Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Greater Loegria]

New guy here:
What is the consensus here on the right to bare arms? I am not entirely right-wing but feel very strongly that firearms laws should be extremely permissive.

As a gruff tory of the shire I have a few shotguns and rifles at home (and in my university shooting club armoury), but those are for recreation and to say otherwise will land you in trouble. I wish we could possess weaponry for self defence here and more weaponry at that like handguns and assault rifles.

[Confederate States of German America]

Y’all got a handy list of National Syndicalist tenets, lads?

Not exactly what you want, but a useful primer: The Twenty Six Point Program of the Falange

[Confederate States of German America]

Superman is the epitome of the Liberal conception of America, while Batman is the Rightist realization of what must be done in an American context.

The Punisher is a hundred times better than Batman don't even @ me

> inb4 Marvel vs D.C. shitposting war

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Y’all got a handy list of National Syndicalist tenets, lads?

Not exactly what you want, but a useful primer: The Twenty Six Point Program of the Falange

Falangism ping-pongs a lot between rightist and leftist ideals, and while I may disagree with certain points, most of it is actually rather grounded in reality and quite palatable.

Dunno why it’s so shat upon.

Also, "duty to work"...I just nutted.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Superman is the epitome of the Liberal conception of America, while Batman is the Rightist realization of what must be done in an American context.

But... Batman's not much less heroic or not much more pragmatic than Superman. Heck, which one of them has a no kill rule after all? They're both sorta liberal.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Superman is the epitome of the Liberal conception of America, while Batman is the Rightist realization of what must be done in an American context.

The Punisher is a hundred times better than Batman don't even @ me

What about the punisher is better than Batman?

[Confederate States of German America]

Not exactly what you want, but a useful primer: The Twenty Six Point Program of the Falange

Falangism ping-pongs a lot between rightist and leftist ideals, and while I may disagree with certain points, most of it is actually rather grounded in reality and quite palatable.

Dunno why it’s so shat upon.

Also, "duty to work"...I just nutted.

The ping-pong is kinda the point, and the rationale for much of the Far-Rightist thought at the time. There was a fundamental realization that the Left did have a valid point in terms of the effect of modern capitalist society on the common people and that this truth was engendering class warfare that was endangering nation as a whole; they were tempered, however, by the knowledge that private property and monetary incentive was ingrained facets of the human psyche. Thus, they picked what they wanted from both spectrums to create a third position that could best, as they saw it, cure the ailments of the nation.

As for why it's disliked, it should be obvious. Most of the Azul Division guys were Falangists and they were keen to join the war on the Axis side. Falangism at its core is also a deeply socially conservative belief system, as well as militaristic and nationalistic. That duty to work is another element to the dislike of it; it's a firm rejection of many cultural tendencies in the Western world today.

[Confederate States of German America]

Superman is the epitome of the Liberal conception of America, while Batman is the Rightist realization of what must be done in an American context.

But... Batman's not much less heroic or not much more pragmatic than Superman. Heck, which one of them has a no kill rule after all? They're both sorta liberal.

Not at all; Batman at his core is about the average man recognizing the normal way of things does not work, and that men of action must step up and do what needs to be done with unmitigated violence and outside the bounds of the law.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Punisher is a hundred times better than Batman don't even @ me

What about the punisher is better than Batman?

He's like Batman except he doesn't let people get out and keep doing the same shit.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

What about the punisher is better than Batman?

He's like Batman except he doesn't let people get out and keep doing the same shit.

That part of Batman has always bothered me.

[Confederate States of German America]

He's like Batman except he doesn't let people get out and keep doing the same shit.

That part of Batman has always bothered me.

I think part of that goes to the root of what Batman is; he knows that if he goes down that route, he's afraid of what he'll become because of how damaged he is from the murder of his parents. Ultimately, his ideal conception is of Justice, unvarnished. He'll do what needs to be done, but at the end of the day still is steadfast in his believe of the law.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

But... Batman's not much less heroic or not much more pragmatic than Superman. Heck, which one of them has a no kill rule after all? They're both sorta liberal.

Not at all; Batman at his core is about the average man recognizing the normal way of things does not work, and that men of action must step up and do what needs to be done with unmitigated violence and outside the bounds of the law.

Isn't Superman the same? Except unlike Batman he thinks that it should be superhumans rather than average humans taking the law into their own hands. In a way, that's even more stereotypically far-right than Batman.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What about the punisher is better than Batman?

He's like Batman except he doesn't let people get out and keep doing the same shit.

I mean, you gotta have recurring villains, and even if you didn't, letting villains get out and do the same shit doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me. Maybe it's just cuz I'm a filthy liberal at heart, but I always thought Batman's no kill rule was the grounding aspect of Batman's character, a tool used to create more interesting storytelling, and a good moral to teach the kids.

[Old Tyrannia]

New guy here:
What is the consensus here on the right to bare arms? I am not entirely right-wing but feel very strongly that firearms laws should be extremely permissive.

People shouldn't have the right to bare arms. Cover that skin up, people.

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

[Mystic Warriors]

New guy here:
What is the consensus here on the right to bare arms? I am not entirely right-wing but feel very strongly that firearms laws should be extremely permissive.

People shouldn't have the right to bare arms. Cover that skin up, people.

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

To protect ourselves from the king of England.

[Old Tyrannia]

People shouldn't have the right to bare arms. Cover that skin up, people.

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

To protect ourselves from the king of England.

There hasn't been a King of England in over 300 years, so I think you're probably safe by now.

[Greater Westralia]

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

I disagree, there's pest control for farmers, hunting for sport. I'm also sympathetic to collectors, especially historic, albeit they're a minority. What I'm saying is that there are perfectly valid reasons for civilians having access to firearms.

Now, I've noticed you said "free access". Does that mean you're fine with controlled access of firearms to civilians?

[Mystic Warriors]

To protect ourselves from the king of England.

There hasn't been a King of England in over 300 years, so I think you're probably safe by now.

Never know, gotta be safe.

[Old Tyrannia]

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

I disagree, there's pest control for farmers, hunting for sport. I'm also sympathetic to collectors, especially historic, albeit they're a minority. What I'm saying is that there are perfectly valid reasons for civilians having access to firearms.

Now, I've noticed you said "free access". Does that mean you're fine with controlled access of firearms to civilians?

Well, yes. I'm not saying no one should be allowed access to firearms. But they should be licensed to possess them and thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are trained and psychologically fit to use them.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

New guy here:
What is the consensus here on the right to bare arms? I am not entirely right-wing but feel very strongly that firearms laws should be extremely permissive.

People shouldn't have the right to bare arms. Cover that skin up, people.

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

Except there is a reason. Freedom. For a civilian to be denied access to firearms, that would mean the only people legally allowed to own firearms would be agents of the state. This means that people are heavily disimpowered should they try to form a protest or rebellion, severely diminishing motivation for the state not to be corrupt or authoritarian.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I disagree, there's pest control for farmers, hunting for sport. I'm also sympathetic to collectors, especially historic, albeit they're a minority. What I'm saying is that there are perfectly valid reasons for civilians having access to firearms.

Now, I've noticed you said "free access". Does that mean you're fine with controlled access of firearms to civilians?

Well, yes. I'm not saying no one should be allowed access to firearms. But they should be licensed to possess them and thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are trained and psychologically fit to use them.

That is gun control I can get behind.

[Old Tyrannia]

People shouldn't have the right to bare arms. Cover that skin up, people.

Permissive firearm laws are a peculiar American cultural fixation and not a universal feature of the political right. There's no good reason why civilians should have free access to firearms.

Except there is a reason. Freedom. For a civilian to be denied access to firearms, that would mean the only people legally allowed to own firearms would be agents of the state. This means that people are heavily disimpowered should they try to form a protest or rebellion, severely diminishing motivation for the state not to be corrupt or authoritarian.

You seriously believe that a rag-tag group of armed civilians stand any chance of overthrowing an authoritarian government that has the support of a modern military?

Besides, armed rebellion against lawful authority is sinful.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Gun-ownership is no guarantee of liberty or insurance against tyranny.

It's an American cultural myth. Even in America, the only cause that would unite enough militia LARPers against the gubbermint to pose even a minor threat would be taking away the guns, and if violence ensued it'd probably be seen as terrorism and cause as many to rise in favour of the government as against it, and if they pushed their luck too far they would be completely destroyed by disciplined professionals with the latest technology.

More widely, where such a culture doesn't exist, not enough people will believe it virtuous for it to make good guys with guns a thing, so it'd just mostly help potential criminals arm themselves.

For a myth it's not necessarily a harmful one, exceptionalism around a self-conception as an oasis of freedom is quite a nifty collective self-image that's more resistant than most national myths against being diluted by multiculturalism, globalism etc, but it's not something that can be universalised to other parts of the world that don't have that culture. You do you, it's not for us.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except there is a reason. Freedom. For a civilian to be denied access to firearms, that would mean the only people legally allowed to own firearms would be agents of the state. This means that people are heavily disimpowered should they try to form a protest or rebellion, severely diminishing motivation for the state not to be corrupt or authoritarian.

You seriously believe that a rag-tag group of armed civilians stand any chance of overthrowing an authoritarian government that has the support of a modern military?

Absolutely. Most of the modern military equipment people love to point to is absolutely useless in an asymmetric situation and the failure of modern militaries to crush Jihadi groups in the Mid East who often times are armed with nothing more than small arms and improvised weapons is proof of that. Drones, stealth fighters, nukes etc etc can't go door to door or keep the peace or prevent me from sneaking around and generally wreaking havoc. You need people on the ground for that, and people can be killed with even the simplest of firearms.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Except there is a reason. Freedom. For a civilian to be denied access to firearms, that would mean the only people legally allowed to own firearms would be agents of the state. This means that people are heavily disimpowered should they try to form a protest or rebellion, severely diminishing motivation for the state not to be corrupt or authoritarian.

You seriously believe that a rag-tag group of armed civilians stand any chance of overthrowing an authoritarian government that has the support of a modern military?

Besides, armed rebellion against lawful authority is sinful.

I believe the likelihood would be higher than if guns were taken, certainly, and anything unpopular enough to cause popular rebellion would probably also cause schisms in the military. And that likelihood would go a little towards the government thinking twice before becoming extremely authoritarian.

Define "lawful."