Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Aellex]

Then again, it is people like this who decide that they themselves could not be trusted so therefore others cannot be trusted and laws must be passed.

Projectionists at their finest. People need to stop blaming others and take a little bit of self responsibility for their stupid mistakes.

Tbh, I trust myself very much but still wouldn't want most of the population to have a free access to weapons.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Projectionists at their finest. People need to stop blaming others and take a little bit of self responsibility for their stupid mistakes.

Tbh, I trust myself very much but still wouldn't want most of the population to have a free access to weapons.

Thank goodness then, that people currently don't have free access to weapons and that a process is in place to help weed out those that might do bad things with said access.

[Flaireis]

I think what is really scary is you think ethnic cleansing may happen in the USA. I think we need less guns. If you can't stand on the strength of your ideas and convey those ideas to your peers then maybe the time for those ideas has not come or there is no will to pursue those ideas.

Historically, most of the good in the world that came about in any era was backed by force. It’d be incredible if we could just rely on the value of our ideas but the fact of the matter is that if you want your ideals to prevail, you need some kind of strength to back it up. Whether that comes from a majority bloc or from the barrels of a metric fuck ton of guns makes little difference.

Historically, relatively few revolutions have succeeded, but I do agree that there is value in forceful changes in society. However, it can also be said that revolution is one of the less likely results of firearm use and that full access to firearms for the sake of social change has a tendency to do greater harm than good.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Civilians should not have access to guns. Only the police and military should be allowed firearms.

No.

[Frievolk]

Civilians should not have access to guns. Only the police and military should be allowed firearms.

OR we could go the Swiss route and abolish the military (for the most part) and give all citizens as many guns as they want.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm tempted to use my firearms all the time. Usually by my friend Ben, when he wants to go to the range. Other times, by my friend Chris, who wants me to take him with me the next time I go to the range. All the other times are when I'm the one that initiates the plan to go to the range.

Every time I DO use them involves the destruction of a lot of paper targets, followed by a good meal, and shopping for targets/shooting supplies/etc.

Then you have pretty good self control

I am personally glad I didn’t have access to firearms in the past; I would not trust myself with them

I do, except when chocolate or peanut butter is involved.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Then you have pretty good self control

I am personally glad I didn’t have access to firearms in the past; I would not trust myself with them

I’m almost scared. If there are many more people like you, we’re screwed. I would never think about shooting someone because I was angry. I wouldn’t shoot someone who was unarmed. I’d have to have no care of human life and that’s not normal. The notion that you would be tempted to kill a person because they bother you isn’t ordinary seeming to me. Firing at a person is much different than a target. If you have so little self restraint that you can’t be trusted around guns because of non-safety reasons, I’m glad you also think they are hard to get your hands on.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Then you have pretty good self control

I am personally glad I didn’t have access to firearms in the past; I would not trust myself with them

I do, except when chocolate or peanut butter is involved.

Grown men will do horrible things for a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.

I’m almost scared.

Really?

If there are many more people like you, we’re screwed.

I agree, but for different reasons....

I would never think about shooting someone because I was angry.

Well that's good to hear.

I wouldn’t shoot someone who was unarmed.

What if I told you that being unarmed does not equal not being dangerous?

I’d have to have no care of human life and that’s not normal.

Yes and no. You can still care for human life, and feel the need to add ventilation holes to someones chest who's broken into your home and is threatening your wife/kids/whatever.

The notion that you would be tempted to kill a person because they bother you isn’t ordinary seeming to me.

As it is for most sane people id imagine.

Firing at a person is much different than a target.

"How can you shoot women and children?"

"Easy... you don't lead 'em so much!"

If you have so little self restraint that you can’t be trusted around guns because of non-safety reasons, I’m glad you also think they are hard to get your hands on.

Indeed. However, even if one does decide to act on such urges and hurt themselves or others, it's still not grounds to punish innocent people who have committed no crimes.

[The Chuck]

Civilians should not have access to guns. Only the police and military should be allowed firearms.

OR we could go the Swiss route and abolish the military (for the most part) and give all citizens as many guns as they want.

I'd be all for this method... though I'm sure there's a fair amount of people who wouldn't be.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I would never think about shooting someone because I was angry.

Well that's good to hear.

I wouldn’t shoot someone who was unarmed.

What if I told you that being unarmed does not equal not being dangerous?

I’d have to have no care of human life and that’s not normal.

Yes and no. You can still care for human life, and feel the need to add ventilation holes to someones chest who's broken into your home and is threatening your wife/kids/whatever.

If they are unarmed, most likely they don’t come with the intent of harming someone. Unarmed household robbery typically happens during the days, as the try coming into the house and not having to deal with anybody. Also, I could take a single unarmed attacker in most scenarios without a gun. They couldn’t kill a person unless they were strangling them or breaking their neck. A non-hostile criminal will probably just run from and armed person, so shooting them is not necessary. I would rather call the police and risk that they escape than shoot someone who didn’t want to physically hurt anyone.

[Paddy O Fernature]

If they are unarmed, most likely they don’t come with the intent of harming someone.

And if they are not?

You literally have no way of knowing the intent that someone may or may not have after breaking into your house in broad daylight, looking at the very least to steal anything of value for most likely fueling their drug habit. To sit here and say "Oh I have faith that the guy that just kicked in my door is just misunderstood and is actually a really nice guy and doesn't mean to harm me or my loved ones" is naive at best.

Unarmed household robbery typically happens during the days, as the try coming into the house and not having to deal with anybody.

And? They still are breaking into my house with intent unknown to take my hard earned things. Fuck them.

Also, I could take a single unarmed attacker in most scenarios without a gun.

Uh huh.

They couldn’t kill a person unless they were strangling them or breaking their neck.

Fun fact, hands and feet kill more people then the scary semi-automatic rifles everyone wants to ban in the US each year. That is, if the FBI.GOV website is to be believed. Again, unarmed does not equal not dangerous.

[Tobleste]

Historically, most of the good in the world that came about in any era was backed by force. It’d be incredible if we could just rely on the value of our ideas but the fact of the matter is that if you want your ideals to prevail, you need some kind of strength to back it up. Whether that comes from a majority bloc or from the barrels of a metric fuck ton of guns makes little difference.

Historically, relatively few revolutions have succeeded, but I do agree that there is value in forceful changes in society. However, it can also be said that revolution is one of the less likely results of firearm use and that full access to firearms for the sake of social change has a tendency to do greater harm than good.

That's a logical way of looking at it but unfortunately, many Americans seem to genuinely think that they need guns because, like superheroes, only they can save the country from *insert whatever threat a particular conspiracy theory claims is about to destroy America* and the idea of a radical, armed minority actually appeals to them.

It's a cultural issue more than a logical one. America has grown used to gun violence and guns in general so it's gun culture will persist regardless of the cost because it's become so closely associated with some people's identities.

[Ors Might]

Historically, most of the good in the world that came about in any era was backed by force. It’d be incredible if we could just rely on the value of our ideas but the fact of the matter is that if you want your ideals to prevail, you need some kind of strength to back it up. Whether that comes from a majority bloc or from the barrels of a metric fuck ton of guns makes little difference.

Historically, relatively few revolutions have succeeded, but I do agree that there is value in forceful changes in society. However, it can also be said that revolution is one of the less likely results of firearm use and that full access to firearms for the sake of social change has a tendency to do greater harm than good.

The good that revolutions do often has very little to do with their successes. It’s to make reforms the best option available if such chaos is to be avoided in the future.

I would argue that, while wide access to firearms doesn’t guarantee a revolution, it does make any future revolutions much more viable.

I’m not entirely sure if widespread access to firearms would do as much harm as you imply. Merely having access to something that could cause harm is not the same as having the desire to cause harm, which is a societal/psychological issue. Restrictions on gun ownership seem, from my perspective, to be built on mostly fear and the unwillingness to address the real flaws within society.

Historically, relatively few revolutions have succeeded, but I do agree that there is value in forceful changes in society. However, it can also be said that revolution is one of the less likely results of firearm use and that full access to firearms for the sake of social change has a tendency to do greater harm than good.

That's a logical way of looking at it but unfortunately, many Americans seem to genuinely think that they need guns because, like superheroes, only they can save the country from *insert whatever threat a particular conspiracy theory claims is about to destroy America* and the idea of a radical, armed minority actually appeals to them.

It's a cultural issue more than a logical one. America has grown used to gun violence and guns in general so it's gun culture will persist regardless of the cost because it's become so closely associated with some people's identities.

Ah, still peddling the same sourceless nonsense. I imagine it’s easy to assert that it’s the presence of guns that cause violence, instead of violence being caused by a complex set of socio-economic issues, instead of treating the opposing position with any trace of nuance.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Historically, relatively few revolutions have succeeded, but I do agree that there is value in forceful changes in society. However, it can also be said that revolution is one of the less likely results of firearm use and that full access to firearms for the sake of social change has a tendency to do greater harm than good.

The good that revolutions do often has very little to do with their successes. It’s to make reforms the best option available if such chaos is to be avoided in the future.

I would argue that, while wide access to firearms doesn’t guarantee a revolution, it does make any future revolutions much more viable.

I’m not entirely sure if widespread access to firearms would do as much harm as you imply. Merely having access to something that could cause harm is not the same as having the desire to cause harm, which is a societal/psychological issue. Restrictions on gun ownership seem, from my perspective, to be built on mostly fear and the unwillingness to address the real flaws within society.

That's a logical way of looking at it but unfortunately, many Americans seem to genuinely think that they need guns because, like superheroes, only they can save the country from *insert whatever threat a particular conspiracy theory claims is about to destroy America* and the idea of a radical, armed minority actually appeals to them.

It's a cultural issue more than a logical one. America has grown used to gun violence and guns in general so it's gun culture will persist regardless of the cost because it's become so closely associated with some people's identities.

Ah, still peddling the same sourceless nonsense. I imagine it’s easy to assert that it’s the presence of guns that cause violence, instead of violence being caused by a complex set of socio-economic issues, instead of treating the opposing position with any trace of nuance.

Sure but it’s hard to argue the prevalence of gun violence in America, and it’s high presence in our culture. We have such a deep love of guns in this country that it’s enshrined in our laws. It’s in our media, our identity our national legend. Guns are very important to Americans, and there’s an argument to be made that it’s that love alone that drives the violence in the country.

[Cyrisnia]

yes

[Telconi]

The good that revolutions do often has very little to do with their successes. It’s to make reforms the best option available if such chaos is to be avoided in the future.

I would argue that, while wide access to firearms doesn’t guarantee a revolution, it does make any future revolutions much more viable.

I’m not entirely sure if widespread access to firearms would do as much harm as you imply. Merely having access to something that could cause harm is not the same as having the desire to cause harm, which is a societal/psychological issue. Restrictions on gun ownership seem, from my perspective, to be built on mostly fear and the unwillingness to address the real flaws within society.


Ah, still peddling the same sourceless nonsense. I imagine it’s easy to assert that it’s the presence of guns that cause violence, instead of violence being caused by a complex set of socio-economic issues, instead of treating the opposing position with any trace of nuance.

Sure but it’s hard to argue the prevalence of gun violence in America, and it’s high presence in our culture. We have such a deep love of guns in this country that it’s enshrined in our laws. It’s in our media, our identity our national legend. Guns are very important to Americans, and there’s an argument to be made that it’s that love alone that drives the violence in the country.

Yeah I don't believe the prevalence of guns is in any way the source of violent tendencies...

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sure but it’s hard to argue the prevalence of gun violence in America, and it’s high presence in our culture. We have such a deep love of guns in this country that it’s enshrined in our laws. It’s in our media, our identity our national legend. Guns are very important to Americans, and there’s an argument to be made that it’s that love alone that drives the violence in the country.

Yeah I don't believe the prevalence of guns is in any way the source of violent tendencies...

Of course it doesn’t cause it, but I highly doubt it doesn’t exacerbate it.
For example, I can’t find statistics of the deadliest vehicular homicide but they seem very uncommon and rather low casualty compared to our mass shootings. Can we really say that the enshrining of tools designed to kill people in every aspect of our culture doesn’t affect the problem?
And more on topic, is the soulition really to create more armed political groups, in a society where political animosity is at an all time high?

[Telconi]

Yeah I don't believe the prevalence of guns is in any way the source of violent tendencies...

Of course it doesn’t cause it, but I highly doubt it doesn’t exacerbate it.
For example, I can’t find statistics of the deadliest vehicular homicide but they seem very uncommon and rather low casualty compared to our mass shootings. Can we really say that the enshrining of tools designed to kill people in every aspect of our culture doesn’t affect the problem?
And more on topic, is the soulition really to create more armed political groups, in a society where political animosity is at an all time high?

Can we say it does?

Is armed deterrence the solution to rising threats? Yes, very much yes.

[Ors Might]

The good that revolutions do often has very little to do with their successes. It’s to make reforms the best option available if such chaos is to be avoided in the future.

I would argue that, while wide access to firearms doesn’t guarantee a revolution, it does make any future revolutions much more viable.

I’m not entirely sure if widespread access to firearms would do as much harm as you imply. Merely having access to something that could cause harm is not the same as having the desire to cause harm, which is a societal/psychological issue. Restrictions on gun ownership seem, from my perspective, to be built on mostly fear and the unwillingness to address the real flaws within society.


Ah, still peddling the same sourceless nonsense. I imagine it’s easy to assert that it’s the presence of guns that cause violence, instead of violence being caused by a complex set of socio-economic issues, instead of treating the opposing position with any trace of nuance.

Sure but it’s hard to argue the prevalence of gun violence in America, and it’s high presence in our culture. We have such a deep love of guns in this country that it’s enshrined in our laws. It’s in our media, our identity our national legend. Guns are very important to Americans, and there’s an argument to be made that it’s that love alone that drives the violence in the country.

Sure, there’s an “argument” to be made but it’s one based on conjecture and hyperbole.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Of course it doesn’t cause it, but I highly doubt it doesn’t exacerbate it.
For example, I can’t find statistics of the deadliest vehicular homicide but they seem very uncommon and rather low casualty compared to our mass shootings. Can we really say that the enshrining of tools designed to kill people in every aspect of our culture doesn’t affect the problem?
And more on topic, is the soulition really to create more armed political groups, in a society where political animosity is at an all time high?

Can we say it does?

Is armed deterrence the solution to rising threats? Yes, very much yes.

But at what point does it just encourage violence?
I live in a highly conservative area, if I formed a leftist militia for self defense don’t you think that could escalate the problem instead?

[Telconi]

Can we say it does?

Is armed deterrence the solution to rising threats? Yes, very much yes.

But at what point does it just encourage violence?
I live in a highly conservative area, if I formed a leftist militia for self defense don’t you think that could escalate the problem instead?

If standing up to an aggressor prompts the aggressor to be violent, that simply proves you should have stood up to them well before now.

[Internationalist Bastard]

But at what point does it just encourage violence?
I live in a highly conservative area, if I formed a leftist militia for self defense don’t you think that could escalate the problem instead?

If standing up to an aggressor prompts the aggressor to be violent, that simply proves you should have stood up to them well before now.

And then we have shootings in the street

[Telconi]

If standing up to an aggressor prompts the aggressor to be violent, that simply proves you should have stood up to them well before now.

And then we have shootings in the street

"Why die for Danzig ... Racial Equality? ... ... ... Transgender Rights?"

[Internationalist Bastard]

And then we have shootings in the street

"Why die for Danzig ... Racial Equality? ... ... ... Transgender Rights?"

Indeed why should I die for my rights? Why should I fight for them with arms? What happens if I’m a radical? What if I keep fighting?

[Telconi]

"Why die for Danzig ... Racial Equality? ... ... ... Transgender Rights?"

Indeed why should I die for my rights? Why should I fight for them with arms? What happens if I’m a radical? What if I keep fighting?

I don't know why you should or shouldn't. Personally I'd say to leave the world a better place than you found it. Be it for your children, or your friends, or just for humanity in general. In the end, that's up to you.

As for rather you're a radical, well -shrug- you have never really struck me as such, if you are, well, shit.