn't make that argument, so I felt it warranted being pointed out, seeing as how you said it while replying to me.



We're talking about an utterly absurd hypothetical that you yourself brought up involving the full participation of the populace that was fully armed. You think that's any more likely to happen than the government using nuclear weapons as a last resort against utter annihilation? And no, I absolutely do not think that the citizenry is capable of stopping a well-trained military with shitloads of bombs and missiles and jets and aircraft carriers. Not to mention other, more ephemeral and powerful advantages like control of information.



Again, this is the absurd hypothetical that you yourself raised. Nothing I said is any less likely than the entirety of the US populace rising up in unison armed to overthrow the government. My point is simply that anything the civilian population can throw at the government, the military could handle and then some.

Over three-hundred million versus less than five million? I don't agree; but I don't think this is a discussion worth having because, as you said, it's entirely hypothetical.

 

[King Richard]

lol this is a hilariously dumb argument

Let me know when this rebellion begins because I'm getting the fuck out of here.