Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Ardoki]

If the cure is worse than the disease, then alleviating the symptoms is the best choice.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Australia has a higher living standard than places like North Korea.

North Korea's pretty much the quintessential, "we call ourselves Socialist but we're really not," state. They've got more in common with monarchism than Socialism, ffs.

They have a very planned economy, so it definitely isn't capitalist.

[Torrocca]

North Korea's pretty much the quintessential, "we call ourselves Socialist but we're really not," state. They've got more in common with monarchism than Socialism, ffs.

They have a very planned economy, so it definitely isn't capitalist.

Planned economics =/= Socialism, FYI.

[Ardoki]

They have a very planned economy, so it definitely isn't capitalist.

Planned economics =/= Socialism, FYI.

Sure.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Planned economics =/= Socialism, FYI.

Sure.

I mean, that’s legitimately true though. Socialism can exist with markets even.

[Ardoki]

Sure.

I mean, that’s legitimately true though. Socialism can exist with markets even.

Yes, I know that market socialism is a concept. But North Korea is definitely state socialist.

[Torrocca]

I mean, that’s legitimately true though. Socialism can exist with markets even.

Yes, I know that market socialism is a concept. But North Korea is definitely state socialist.

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

[Confederate States of German America]

Yes, I know that market socialism is a concept. But North Korea is definitely state socialist.

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

TFW you go so far left, you start back at the beginning.

[Ardoki]

Yes, I know that market socialism is a concept. But North Korea is definitely state socialist.

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, that can mean state ownership as well as worker ownership.

Also, a family dictatorship is different to a monarchy. Also, monarchism is not an economic system.

[Torrocca]

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, that can mean state ownership as well as worker ownership.

Also, a family dictatorship is different to a monarchy. Also, monarchism is not an economic system.

It's not really social ownership if it's owned by the Kim family and affiliates exclusively. Like, not at all.

[Ardoki]

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, that can mean state ownership as well as worker ownership.

Also, a family dictatorship is different to a monarchy. Also, monarchism is not an economic system.

It's not really social ownership if it's owned by the Kim family and affiliates exclusively. Like, not at all.

Just like the USSR, officially it is the property of the workers. Of course in reality, it isn't.

[Torrocca]

It's not really social ownership if it's owned by the Kim family and affiliates exclusively. Like, not at all.

Just like the USSR, officially it is the property of the workers. Of course in reality, it isn't.

... Which kinda pretty much means it's not Socialist, according to reality.

[Frievolk]

Yes, I know that market socialism is a concept. But North Korea is definitely state socialist.

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

Ok but a dictatorship that in essence gives the spot of "top dictator" to the son of the former dictator isn't necessarily a monarchy. In case of North Korea, that's definitely a republic.

And anyway, imo only the people should have guns. Disarm the state!

[Torrocca]

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

Ok but a dictatorship that in essence gives the spot of "top dictator" to the son of the former dictator isn't necessarily a monarchy. In case of North Korea, that's definitely a republic.

Eh, fair.

And anyway, imo only the people should have guns. Disarm the state!

Hell ye >:3

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There have been successful insurgencies and revolutions in spite of air superiority, though?

In a modern developed country?

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Monarchist. They're monarchist, and they're certainly not Socialist. There's no worker control of the means of production.

TFW you go so far left, you start back at the beginning.

The horseshoe has turned into a fucking Monopoly board.

[Ardoki]

In a modern developed country?

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Panem et circenses, fam.

Bread and entertainment keeps the masses from worrying too much about their government.

In theory, one could easily keep a dictatorship or communist society afloat by keeping the people happy, but of course, we love fucking everything up as humans.

[Ardoki]

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Panem et circenses, fam.

Bread and entertainment keeps the masses from worrying too much about their government.

In theory, one could easily keep a dictatorship or communist society afloat by keeping the people happy, but of course, we love fucking everything up as humans.

Well, that would only half work under communism.

But seriously, that is why we have social democracy. Everyone has at least a decent standard of living, but there is still heaps of innovation and economic growth.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Because anger and hatred are some damn good drugs.

[Frievolk]

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

See that's the thing about Maslow's hierarchy. When you provide the basic needs (food, cloth, shelter, etc.) they start thinking about "What about my other needs?", and humans are naturally whiny. They feel like their need isn't met? They'll go out and set everything on fire. Heaven knows that's what they did here.

[Crysuko]

First of all
>liberal
>left
Secondly, I fully support left wing death squads paramilitaries to balance out the abundance of fascist and nationalist ones.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Because the government fucked the people hard, probably.

[Ors Might]

Yeah, your country isn't going to be developed for long once the civil war starts.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Because people end up wanting more than what your social democracy can give them. They end up wondering about things like personal freedom and self governance.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

First of all
>liberal
>left
Secondly, I fully support left wing death squads paramilitaries to balance out the abundance of fascist and nationalist ones.

You've heard of right-wing death squads...

Now introducing left-wing revolutionary brigades!

[Paddy O Fernature]

And here...we...go!

Civilian gun ownership is bad though. Only the state should have them (and I guess like security companies and stuff).

As a social democrat, I am opposed mass shootings and gun crime.

Yeah, going to have to take a big fat fuck no to the notion that the state should have the sole monopoly on the use of firearms. What an absolutely laughable notion that is.

Not when you can be bombed from the sky by a drone. When martial law is declared and tanks and soldiers patrol your neighbourhood. Or when your relatives are arrested. Or when all your assets are seized. Or when your electricity, water, gas, and Internet are cut off. Etcetera.

You clearly have no fucking idea how an insurgency works, or just how big a body sink controlling any decently sized city is for an occupational force, let alone a country full of them. As I sourced earlier, nearly 50% of the total manpower across all branches of the armed forces is reserve capacity, including NG. These forces have an extremely high likelihood of just flat out disappearing should they be called to muster in such a scenario, as proven by government war-gaming/scenario planning. (Same agency that did the zombie outbreak probability testing several years ago). This group also is a large force multiplier of logistical support for the active duty branch, and is often in direct support of it. Now imagine if suddenly, half of your force comprising mainly of the logistical elements suddenly isn't there when needed....

I live in Australia. We have far more freedom and far few mass shootings than America.

I'm sorry that you live in a hellhole where everything wants to kill you. Thank god you banned all the dangerous things though.

Stay Free M8.

These 'revolutionaries' would be bombed to pieces before they got anywhere near any airbases.

Ha ha, yeah no. Most military bases in the US don't even have a parameter fence outside highly traveled areas, and even the areas that do have them are often poorly manned/guarded. But don't take my word for it.......

Well, that might be true actually. But we have a far higher living standard, and that is what really matters.

I very much doubt that.

These 'revolutionaries' would be bombed to pieces before they got anywhere near any airbases.

You have a really piss poor understanding of how guerilla warfare works lol

^ Agreed.

I can't see guerrilla movements in developed countries happening any time soon, save an apocalypse of some sort. The armed forces of developed countries have great equipment, great infrastructure, great organisation, great communication, and great command. Any rebel force will be crushed in short order.

"In 2018, Small Arms Survey reported that there are over one billion small arms distributed globally, of which 857 million (about 85 percent) are in civilian hands.[1][2] U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms.[2] This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents."

If even only 1% of gun owners in America decide to take up arms and openly resist the government, you are looking at the biggest insurgency the world has ever seen. Let that sink in for just a second....

Not if the military bombs all areas where the rebels could be hiding or getting support from.

Good job, you just bombed all your own cities and made them even more popular.

It's almost like he wants the insurgency to win.

Then maybe the problem is the civilians and not the guns?

Yes. Perhaps they need to be pacified.

Please, by all means, feel free to try first hand. I look forward to hearing how successful you were in this endeavor.

That is why any type of revolution or civil war in developed countries is incredibly unlikely. Why risk peace and prosperity?

Because anger and hatred are some damn good drugs.

"All that hate's gonna burn you up inside, kid."

"It keeps me warm at night."