Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That is kind of the point.

Why on Earth would you want to sound authoritarian?

Some people exist to merely boot-lick the state.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Wouldn’t any type of authoritarian be anti gun on the basis it lets people fight the government?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Why on Earth would you want to sound authoritarian?

Some people exist to merely boot-lick the state.

To be fair I’d also probably boot lick an authoritarian government that lets me live so long as I do that

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Some people exist to merely boot-lick the state.

To be fair I’d also probably boot lick an authoritarian government that lets me live so long as I do that

He prefers/advocates for an authoritarian government though. Unless you prefer one too, then you're probably not in the same category.

[Internationalist Bastard]

To be fair I’d also probably boot lick an authoritarian government that lets me live so long as I do that

He prefers/advocates for an authoritarian government though. Unless you prefer one too, then you're probably not in the same category.

I often flirt with authoritarian democracy but I always come home to the democratic principles I married.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Wouldn’t any type of authoritarian be anti gun on the basis it lets people fight the government?

No. If the people are in favor, you might as well arm them against the dissenting few if those decide to rise up.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Wouldn’t any type of authoritarian be anti gun on the basis it lets people fight the government?

No. If the people are in favor, you might as well arm them against the dissenting few if those decide to rise up.

But what’s the point in being authoritarian if the vast majority of people support everything you do anyway?

[Soviet Tankistan]

No. If the people are in favor, you might as well arm them against the dissenting few if those decide to rise up.

But what’s the point in being authoritarian if the vast majority of people support everything you do anyway?

Security. People always bring authoritarianism after any revolution, even if fighting it was the point. It can be watered down like the more liberal America or very evident, but it will always exist in those countries until a revolution gives the country a different form of authoritarianism.

[Telconi]

No. If the people are in favor, you might as well arm them against the dissenting few if those decide to rise up.

But what’s the point in being authoritarian if the vast majority of people support everything you do anyway?

Gotta squash that minority who says boo.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

But what’s the point in being authoritarian if the vast majority of people support everything you do anyway?

Security. People always bring authoritarianism after any revolution, even if fighting it was the point. It can be watered down like the more liberal America or very evident, but it will always exist in those countries until a revolution gives the country a different form of authoritarianism.

By that logic every country is authoritarian. If that's what you're arguing then while yes, every country has degrees of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a spectrum, and some are a lot closer to the authoritarian end then others.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Security. People always bring authoritarianism after any revolution, even if fighting it was the point. It can be watered down like the more liberal America or very evident, but it will always exist in those countries until a revolution gives the country a different form of authoritarianism.

By that logic every country is authoritarian. If that's what you're arguing then while yes, every country has degrees of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a spectrum, and some are a lot closer to the authoritarian end then others.

Libertarianism isn’t realistic. Human nature defaults to authority.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

By that logic every country is authoritarian. If that's what you're arguing then while yes, every country has degrees of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a spectrum, and some are a lot closer to the authoritarian end then others.

Libertarianism isn’t realistic. Human nature defaults to authority.

That's not an argument against anything I said.

[British Tackeettlaus]

Wouldn’t any type of authoritarian be anti gun on the basis it lets people fight the government?

Not necessarily. One big gun lobby lie is that Hitler took the guns. He did - from Jews and other "undesirables". Amongst "Aryans" gun ownership and practice was encouraged as a way to further militarize the population.

Edit: but on topic, if you are a revolutionary communist you probably should encourage gun ownership and the formation of leftist militias.

[Tobleste]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

I think the only real reason to be pro gun is if you are extremely sceptical of government to the point that you'd accept a higher death rate than most countries just to stop them from regulating guns. A law system that allows easy access to guns would make any form of society harder.

[Anagonia]

In my honest opinion, culturally restricting being "pro-gun" to any political spectrum is not only dangerous to a democratic nation, but also threatens the lives of citizens. It should be an equal right to gun ownership, regardless of whether it's for hobby play, hunting, or defense. A community and nation cannot coexist separated on differences entirely, there has to be some unifying aspect that binds them together. Being pro-gun, oddly enough, has historically shown to be a unifying factor even among the most politically diverse. I think it should be encouraged, regardless of your political affiliations.

[Tobleste]

In my honest opinion, culturally restricting being "pro-gun" to any political spectrum is not only dangerous to a democratic nation, but also threatens the lives of citizens. It should be an equal right to gun ownership, regardless of whether it's for hobby play, hunting, or defense. A community and nation cannot coexist separated on differences entirely, there has to be some unifying aspect that binds them together. Being pro-gun, oddly enough, has historically shown to be a unifying factor even among the most politically diverse. I think it should be encouraged, regardless of your political affiliations.

How has it been politically unifying?

[Aclion]

In my honest opinion, culturally restricting being "pro-gun" to any political spectrum is not only dangerous to a democratic nation, but also threatens the lives of citizens. It should be an equal right to gun ownership, regardless of whether it's for hobby play, hunting, or defense. A community and nation cannot coexist separated on differences entirely, there has to be some unifying aspect that binds them together. Being pro-gun, oddly enough, has historically shown to be a unifying factor even among the most politically diverse. I think it should be encouraged, regardless of your political affiliations.

How has it been politically unifying?

Because the arguments in favor of civilian gun ownership cross the left/right barriers. Both leftist and liberals have foundational thinkers that argued that civilian gun ownership is the fountain of a free society.

[Ors Might]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

I think the only real reason to be pro gun is if you are extremely sceptical of government to the point that you'd accept a higher death rate than most countries just to stop them from regulating guns. A law system that allows easy access to guns would make any form of society harder.

There’s also the very real fact that some people are physically weaker than most and live in rather dangerous areas, hence the need for protection. For me, it’s both this, a few other reasons, and the reason that you provided.

[Tobleste]

How has it been politically unifying?

Because the arguments in favor of civilian gun ownership cross the left/right barriers. Both leftist and liberals have foundational thinkers that argued that civilian gun ownership is the fountain of a free society.

I'm not sure they do. At least access to guns as easy as it is in America is very divisive. Based on the fact that other countries have nothing like Americas gun culture and many are more democratic, there's no real correlation between gun ownership and freedom.

[Tobleste]

I think the only real reason to be pro gun is if you are extremely sceptical of government to the point that you'd accept a higher death rate than most countries just to stop them from regulating guns. A law system that allows easy access to guns would make any form of society harder.

There’s also the very real fact that some people are physically weaker than most and live in rather dangerous areas, hence the need for protection. For me, it’s both this, a few other reasons, and the reason that you provided.

And some people are physically weaker, psychotic and want a weapon to kill. Unless physically weaker people are less likely to misuse guns I don't see what problems are solved.

[Ors Might]

There’s also the very real fact that some people are physically weaker than most and live in rather dangerous areas, hence the need for protection. For me, it’s both this, a few other reasons, and the reason that you provided.

And some people are physically weaker, psychotic and want a weapon to kill. Unless physically weaker people are less likely to misuse guns I don't see what problems are solved.

The problem of me being mugged by a physically superior assaulter is lessened at least somewhat by my capacity to defend myself from them. Unless we are going to assume that there will never be anyone anywhere who will be in need of the ability to defend themselves from someone much stronger than them, there will always be a reason to need a firearm. You want to restrict access to firearms, I get that even if I disagree, but they are objectively useful for leveling the playing field.

[Telconi]

There’s also the very real fact that some people are physically weaker than most and live in rather dangerous areas, hence the need for protection. For me, it’s both this, a few other reasons, and the reason that you provided.

And some people are physically weaker, psychotic and want a weapon to kill. Unless physically weaker people are less likely to misuse guns I don't see what problems are solved.

Inequality.

[Tobleste]

And some people are physically weaker, psychotic and want a weapon to kill. Unless physically weaker people are less likely to misuse guns I don't see what problems are solved.

The problem of me being mugged by a physically superior assaulter is lessened at least somewhat by my capacity to defend myself from them. Unless we are going to assume that there will never be anyone anywhere who will be in need of the ability to defend themselves from someone much stronger than them, there will always be a reason to need a firearm. You want to restrict access to firearms, I get that even if I disagree, but they are objectively useful for leveling the playing field.

Fair enough but the attacker can use them to level the playing field as well.

[Ors Might]

The problem of me being mugged by a physically superior assaulter is lessened at least somewhat by my capacity to defend myself from them. Unless we are going to assume that there will never be anyone anywhere who will be in need of the ability to defend themselves from someone much stronger than them, there will always be a reason to need a firearm. You want to restrict access to firearms, I get that even if I disagree, but they are objectively useful for leveling the playing field.

Fair enough but the attacker can use them to level the playing field as well.

Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.

[Telconi]

Fair enough but the attacker can use them to level the playing field as well.

Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.

A level playing field is worse than one which benefits the criminal?