Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Not all revolutions are bloody.

The transition from capitalism to socialism and communism has to be violent.

It's class warfare.

What are the proletariat going to do, ask the bourgoisie nicely?

Clarification, I'm not a leftist, or socialist. I think Marx is an outdated hack, I think communism is a terrible theory in terms of pragmatism, I think obsession and focus on class warfare is counter productive to a society's economic and technological growth (among other things), and emphasis on historical materialism is way overzealous and forced as a reductionist way to explain (and provide blame for) way too much of the world...

... but yeah, to crush capitalism and the state, to practice class warfare and rise up against the ruling class, to tear down the very fabric of what undermines all areas of society, these are all things that revolutionary socialists cannot do without a bloodshed.

But hey, if they ever put down the keyboard and shift their ass, good luck to them.

You're implying that the majority of modern-day "revolutionary leftists" would know that a mouse and keyboard is a far less dangerous weapon than a gun.

[Imperializt Russia]

But clearly if such paragons of virtue as the Australians and British share your opinions, they magically become objective fact.

We had a revolutionary war explicitly so we wouldn’t have to care what the Brits think. It’s my god given right as an American to tell all hot tea drinkers to jump into the river.

In all seriousness, it’s getting irritating when people hold up Britain and Australia as evidence that gun control works while ignoring the the fact that their rates of violence were already on the decline when they restricted access to guns.

And they're much lower than yours.

Here's a fun little exercise you can do. Find Table 11 of the FBI homicide statistics from 2011. I believe this is the breakdown of homicides by weapon used. About 80-90% of murders were by firearm.
Look up the UK homicide stats for the same year. I can't recall the exact number. The US has a homicide rate something in excess of 4 times the UK for that year.

If you completely discount firearm homicides from the US data, the UK and US homicide rates become very close. And the Proportion of homicides by weapon (knife etc) also become very close.

---

The crux is (statistically speaking, of course, this exercise is not remotely practical), the US is as violent as Britain, and then has its gun violence problem slapped on top.

[Sicaris]

The transition from capitalism to socialism and communism has to be violent.

It's class warfare.

What are the proletariat going to do, ask the bourgoisie nicely?

Clarification, I'm not a leftist, or socialist. I think Marx is an outdated hack, I think communism is a terrible theory in terms of pragmatism, I think obsession and focus on class warfare is counter productive to a society's economic and technological growth (among other things), and emphasis on historical materialism is way overzealous and forced as a reductionist way to explain (and provide blame for) way too much of the world...

... but yeah, to crush capitalism and the state, to practice class warfare and rise up against the ruling class, to tear down the very fabric of what undermines all areas of society, these are all things that revolutionary socialists cannot do without a bloodshed.

But hey, if they ever put down the keyboard and shift their ass, good luck to them.

You're implying that the majority of modern-day "revolutionary leftists" would know that a mouse and keyboard is a far less dangerous weapon than a gun.

Well. Somewhat.

A gun, yes, obviously. You pull trigger, it shoot, thing die.

But a keyboard and mouse can be a gateway to so many different things, especially in today’s hyper-technological society, that it can be sometimes more dangerous than a gun.if you have the skills of course.

Thankfully, most don’t.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

You're implying that the majority of modern-day "revolutionary leftists" would know that a mouse and keyboard is a far less dangerous weapon than a gun.

Well. Somewhat.

A gun, yes, obviously. You pull trigger, it shoot, thing die.

But a keyboard and mouse can be a gateway to so many different things, especially in today’s hyper-technological society, that it can be sometimes more dangerous than a gun.if you have the skills of course.

Thankfully, most don’t.

Hacking aims for disabling, not a takeover.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Hacking aims for disabling, not a takeover.

Obviously. Either that, or panic and confusion. If a cyber attack hit the US right now and civilians were affected, people would go crazy. But it is impossible to digitally invade something. However, you could still destroy something, like a drone or satellite, so it’s not physically harmless. Hacking can give you a temporary advantage, but the Internet is structured so that it is easy to get things back online. Cyber warfare is going to be very prevalent in the near future.

[Telconi]

Well. Somewhat.

A gun, yes, obviously. You pull trigger, it shoot, thing die.

But a keyboard and mouse can be a gateway to so many different things, especially in today’s hyper-technological society, that it can be sometimes more dangerous than a gun.if you have the skills of course.

Thankfully, most don’t.

Hacking aims for disabling, not a takeover.

TBF, if I could slap at a keyboard for an evening and bring down and disable an oil refinery, I could further a revolution a lot more than if I had a gun.

[Tobleste]

We had a revolutionary war explicitly so we wouldn’t have to care what the Brits think. It’s my god given right as an American to tell all hot tea drinkers to jump into the river.

In all seriousness, it’s getting irritating when people hold up Britain and Australia as evidence that gun control works while ignoring the the fact that their rates of violence were already on the decline when they restricted access to guns.

And they're much lower than yours.

Here's a fun little exercise you can do. Find Table 11 of the FBI homicide statistics from 2011. I believe this is the breakdown of homicides by weapon used. About 80-90% of murders were by firearm.
Look up the UK homicide stats for the same year. I can't recall the exact number. The US has a homicide rate something in excess of 4 times the UK for that year.

If you completely discount firearm homicides from the US data, the UK and US homicide rates become very close. And the Proportion of homicides by weapon (knife etc) also become very close.

---

The crux is (statistically speaking, of course, this exercise is not remotely practical), the US is as violent as Britain, and then has its gun violence problem slapped on top.

Unfortunately a large minority in the US is happy with that as a price for easier access to guns. I can't believe anyone with enough brain cells to breathe is stupid enough to believe an increase in guns with little to nothing done to manage them safely doesn't have serious negative consequences.

It's like if an entire nation decided to ban speed limits and when people start crashing and dying on the roads, 40% of the population insisted it had to happen because restricting their ability to drive 100 mph past a school is tyranny.

[Telconi]

And they're much lower than yours.

Here's a fun little exercise you can do. Find Table 11 of the FBI homicide statistics from 2011. I believe this is the breakdown of homicides by weapon used. About 80-90% of murders were by firearm.
Look up the UK homicide stats for the same year. I can't recall the exact number. The US has a homicide rate something in excess of 4 times the UK for that year.

If you completely discount firearm homicides from the US data, the UK and US homicide rates become very close. And the Proportion of homicides by weapon (knife etc) also become very close.

---

The crux is (statistically speaking, of course, this exercise is not remotely practical), the US is as violent as Britain, and then has its gun violence problem slapped on top.

Unfortunately a large minority in the US is happy with that as a price for easier access to guns. I can't believe anyone with enough brain cells to breathe is stupid enough to believe an increase in guns with little to nothing done to manage them safely doesn't have serious negative consequences.

It's like if an entire nation decided to ban speed limits and when people start crashing and dying on the roads, 40% of the population insisted it had to happen because restricting their ability to drive 100 mph past a school is tyranny.

Yes, people with values different than yours are stupid. We've been hearing this schtick for almost 2,000 posts now.

[Frievolk]

Unfortunately a large minority in the US is happy with that as a price for easier access to guns. I can't believe anyone with enough brain cells to breathe is stupid enough to believe an increase in guns with little to nothing done to manage them safely doesn't have serious negative consequences.

It's like if an entire nation decided to ban speed limits and when people start crashing and dying on the roads, 40% of the population insisted it had to happen because restricting their ability to drive 100 mph past a school is tyranny.

Yes, people with values different than yours are stupid. We've been hearing this schtick for almost 2,000 posts now.

In this single context, not only are they stupid, they're also selfish to a deadly degree.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

TBF, if I could slap at a keyboard for an evening and bring down and disable an oil refinery, I could further a revolution a lot more than if I had a gun.

It depends what country. Also, warfare against an external opponent is when hacking is the most useful. Especially if they rely heavily on advanced technology.

[Telconi]

Yes, people with values different than yours are stupid. We've been hearing this schtick for almost 2,000 posts now.

In this single context, not only are they stupid, they're also selfish to a deadly degree.

Thanks.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well congrats to this thread.
It's taken me down an insane path of realizing I think I can only use guns to defend other people, not myself.
Still figuring out how that works in a grander militia based context.

[Nolo gap]

left or right, making dead people makes dead people, and generally i wouldn't expect their ghosts to be too happy about it either.

now the thing is, that second amendment was never intended to mean that everyone should be walking around with lethal force in their back pocket.
that's seriously not what it says, anywhere in it, at all.

people who want to sell you a gun want you to think that's what it means for the rather obvious reason that they want to sell you a gun.
i'm fine with everyone having a right to "keep and bear" some sort of "equalizer", but not with disencentives for non-leathal forms of them.
(or relatively non-lethal i should say, as you CAN kill someone with almost anything, even a plastic soda straw. not saying its easy, but you can)

but this gets to another question, that of freedom and reality and what that means.
freedom to have to worry about getting shot?; i mean the degree of probability of that worry.

freedom to build without having to indenture yourself is what freedom means to me, and this is something we don't really have, in what america has become, maybe never had in what it started out to be, for that matter.

being able to run around with the ability to kill someone, doesn't really quite equate.

[Telconi]

Well congrats to this thread.
It's taken me down an insane path of realizing I think I can only use guns to defend other people, not myself.
Still figuring out how that works in a grander militia based context.

Easily, collective defense is the very soul of a citizen militia. The entire concept is to put yourself in danger to defend the lives of others.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well congrats to this thread.
It's taken me down an insane path of realizing I think I can only use guns to defend other people, not myself.
Still figuring out how that works in a grander militia based context.

Easily, collective defense is the very soul of a citizen militia. The entire concept is to put yourself in danger to defend the lives of others.

See I figured that, but it also becomes an idea of how selfish is my reason for joining said militia. Or am I fighting explicitly to defend someone. Can I refuse to take up arms if I disagree with the militia's reason for taking up arms?

[Nolo gap]

Well congrats to this thread.
It's taken me down an insane path of realizing I think I can only use guns to defend other people, not myself.
Still figuring out how that works in a grander militia based context.

actually you can't use a gun to "defend" anyone. only kill (or seriously injure) them.
you can use the THREAT of killing someone, maybe, provided the getting killed is something the other guy with a gun is concerned about.

[Telconi]

left or right, making dead people makes dead people, and generally i wouldn't expect their ghosts to be too happy about it either.

now the thing is, that second amendment was never intended to mean that everyone should be walking around with lethal force in their back pocket.
that's seriously not what it says, anywhere in it, at all.

people who want to sell you a gun want you to think that's what it means for the rather obvious reason that they want to sell you a gun.
i'm fine with everyone having a right to "keep and bear" some sort of "equalizer", but not with disencentives for non-leathal forms of them.
(or relatively non-lethal i should say, as you CAN kill someone with almost anything, even a plastic soda straw. not saying its easy, but you can)

but this gets to another question, that of freedom and reality and what that means.
freedom to have to worry about getting shot?; i mean the degree of probability of that worry.

freedom to build without having to indenture yourself is what freedom means to me, and this is something we don't really have, in what america has become, maybe never had in what it started out to be, for that matter.

being able to run around with the ability to kill someone, doesn't really quite equate.

Ghosts don't exist.

Having a gun doesn't eliminate peaceful resolution.

Freedom is the capacity to excersize free will. Which is directly related to the capacity to prevent or inhibit others from curtailing free will. Violent force is, has always been, and will forever be, the tool by which one exerts power on others. Thus, the capacity to exert violent force is directly and inseparably linked to freedom.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well congrats to this thread.
It's taken me down an insane path of realizing I think I can only use guns to defend other people, not myself.
Still figuring out how that works in a grander militia based context.

actually you can't use a gun to "defend" anyone. only kill (or seriously injure) them.
you can use the THREAT of killing someone, maybe, provided the getting killed is something the other guy with a gun is concerned about.

I mean yeah if you wanna be a Literal Larry

[Western Vale Confederacy]

left or right, making dead people makes dead people, and generally i wouldn't expect their ghosts to be too happy about it either.

now the thing is, that second amendment was never intended to mean that everyone should be walking around with lethal force in their back pocket.
that's seriously not what it says, anywhere in it, at all.

people who want to sell you a gun want you to think that's what it means for the rather obvious reason that they want to sell you a gun.
i'm fine with everyone having a right to "keep and bear" some sort of "equalizer", but not with disencentives for non-leathal forms of them.
(or relatively non-lethal i should say, as you CAN kill someone with almost anything, even a plastic soda straw. not saying its easy, but you can)

but this gets to another question, that of freedom and reality and what that means.
freedom to have to worry about getting shot?; i mean the degree of probability of that worry.

freedom to build without having to indenture yourself is what freedom means to me, and this is something we don't really have, in what america has become, maybe never had in what it started out to be, for that matter.

being able to run around with the ability to kill someone, doesn't really quite equate.

Ghosts don't exist.

Having a gun doesn't eliminate peaceful resolution.

Freedom is the capacity to excersize free will. Which is directly related to the capacity to prevent or inhibit others from curtailing free will. Violent force is, has always been, and will forever be, the tool by which one exerts power on others. Thus, the capacity to exert violent force is directly and inseparably linked to freedom.

My believing self would like to contest such a statement.

[Telconi]

Easily, collective defense is the very soul of a citizen militia. The entire concept is to put yourself in danger to defend the lives of others.

See I figured that, but it also becomes an idea of how selfish is my reason for joining said militia. Or am I fighting explicitly to defend someone. Can I refuse to take up arms if I disagree with the militia's reason for taking up arms?

Selfishness and selflessness are your own to ascertain, as far refusing to take up arms, absolutely. I have yet to meet a militia member capable of mind control, and conscientious objection is a lot easier when everyone's a volunteer and there's no mechanism to enforce compliance.

[Telconi]

Ghosts don't exist.

Having a gun doesn't eliminate peaceful resolution.

Freedom is the capacity to excersize free will. Which is directly related to the capacity to prevent or inhibit others from curtailing free will. Violent force is, has always been, and will forever be, the tool by which one exerts power on others. Thus, the capacity to exert violent force is directly and inseparably linked to freedom.

My believing self would like to contest such a statement.

Your entitled to your own beliefs. But I don't consider the concerns of ghosts to be anything to worry about.

[Internationalist Bastard]

See I figured that, but it also becomes an idea of how selfish is my reason for joining said militia. Or am I fighting explicitly to defend someone. Can I refuse to take up arms if I disagree with the militia's reason for taking up arms?

Selfishness and selflessness are your own to ascertain, as far refusing to take up arms, absolutely. I have yet to meet a militia member capable of mind control, and conscientious objection is a lot easier when everyone's a volunteer and there's no mechanism to enforce compliance.

I mean they could shoot me

[Telconi]

Selfishness and selflessness are your own to ascertain, as far refusing to take up arms, absolutely. I have yet to meet a militia member capable of mind control, and conscientious objection is a lot easier when everyone's a volunteer and there's no mechanism to enforce compliance.

I mean they could shoot me

Anyone could shoot you, unless they're like in an iron lung or something.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I mean they could shoot me

Anyone could shoot you, unless they're like in an iron lung or something.

Or a quadruple amputee.

[Len Hyet]

We had a revolutionary war explicitly so we wouldn’t have to care what the Brits think. It’s my god given right as an American to tell all hot tea drinkers to jump into the river.

In all seriousness, it’s getting irritating when people hold up Britain and Australia as evidence that gun control works while ignoring the the fact that their rates of violence were already on the decline when they restricted access to guns.

And they're much lower than yours.

Here's a fun little exercise you can do. Find Table 11 of the FBI homicide statistics from 2011. I believe this is the breakdown of homicides by weapon used. About 80-90% of murders were by firearm.
Look up the UK homicide stats for the same year. I can't recall the exact number. The US has a homicide rate something in excess of 4 times the UK for that year.

If you completely discount firearm homicides from the US data, the UK and US homicide rates become very close. And the Proportion of homicides by weapon (knife etc) also become very close.

---

The crux is (statistically speaking, of course, this exercise is not remotely practical), the US is as violent as Britain, and then has its gun violence problem slapped on top.

Take out every gun homicide in the US and our homicide rate is still almost double that of England & Wales.

It's almost like there's a complicated ecosystem of socio-economic effects at play here that can't be reduced to a trite "guns r bad".