Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Imperializt Russia]

In an organized fashion yes.
Focusing only on the guns is missing the point a bit.

Seeing as the original claim is "they didn't do these things with guns" pretending that organization is salient is moving the goalposts.

The original claim is in the context of an argument where we are discussing the validity of an enshrined right to own personal firearms.

Yes, organisation is indeed salient to the point. Some slaves had personal firearms. Some Jewish resistance groups had personal firearms. The Kurds effectively have personal firearms and the Native Americans had personal firearms.

They were not saved by having their personal arms. They were saved by outside interests, who deemed it in their interest to intervene.

[Kubra]

Seeing as the original claim is "they didn't do these things with guns" pretending that organization is salient is moving the goalposts.

The original claim is in the context of an argument where we are discussing the validity of an enshrined right to own personal firearms.

Yes, organisation is indeed salient to the point. Some slaves had personal firearms. Some Jewish resistance groups had personal firearms. The Kurds effectively have personal firearms and the Native Americans had personal firearms.

They were not saved by having their personal arms. They were saved by outside interests, who deemed it in their interest to intervene.

As an addon to your point, those interests had actual logistics to spare. Bullets, spare parts, trucks to move em, factories producing them, an economy of war materiel. And, of course, they are themselves organised.
"Having guns" is by far the least important matter in the whole analysis.

[Telconi]

Seeing as the original claim is "they didn't do these things with guns" pretending that organization is salient is moving the goalposts.

The original claim is in the context of an argument where we are discussing the validity of an enshrined right to own personal firearms.

Yes, organisation is indeed salient to the point. Some slaves had personal firearms. Some Jewish resistance groups had personal firearms. The Kurds effectively have personal firearms and the Native Americans had personal firearms.

They were not saved by having their personal arms. They were saved by outside interests, who deemed it in their interest to intervene.

This is a quantitative distinction.

[Telconi]

The original claim is in the context of an argument where we are discussing the validity of an enshrined right to own personal firearms.

Yes, organisation is indeed salient to the point. Some slaves had personal firearms. Some Jewish resistance groups had personal firearms. The Kurds effectively have personal firearms and the Native Americans had personal firearms.

They were not saved by having their personal arms. They were saved by outside interests, who deemed it in their interest to intervene.

As an addon to your point, those interests had actual logistics to spare. Bullets, spare parts, trucks to move em, factories producing them, an economy of war materiel. And, of course, they are themselves organised.
"Having guns" is by far the least important matter in the whole analysis.

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

[Imperializt Russia]

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

For a veteran, you seem to have a deeply reductive and unappreciative view of the sheer strain that keeping units basically supplied is.

The original claim is in the context of an argument where we are discussing the validity of an enshrined right to own personal firearms.

Yes, organisation is indeed salient to the point. Some slaves had personal firearms. Some Jewish resistance groups had personal firearms. The Kurds effectively have personal firearms and the Native Americans had personal firearms.

They were not saved by having their personal arms. They were saved by outside interests, who deemed it in their interest to intervene.

This is a quantitative distinction.

Irrelevant.

I also like saying big words.

[Valrifell]

We should make guns illegal for a week just to show Americans how fucked it would be.

I don't think very much would change, tbh

[Chernoslavia]

We should make guns illegal for a week just to show Americans how fucked it would be.

I don't think very much would change, tbh

Says you.

[Chernoslavia]

As an addon to your point, those interests had actual logistics to spare. Bullets, spare parts, trucks to move em, factories producing them, an economy of war materiel. And, of course, they are themselves organised.
"Having guns" is by far the least important matter in the whole analysis.

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

We should make guns illegal for a week just to show Americans how fucked it would be.

I don't think very much would change, tbh

Law enforcement wouldn’t try be able to disarm people. A week is too short. It’s not worth trying if you would undo it before you are even done.

[Sicaris]

We should make guns illegal for a week just to show Americans how fucked it would be.

I don't think very much would change, tbh

Yeah. You think.

You’re wrong.

[Telconi]

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

For a veteran, you seem to have a deeply reductive and unappreciative view of the sheer strain that keeping units basically supplied is.

This is a quantitative distinction.

Irrelevant.

I also like saying big words.

I'm not a veteran, and the degree of strain doesn't relate to the purpose, it might be really really hard in today's world to accomplish their task, it the end all of it is, militaries exist to put arms in the field, that is their entire purpose of being.

It really isn't, but you seem to like nonsense words as well.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

For a veteran, you seem to have a deeply reductive and unappreciative view of the sheer strain that keeping units basically supplied is.

Hardly reductive, the purpose of logistics is to maintain combat arms' ability to fight, ie keep their guns working and loaded.

[Genivaria]

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

-Telconi being called a leftist.

[Telconi]

Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

-Telconi being called a leftist.

Genivaria not understanding how leftism works

[Genivaria]

-Telconi being called a leftist.

Genivaria not understanding how leftism works

You say the silliest things.

[Telconi]

Genivaria not understanding how leftism works

You say the silliest things.

Irony in truth can certainly be funny, I dont know if I'd call it silly though.

[Genivaria]

You say the silliest things.

Irony in truth can certainly be funny, I dont know if I'd call it silly though.

An avid Republican partisan trying to tell me I don't understand Leftism is indeed silly.

[Telconi]

Irony in truth can certainly be funny, I dont know if I'd call it silly though.

An avid Republican partisan trying to tell me I don't understand Leftism is indeed silly.

-shrug- truth is true, regardless of source.

[Kubra]

As an addon to your point, those interests had actual logistics to spare. Bullets, spare parts, trucks to move em, factories producing them, an economy of war materiel. And, of course, they are themselves organised.
"Having guns" is by far the least important matter in the whole analysis.

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

Aight go take an unloaded gun out and see how much fun you have bruv

[Ors Might]

Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

Aight go take an unloaded gun out and see how much fun you have bruv

“Having guns” comes with the implication that the guns are loaded. The change to “having loaded guns” as what’s the most important factor does not alter much.

The fact of the matter is that a military without guns, excuse me, loaded guns, is one that is useless.

[Kubra]

Aight go take an unloaded gun out and see how much fun you have bruv

“Having guns” comes with the implication that the guns are loaded. The change to “having loaded guns” as what’s the most important factor does not alter much.

The fact of the matter is that a military without guns, excuse me, loaded guns, is one that is useless.

When Plato defined a human being as "a featherless biped", and was praised for the cleverness of the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken, brought it to Plato's Academy, and declared, "Behold - Plato's human being." Plato then added "with broad, flat, nails" to his definition.
A military has guns, to be sure. It is, however, merely the last analysis, the endpoint of an economy aimed at combat. You don't take any shortcuts there, buddy.
And in any case, if "having guns" comes with this implicit understanding, I daresay discussion over forming rinky dink militia's is a bit silly, no?

[Ors Might]

“Having guns” comes with the implication that the guns are loaded. The change to “having loaded guns” as what’s the most important factor does not alter much.

The fact of the matter is that a military without guns, excuse me, loaded guns, is one that is useless.

When Plato defined a human being as "a featherless biped", and was praised for the cleverness of the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken, brought it to Plato's Academy, and declared, "Behold - Plato's human being." Plato then added "with broad, flat, nails" to his definition.
A military has guns, to be sure. It is, however, merely the last analysis, the endpoint of an economy aimed at combat. You don't take any shortcuts there, buddy.
And in any case, if "having guns" comes with this implicit understanding, I daresay discussion over forming rinky dink militia's is a bit silly, no?

Diogenes was a smart ass whose saving grace was that his smart assery was funny.

And, not really? The fact that “having guns” comes with the implicit understanding that you’ll load them does nothing to change the fact that militias are useful for violent insurrection.

[Kubra]

When Plato defined a human being as "a featherless biped", and was praised for the cleverness of the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken, brought it to Plato's Academy, and declared, "Behold - Plato's human being." Plato then added "with broad, flat, nails" to his definition.
A military has guns, to be sure. It is, however, merely the last analysis, the endpoint of an economy aimed at combat. You don't take any shortcuts there, buddy.
And in any case, if "having guns" comes with this implicit understanding, I daresay discussion over forming rinky dink militia's is a bit silly, no?

Diogenes was a smart ass whose saving grace was that his smart assery was funny.

And, not really? The fact that “having guns” comes with the implicit understanding that you’ll load them does nothing to change the fact that militias are useful for violent insurrection.

Insofar as more violent insurrections fail than succeed, you can understand why it's necessary for any would-be insurrectos to have an idea of the economy of violence, rather than just stockpiling AR-15's.

[Imperializt Russia]

For a veteran, you seem to have a deeply reductive and unappreciative view of the sheer strain that keeping units basically supplied is.

Hardly reductive, the purpose of logistics is to maintain combat arms' ability to fight, ie keep their guns working and loaded.

What proportion of casualties do small arms inflict on the enemy?

It's very low.

Armed forces, backed by large economic groups or state actors, funded and supplied, have "freed" people, in some situations. Bearing in mind that similar groups explicitly did the oppression those people needed saving from.

"People with guns" - except for the churlish argument of "well soldiers have guns :^) ", soldiers being backed with kilotons of combat support firepower - have not freed themselves, from anything, in times of serious oppression. Thousands of people have taken arms in desperate times, and they paid with their lives, having won no liberty.

[Kubra]

Hardly reductive, the purpose of logistics is to maintain combat arms' ability to fight, ie keep their guns working and loaded.

What proportion of casualties do small arms inflict on the enemy?

It's very low.

Armed forces, backed by large economic groups or state actors, funded and supplied, have "freed" people, in some situations. Bearing in mind that similar groups explicitly did the oppression those people needed saving from.

"People with guns" - except for the churlish argument of "well soldiers have guns :^) ", soldiers being backed with kilotons of combat support firepower - have not freed themselves, from anything, in times of serious oppression. Thousands of people have taken arms in desperate times, and they paid with their lives, having won no liberty.

It's worth noting that the "people's war" so studied by any would-be and actual insurgents, as stated by Mao, is one of building. You don't stay guerrilla's, you do so because you want to eventually build up getting actual artillery and organise actual armies.