Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Allenorsia]

That's a fairly hypocritical thing to say, don't you think?

Has he advocated for shooting every single right-winger he sees?

No, but it's funny that he assumes that all leftists assume all right-wingers are fascists.

[Sicaris]

Has he advocated for shooting every single right-winger he sees?

No, but it's funny that he assumes that all leftists assume all right-wingers are fascists.

A good amount sure do act like it, though..

[Allenorsia]

No, but it's funny that he assumes that all leftists assume all right-wingers are fascists.

A good amount sure do act like it, though..

All the ones you see in feminist get reked videos probably do assume that, but not every "Anti Fascist" thinks all right-wingers are fascists.

[West Leas Oros 2]

A good amount sure do act like it, though..

All the ones you see in feminist get reked videos probably do assume that, but not every "Anti Fascist" thinks all right-wingers are fascists.

It’s a shame that the ones that do are the ones that are fighting in the streets like wannabe terrorists.

[Revanchism]

Honestly, if you're an American leftist and you aren't arming yourself these days, then what are you even doing?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I just think too much violence stems from the presence of guns. Plus, there is no reason to own a gun for protection when you could just as easily defend yourself with a knife.

Both of these are simply not true. Guns don't cause violence themselves, and somehow getting rid of all of them isn't going to end or even reduce violence in any meaningful way. Plus, no. I think I would rather defend myself with a firearm then getting into a brawl with edged weapons.

[Telconi]

Honestly, if you're an American leftist and you aren't arming yourself these days, then what are you even doing?

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

[Adad Civilization]

Honestly, if you're an American leftist and you aren't arming yourself these days, then what are you even doing?

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

Really though, that's a trait I have seen with extremists on both sides.

They want to ban X, but also actively use X to further their political standing. This applies to guns, democracy, freedom of speech, the internet, religion, etc.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Honestly, if you're an American leftist and you aren't arming yourself these days, then what are you even doing?

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

To be fair I think there is plenty of whining about feelings being hurt from both sides of the political spectrum in the US.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No, but it's funny that he assumes that all leftists assume all right-wingers are fascists.

A good amount sure do act like it, though..

This ^^ Extremists of a particular group don't usually distinguish between their enemies.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

A good amount sure do act like it, though..

This ^^ Extremists of a particular group don't usually distinguish between their enemies.

That’s not true. For example, the far right has several types of enemies according to themselves.
1. Neoconservatives
They think that neoconservatives are basically every Republican Party member who disagrees with them.
2. Liberals
Everyone who believes in any rights and some people who don’t.
3. Commies
According to them, those who are left or centrist on economic issues are.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Honestly even as a liberal who wants safety in numbers I’m not comfortable being in an armed political group

[Allenorsia]

I just think too much violence stems from the presence of guns. Plus, there is no reason to own a gun for protection when you could just as easily defend yourself with a knife.

Both of these are simply not true. Guns don't cause violence themselves, and somehow getting rid of all of them isn't going to end or even reduce violence in any meaningful way. Plus, no. I think I would rather defend myself with a firearm then getting into a brawl with edged weapons.

I didn't state that with implications that guns cause violence. I'm not one of those "Guns kill people!" Idiots. I simply mean that a violent person can do more harm with a gun that he can anything else, with the exceptions of bombs and other such things.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Both of these are simply not true. Guns don't cause violence themselves, and somehow getting rid of all of them isn't going to end or even reduce violence in any meaningful way. Plus, no. I think I would rather defend myself with a firearm then getting into a brawl with edged weapons.

I didn't state that with implications that guns cause violence. I'm not one of those "Guns kill people!" Idiots. I simply mean that a violent person can do more harm with a gun that he can anything else, with the exceptions of bombs and other such things.

And cars. Especially cars.

[Allenorsia]

I didn't state that with implications that guns cause violence. I'm not one of those "Guns kill people!" Idiots. I simply mean that a violent person can do more harm with a gun that he can anything else, with the exceptions of bombs and other such things.

And cars. Especially cars.

Yeah, I did hear the London bridge is dealing with a van problem.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Honestly, if you're an American leftist and you aren't arming yourself these days, then what are you even doing?

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

Liberals aren’t leftists.

[Torrocca]

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

Liberals aren’t leftists.

Some of them are.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Banning guns because they hurt your feelings.

Liberals aren’t leftists.

Communist opinion on what is leftist need not apply.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Liberals aren’t leftists.

Some of them are.

How? Liberalism certainly isn’t very leftist.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Some of them are.

How? Liberalism certainly isn’t very leftist.

Nowadays, the American definition of "liberal" is anybody that is a progressive leftist.

[Tobleste]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt

As a pro-gun liberal, I was curious about whether there existed a counter to right-wing militias, and, sure enough, there are indeed a few groups. However, these groups are nowhere near as numerous as the 689 current active anti-government paramilitary groups (that curiously peaked during the Obama administration).

I studied the Redneck Revolt specifically, and they seemed, frankly, a little silly, though I appreciate that their mission is rather clear and concise. At the end of the day, though, they're one group, and a group with a frankly suspicious name.

After all, you know who else loves the color red? That's right. Communists and socialists. Yes, considering it's quite possible that the Redneck Revolt is a possibly Communist group, I have decided to ask myself, and therefore NSG, the question: should the left begin to arm itself in response to the increased presence of anti-government right wing militias, without espousing far-left ideals?

As a pro-gun liberal, I personally don't think it would be a... Terrible idea, just one that could easily get out of control, since private militias are a bad idea in general, especially when they're full of paranoid survivalists who are fond of self-fulfilling prophecies (I mean obviously the government is unreliable and oppressive: they panic and increase security when they're attacked by terrorists/"freedom fighters" like the Sovereign Citizen Movement and the fucking Bundinistas).

I have also noticed that quite a large number of liberals are anti-gun/Second Amendment. Granted, I realize that the evidence against the Second Amendment is there, however, I find it highly unlikely that the Second Amendment is ever going to be struck down... Enough that I refuse to compromise the rest of my political beliefs in favor of it.

At the same time, however... Is it a good idea to be pro-Second Amendment? Does the Second Amendment advocate a state-funded militia, or private militias? Should liberals bear arms, or is that counter-productive, both towards national and local safety and crime safety? Are leftist militias a concept that is too far-left?

Militias are a crap idea in general unless you're living in Somalia or Revolutionary France. The "left" is less afraid of government (and everything else) than the right so is less likely to form those types of militias. They're also more likely to believe in communal solutions to problems so are more likely to just want a better police force. Oh and they think gun violence is bad. All this means left-wing militias will always be a minority compared to right-wing militias.

[Torrocca]

Some of them are.

How? Liberalism certainly isn’t very leftist.

Social Democrats are leftist, and they're pro-Capitalist.

You can be Liberal without subscribing to the ideas of right-wing politics.

[West Leas Oros 2]

How? Liberalism certainly isn’t very leftist.

Social Democrats are leftist, and they're pro-Capitalist.

You can be Liberal without subscribing to the ideas of right-wing politics.

In what ways are they leftists?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Both of these are simply not true. Guns don't cause violence themselves, and somehow getting rid of all of them isn't going to end or even reduce violence in any meaningful way. Plus, no. I think I would rather defend myself with a firearm then getting into a brawl with edged weapons.

I didn't state that with implications that guns cause violence. I'm not one of those "Guns kill people!" Idiots. I simply mean that a violent person can do more harm with a gun that he can anything else, with the exceptions of bombs and other such things.

But at the same time you say that someone meaning harm with a gun is a big threat, you also want law abiding citizens to make do with using knives for self defense instead of guns, and say they are just as effective.

[Thermodolia]

How? Liberalism certainly isn’t very leftist.

Social Democrats are leftist, and they're pro-Capitalist.

You can be Liberal without subscribing to the ideas of right-wing politics.

How the fuck are SocDems Leftist?