Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Imperializt Russia]

Need is irrelevant. Freemen own arms, slaves do not.

I mean, this statement is fundamentally hilarious, but in the bad way.

[Telconi]

Need is irrelevant. Freemen own arms, slaves do not.

I mean, this statement is fundamentally hilarious, but in the bad way.

I'm sure you can explain how...

[Imperializt Russia]

I mean, this statement is fundamentally hilarious, but in the bad way.

I'm sure you can explain how...

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

[Telconi]

I'm sure you can explain how...

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

Yes, they did. The union army didn't carry teddy bears at Gettysburg.

I absolutely am "freer".

[Imperializt Russia]

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

Yes, they did. The union army didn't carry teddy bears at Gettysburg.

I absolutely am "freer".

The Union Army was the official standing military of the state.

It fought for the slaves, or more concisely, against the breakaway Confederacy which wanted to maintain slavery and expand it into the western territories, and union troops fought CSA troops ultimately because their commanders instructed them to do so.

Guns did not set the slaves free - naked force by one state's military apparatus against another (essentially) did. And how many slaves died before they won their freedom to three-fifths of a vote?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Guns did not set the slaves free - naked force by one state's military apparatus against another (essentially) did. And how many slaves died before they won their freedom to three-fifths of a vote?

Nearly 40,000 African Americans (mostly freed slaves, I think) died in the Union Army and there were various small slave uprisings. The military did most of the work, but some attacks did help morale despite ending badly.

[Imperializt Russia]

Guns did not set the slaves free - naked force by one state's military apparatus against another (essentially) did. And how many slaves died before they won their freedom to three-fifths of a vote?

Nearly 40,000 African Americans (mostly freed slaves, I think) died in the Union Army and there were various small slave uprisings. The military did most of the work, but some attacks did help morale despite ending badly.

I'm aware that slaves and freemen fought on both sides, but I was referring more to those slaves who were killed or worked to death by their masters.

[Valrifell]

It's a little complicated. Basically, Georgia thought it could get away with it because South Ossetia was an unrecognized country, but they forgot that their ceasefire with South Ossetia involved a joint Russo-Georgian peacekeeping force, and when they invaded South Ossetia, they killed Russian peacekeepers.

So two invasions.

Much*

What's the measure of "much?"

That the trend of hot direct nation on nation action is provably negative. That is to say, fewer and fewer invasions have occurred since the end of WW2.

[Imperializt Russia]

So two invasions.

What's the measure of "much?"

That the trend of hot direct nation on nation action is provably negative. That is to say, fewer and fewer invasions have occurred since the end of WW2.

Extremism has been mostly quelled at government level, and where it hasn't been, they've typically been placated with outside support. The New World Order and Globalism brought a shedload of problems, but it also did a good job of preventing most kinds of wars. Albeit, mostly for westerners.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Extremism has been mostly quelled at government level, and where it hasn't been, they've typically been placated with outside support. The New World Order and Globalism brought a shedload of problems, but it also did a good job of preventing most kinds of wars. Albeit, mostly for westerners.

Is this a joke?

[Imperializt Russia]

Extremism has been mostly quelled at government level, and where it hasn't been, they've typically been placated with outside support. The New World Order and Globalism brought a shedload of problems, but it also did a good job of preventing most kinds of wars. Albeit, mostly for westerners.

Is this a joke?

Remind me about the last time western Europe/Canada/the US was invaded by an opponent?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Is this a joke?

Remind me about the last time western Europe/Canada/the US was invaded by an opponent?

France got invaded in 1940, just sayin’.

[Imperializt Russia]

Remind me about the last time western Europe/Canada/the US was invaded by an opponent?

France got invaded in 1940, just sayin’.

Which was before what is typically termed the "new world order", referring to the global realignment of power following the second world war. The splintering of Germany, the rise of the US and USSR and the collapse of the Empire.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Which was before what is typically termed the "new world order", referring to the global realignment of power following the second world war. The splintering of Germany, the rise of the US and USSR and the collapse of the Empire.

You do realize the New World Order is a concept made up by anti-globalist conspiracy theorists, right?

[Norskhavn]

You do understand the government is governing as we speak right?

Are you saying there would be less need for a militia if they stopped? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

[Alvecia]

Which was before what is typically termed the "new world order", referring to the global realignment of power following the second world war. The splintering of Germany, the rise of the US and USSR and the collapse of the Empire.

You do realize the New World Order is a concept made up by anti-globalist conspiracy theorists, right?

If I'm reading it right, it's not the conspiratorial NWO that the term is often associated with, but rather the post-war political climate that emerged.

[Ors Might]

I'm sure you can explain how...

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

I imagine the ability to kill slave owners plays a significant part in setting slaves free.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which was before what is typically termed the "new world order", referring to the global realignment of power following the second world war. The splintering of Germany, the rise of the US and USSR and the collapse of the Empire.

You do realize the New World Order is a concept made up by anti-globalist conspiracy theorists, right?

I do. I use it in jest.

The term is literally accurate, after all.

[Torrocca]

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

I imagine the ability to kill slave owners plays a significant part in setting slaves free.

Guns also set slaves in America free by virtue of the fact that the North could make and supply more of them to its armies than the South could.

Similarly, the Jews were set free through armed conflict with the Third Reich.

[Telconi]

You do understand the government is governing as we speak right?

Are you saying there would be less need for a militia if they stopped? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

I'm simply saying that I dont understand what about this implies that our proverbial car is in any way parked and in the garage

[Telconi]

Yes, they did. The union army didn't carry teddy bears at Gettysburg.

I absolutely am "freer".

The Union Army was the official standing military of the state.

It fought for the slaves, or more concisely, against the breakaway Confederacy which wanted to maintain slavery and expand it into the western territories, and union troops fought CSA troops ultimately because their commanders instructed them to do so.

Guns did not set the slaves free - naked force by one state's military apparatus against another (essentially) did. And how many slaves died before they won their freedom to three-fifths of a vote?

They still used guns.

But they did it with guns.

Naked force, via guns...

[Genivaria]

The Union Army was the official standing military of the state.

It fought for the slaves, or more concisely, against the breakaway Confederacy which wanted to maintain slavery and expand it into the western territories, and union troops fought CSA troops ultimately because their commanders instructed them to do so.

Guns did not set the slaves free - naked force by one state's military apparatus against another (essentially) did. And how many slaves died before they won their freedom to three-fifths of a vote?

They still used guns.

But they did it with guns.

Naked force, via guns...

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

[Reverend Norv]

As a member of the Democratic Party who is also a lifelong gun owner, I'd like to offer a few observations from experience, in the very halfhearted hope that they might introduce an element of perspective here.

I live in a rural area of the Midwest where most folks, regardless of party, own firearms. My father taught me to shoot when I was twelve. When I talk to most of my neighbors about guns, regardless of party, they tend not to see firearms ownership primarily or instinctively as a constitutional right. Instead, we see firearms ownership as part of our cultural heritage. It's one of those things we inherited from our fathers, and their fathers before them - not from the Constitution.

While we appreciate that the Constitution protects our right to firearms ownership, most of us - again, regardless of party - don't believe that right is unlimited. When you live in any kind of small community, where managing relationships with your neighbors is of paramount importance, the idea of unlimited rights stops making sense. So the basic constitutional point that rights can be real without being unlimited is obvious to us. You have the right to free speech, unless your speech is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. You have the right to privacy, unless the cops get a warrant. And you have the right to bear arms, unless the arms you want to bear are a rocket launcher and a Browning fifty-cal.

This doesn't mean that we don't have our "shall-not-be-infringed" crowd, who believe that the Second is the only amendment not subject to any limitations, and that it has to be interpreted differently from every other part of the Bill of Rights. But they are a weird subculture not representative of most local gun owners. They have a dozen guns instead of the normal 2-5. They hang out at gun stores and talk shop instead of going hunting or plinking. Most importantly, when you ask them about guns, they start talking about how they might need them to kill cops - not to put food on the table, not to defend their homes, but to wage guerilla war against the National Guard. That's how you know that these guys have lost touch with our heritage, because it's not why any of the rest of us own guns. It's not what our fathers taught us.

Because our fathers taught us that firearms ownership is a responsibility as well as a right, and therefore that not everyone should own a gun. It's not a partisan position, where I come from, to say that if you can't rattle off the three rules of range safety without pausing for breath, then you don't belong anywhere near a live weapon. We don't see precautions like background checks or safety qualifications as an infringement on our gun culture. On the contrary, they are exactly what our fathers put us through before they placed a firearm in our hands for the first time. They're the way any close-knit community keeps itself safe around dangerous weapons.

I hope that these few reflections might help to dispel a few assumptions that I've seen in this thread. First, there's the assumption on the right that liberals don't own guns, or know the first thing about them. This may be true of urban liberals. It is categorically untrue of rural liberals. I was plinking in the woods long before I could drive. Second, there's the assumption on the left - especially overseas - that American gun owners are all NRA members who see firearms ownership in inflexible, insurrectionist terms. That's also categorically untrue, and it reflects the fact that a fringe wing of American gun culture has been able to hijack the debate. The NRA no more represents me as a gun owner than the Westboro Baptists represent me as a Christian.

The point, in short, is that the actual debate is not as hopelessly polarized as this thread would suggest. There is a responsible middle ground here: one that I see every day, and where productive conversation and compromise is still possible among people who neither want to disarm law-abiding citizens, nor want to prep for the next civil war. That's conversation, not this one, is where I find hope for the future of guns in America.

[Telconi]

They still used guns.

But they did it with guns.

Naked force, via guns...

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.

[Sicaris]

I'm sure you can explain how...

It's just dumb and reductionist. Guns didn't set the Native Americans free. Guns didn't set the Slaves free. They didn't set the Jews free and they won't keep the Kurds free.

Plus in a less abstract sense, I am not a slave for not owning a gun, nor is any of the, what, 50% of American adults who do not own a gun. Nor are you any "freer" for owning one.

Arms does not mean guns.

It refers to any weapon.