Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Tobleste]

I don't care either. Just the next time someone says you're happy with people dying as long as you have access to guns, you might understand where they're coming from.

Let's ban everything that offends you and live in the awesome dystopia of Demolition Man. No, I'm not going to appease you no matter what "creative" comment you can make about me, and I'm not sorry for wanting to live in a country with rights, and not governed by a pussy nanny state.

I'm fascinated that you call above average rates of homicide and gun violence things that "offend me". It's almost like you're not even aware of the possibility I might actually want people to not die and that it's a serious issue. Like I've said, we have different moralities and if you don't understand why that might genuinely bother me then there's no point in trying to explain it to you.

You can take your right to own guns. As long as you understand why millions of people in your own country think the anti gun control group don't care when dozens of schoolchildren are murdered. This kind of childish comment is why (I mean, seriously, "Pussy nanny state"?).

[Len Hyet]

Oh, I was unaware that Western Europe had an opiod crisis. I didn't know Western Europe had a near total lack of proper mental health care, or that it shared a porus border with a narco-state. Can you elaborate on Western Europe's utter homogeneity, since it's apparently one monolithic block for the purposes of this conversation. How do you feel about the Western European incarceration rate? Does Western Europe have almost 25% of it's youth growing up without fathers, in no small part because of draconian and racist laws from 30 years ago?

You see? The more you know. You can quibble percentage points all you like, but these problems all exist in western Europe. And yes, western Europe is more or less homogeneous these days, which is why it is distinct from eastern Europe (where several of these issues are markedly worse, country depending).

You are aware I was being sarcastic, right? Those problems I listed are almost uniquely American, and are certainly uniquely American when compared to the various European nations.

[Imperializt Russia]

What is so special about the police and military that makes them capable to use arms?

According to many political theorists, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Yes. But.

What actually imbues the police and military with the capability to carry out that duty responsibly?

[Jolthig]

There are a few that are.

[Telconi]

According to many political theorists, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Yes. But.

What actually imbues the police and military with the capability to carry out that duty responsibly?

Nothing.

[Scomagia]

What is so special about the police and military that makes them capable to use arms?

According to many political theorists, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I've never seen anyone seriously apply that logic to self defense. Probably because it's nonsensical. The State has a monopoly on preemptive violence and coercive violence. That doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself and must wait for the government to protect you. Neither does it mean that only The State can or should possess the means for committing violence.

[The Liberated Territories]

What is so special about the police and military that makes them capable to use arms?

This is why I find it hard not to doubt the sincerity of Republicans (which you are according to your signature). I mean is that a serious question?

I am aware of the "answer." I just want to hear it.

If the reason is "well, they are trained for it," why does this elevate them over a private individual, when cops are at the core private individuals given shiny badges and training? Certainly, a private individual has as much capacity as a cop does to train how to use a weapon properly.

[Bienenhalde]

According to many political theorists, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Yes. But.

What actually imbues the police and military with the capability to carry out that duty responsibly?

Because they would hire people who were responsible and trustworthy.

[Bienenhalde]

According to many political theorists, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I've never seen anyone seriously apply that logic to self defense. Probably because it's nonsensical. The State has a monopoly on preemptive violence and coercive violence. That doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself and must wait for the government to protect you. Neither does it mean that only The State can or should possess the means for committing violence.

I suppose I could consider self-defense morally legitimate, but many hard-core second amendment supporters seem to advocate vigilantism or armed insurrection against the government.

[Scomagia]

I've never seen anyone seriously apply that logic to self defense. Probably because it's nonsensical. The State has a monopoly on preemptive violence and coercive violence. That doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself and must wait for the government to protect you. Neither does it mean that only The State can or should possess the means for committing violence.

I suppose I could consider self-defense morally legitimate, but many hard-core second amendment supporters seem to advocate vigilantism or armed insurrection against the government.

A tyranny is by definition a threat to your life and safety. Armed insurrection against a tyranny is perfectly legitimate as it's an extension of self defense. Tyrannies forfeit the monopoly on force by virtue of oppressing the governed.

I've never personally seen any fellow 2A folks advocate for vigilantism.

[Ors Might]

I suppose I could consider self-defense morally legitimate, but many hard-core second amendment supporters seem to advocate vigilantism or armed insurrection against the government.

A tyranny is by definition a threat to your life and safety. Armed insurrection against a tyranny is perfectly legitimate as it's an extension of self defense. Tyrannies forfeit the monopoly on force by virtue of oppressing the governed.

I've never personally seen any fellow 2A folks advocate for vigilantism.

In my neck of the woods, vigilantism was traditionally carried out with lynch mobs. Needless to say, this 2A advocate does not advocate vigilantism.

[Telconi]

Yes. But.

What actually imbues the police and military with the capability to carry out that duty responsibly?

Because they would hire people who were responsible and trustworthy.

The sheer prevalence of police crime in the news seems to show this isnt the case.

[Kernen]

People say selfish like its a bad thing. It works out pretty well for me.

As a fairly left of center person, I'm a big fan of expanded gun rights. Give the people a way to shoot back at the radical right.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

Oh please. We're not all selfish because we don't buy into Tobleste's narrative. Plus this isn't the gun control thread.

[Tanzoria]

I've seen arguments on other forums that the left are hypocrites for thinking Trump is a tyrant yet supporting de-arming citizens. However there is no incongruity with these positions. American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing and would use their weapons to oppress their fellow citizens if there ever was a true constitutional crisis/civil war in America. Wanting to disarm these people is the only logical approach

[Thermodolia]

I've seen arguments on other forums that the left are hypocrites for thinking Trump is a tyrant yet supporting de-arming citizens. However there is no incongruity with these positions. American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing and would use their weapons to oppress their fellow citizens if there ever was a true constitutional crisis/civil war in America. Wanting to disarm these people is the only logical approach

Except they and you are conflating with “Left” with “liberals”. Which are two very very different groups. Leftists do not care about gun control and are actually pretty pro gun, granted many of them turn anti-gun after they are in power, but all in all they are far more pro gun than liberals are

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes. But.

What actually imbues the police and military with the capability to carry out that duty responsibly?

Because they would hire people who were responsible and trustworthy.

These bodies routinely fail to do so, the world over, and always have done.

Next argument.

[Paddy O Fernature]

American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing and would use their weapons to oppress their fellow citizens if there ever was a true constitutional crisis/civil war in America. Wanting to disarm these people is the only logical approach

And source for this.... laughable claim?

[The Chuck]

I've seen arguments on other forums that the left are hypocrites for thinking Trump is a tyrant yet supporting de-arming citizens. However there is no incongruity with these positions. American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing and would use their weapons to oppress their fellow citizens if there ever was a true constitutional crisis/civil war in America. Wanting to disarm these people is the only logical approach

"American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing"

Please provide some form of legitimate proof that the Alt-Right makes up the majority of gun owners in America. I personally know quite a few left leaning friends of mine who are very pro-2A.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I can understand why people are confused the difference between liberals and leftists. The title forget to make the distinction....

[Scomagia]

Because they would hire people who were responsible and trustworthy.

The sheer prevalence of police crime in the news seems to show this isnt the case.

Prevalence in the media doesn't necessarily equate to prevalence in reality.

[Scomagia]

I've seen arguments on other forums that the left are hypocrites for thinking Trump is a tyrant yet supporting de-arming citizens. However there is no incongruity with these positions. American gun owners are mostly extreme right wing and would use their weapons to oppress their fellow citizens if there ever was a true constitutional crisis/civil war in America. Wanting to disarm these people is the only logical approach

Your post is just...awful and wrong. You truly don't know what you're talking about.

[Pope Joan]

I was on the regional board of directors for an office of the ACLU fifteen years ago. At that time there were several libertarians on the board, and I was leaning toward that position myself.
We all supported second amendment rights, as consistent with our support of first and fifth (and other) amendment right.
We were pressured into keeping quiet by the others; there was an exception in those cases, because "guns bad}/

We never used to be about setting public policy, but only about encouraging the rule of the Constitution.

Now there are no libertarians on that board.

[Chernoslavia]

Daily reminder that my rights trump your dead.

[Torrocca]

Daily reminder that my rights trump your dead.

That's the most unapologetically shitty argument you could ever make for gun rights. Ever.