ඞඞඞ

Yes, Karl Marx wrote:

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

"To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [bourgeois], the workers must be armed and organized."

Like, I'm all for gun laws. But unfortunately a lot of crazy shit is legal, and a lot of people are crazy.

Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.

I don't think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.

Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606's comment, but:

• I think it's worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
• Not everything Marx said was gospel.

Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.

Mussolini didn’t end up hanging upside down in an Italian town square because of protests.

While you're right that the people who killed Mussolini were armed dissidents, it's worth remembering that he was allowed to be taken after being deposed after a vote of no confidence from the fascist government of Italy after they got their shit kicked in a few times militarily, and it was the King who removed and presumably arrested him before the citizens did their thing.

And also, the Allies were plowing a path of destruction towards Italy.

Moral of the story: no great story is as simple as we need it to be. There is still politics, there are still decisions by the ruling class that allow the next steps to happen and that ruling class can have their will bent. We still need to be involved in the political system, armed mobs cause as much harm as good even in the best of circumstances, so we want to avoid that if possible, but we need to also have that force behind us or the politics won't work.

To rephrase this line

Protests only work if the person you're protesting gives a shit what you think.

Protests only work when you directly affect their vested interests. They don't care about you or what you think. Period. Yet, they do care about something.

Organize. Find out what those vested interests are. Hold them hostage. Create the credible threat that if they do not start representing our interests, as is their assumed role of the position they have been appointed to, then we will royally fuck it up and hit them where it hurts.

Then, it doesn't matter if they care what we think, we have established our authority and made it known that it will be enforced with immediate consequences. If they want their authority as a government official then they will respect our authority as their constituency or else.

Most of all, be prepared for them to retaliate and defend their interests. To deter us and threaten us to stand down. These are the times in history where we can't back down. We cannot give in to them just to save our own skin when it comes at the cost of, if allowed to continue, the skins of millions of others under the boot of their oppression.

We fight and stand our ground knowing that we may possibly die, but also possibly survive and save millions of lives, or we do nothing, let millions fall to their atrocities, until they finally turn their sights on us and we die with regret that we didn't even attempt to stop them.

They can't do this without us so, if they want to go this route, we need to be ready to sink the whole goddamn ship so they don't get their cake and eat it too. Mutually assured destruction is not just a nuclear deterrent. The best part is, us workers can rebuild. We built this all to begin with. The owning class assholes, if they get rid of us, will live out their final moments in a burned out husk surrounded by resources with no ability to use them. They will be Kings of nothing, to die of thirst surrounded by water with nothing but their imaginary wealth to keep them company.

WRONG.

It’s past time to get your guns. We (I vote Democrat and live in a blue state) have banned most guns.

Great fucking job.

Oh and btw most (as in >50%) gun deaths in the USA are from suicide where how the gun functions or how many bullets it holds at one time are irrelevant. Pity that no political party in America gives a shit about all those miserable souls who want to die. Easier to ban guns and disarm ourselves in the face of fascists who’ve taken over our nation.

Like I said… great fucking job. Quick, someone removed about Palestine, that’ll surely help.

And nothing, certainly not military technology, has changed since he wrote that in 1850.

It's honestly crazy that we have the "right" to bear arms and the "right" to protest, but half the country cannot protest while bearing arms. Meanwhile, police are shooting people's eyes out and trampling them with horses.

I tried several times in the last few days to articulate the points you're making. well said

And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody's getting hurt. I guarantee it.

And there's the real case for private ownership.

If you have the choice of being disappeared and killed...or being disappeared and killed while taking a few of them with you, definitely choose the latter.

It won't help you, but if you do it, your neighbor does it, and the next 10, 20...50 people do it, eventually two things are going to happen: if it's local forces, they're gonna start needing help, and if it's not local, it forces those powers into a more difficult decision of having to either get more overt with their fascism or backing off. It's not ideal but that's pretty much the options you have.

If they want to do all the shitty fascist things, don't let them do it easily and for free. The higher ups might not care, but that local cop in the red hat might start to think twice when "his" government keeps asking him to haul away people, and each time, another of his friends goes down. If not from a place of shifting world view, then maybe from self preservation.

I'm sick of the 2A people doing fuck all beyond barricading their own doors

Turns out they hate women more than they love guns.

They took away black people's gun in the past. Specifically their guns. It wouldn't be the first time.

Nobody is taking the guns from Americans, because nobody has the balls or the numbers of enforcers to do it.

For reference, the number of Americans who came out to the No Kings Day protests was larger than the sum total of all enlisted US Military and police officers. Next look at the number of Americans who own guns, it's much larger than all of the above.

Kind of unrelated, but this was the point where the wool fell off my eyes and I realized his base will tolerate anything from him. Before, a statement like this from any national level politician would be an overnight end to their career, regardless of party, the supposed "Constitutionalists" would go unhinged.

But yeah you're exactly right, the moment there is a whiff of leftist elements publicly arming and gaining momentum, we will see favorability for* sweeping gun control. The gun control we have today is largely a response to the right getting terrified of the successes the vocally armed Black Panthers. So get armed, quietly. They have no intentions of this being a 4 or even 8 year administration, the evidence is spilling out of everywhere you look.

Mag dumping each other for fun and profit.

I'm not American, but I consider myself left wing, and I am pro gun but I am also pro gun control. I don't think outright banning them is a solution but I also don't think letting them out in the world unchecked is a good idea either.

EU gun restrictions don't come from the left?

Not sorry to burst your bubble: Democrats are left by basic definitions of left & political classifications, historical record, and usual knowledge of political scientists & analysts.

Definitely just the USA. I mentioned earlier that I really respect NZ deciding to disarm after their last public shooting. That's something that could really happen when corruption is that low and people are educated and healthy.

It's definitely not just an American thing.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." -Karl Marx

America does have a "unique" culture around guns, but that's not all that prevalent on the left. What's driving interest in guns is the sad fact that we might need to use them.

I don't know. I don't think we really are good at deciding who should and shouldn't have a right. there seems to be something fundamentally broken in that

Being pro gun, doesn't have to mean you're against sensible gun laws though

A true Liberal wants 100% deregulation. It is odd the reject MAGATs thinks the Liberals, Communists and Socialists are the same. Far fucking from it.

In a civilised society, you don't fear every random passerby will try to kill you, so it is irrelevant what they are carrying.

Pretty much my thoughts. I had someone ask me if I would give up my guns to save children, and or course I would! Thing is it wouldn't. It just be one less rational person unarmed and neck presented for stepping on. If we had a main wide disarmament(which would include the fucking cops!) I ain't giving up shit.

Why though? It's not like people are getting kidnapped off the street oh wait

Same here.

To me it's a useless item.

I saw a competition where competitors would stand on a blue square and quickly shoot all the blue targets that popped up, then move to a red square and shoot the red ones. It was timed and looked like a ton of fun. I thought, this would be the only reason I would buy one. But you know, I have a lot of hobbies. That looked real expensive. I would have to hang around gun ranges and gun people. There would be a dangerous weapon in the house. We don't have kids but visitors do. My wife doesn't want it. In the end I just didn't want it.

I have a lot of friends who are Democrats and a lot of them own guns. I laugh every time Republicans say Dems want to take their guns. I'm like, no, they just want some simple safety rules and the strange thing is 80% of all gun owners used to to. I don't know if that's still true but the number came from the NRA a decade or two ago. Yeah, THE NRA. They even used to be in favor of an automatic weapons ban.

I don't think more guns is the answer, but I can kind of see the logic for a lefty to want to defend himself...or his country.

I've had my FOID for about 17 years. Never felt the need either. Now we're going to the range and shopping guns. Makes more sense to be armed than not in this current climate.

Leftists have guns. Liberals don't. Leftists realize that force has to be countered by force. Liberals don't want to contribute to the problem of too many guns and don't want to buy from the gun manufacturers. Leftists have arsenals.

if I lived almost anywhere else I wouldn't. NZ voted away their rights recently and I respect that. Japan probably should have thought it through a little more. but America is insano-country. legal corruption, the wealthy using indirect forms of violence, direct violence from the police. it's the kind of conditions that require communities to build ways of defending themselves. also the people in power want us unarmed for different reasons than you want to be unarmed.

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers should be frustrated, by force if necessary

I think it's Pandora's box, once opened it can't be closed.

I understand there have been instances where it's been closed in other countries, but I just can't see that vision working in the US society.

If it were swords, we wouldn't want to the only people without swords in a place bristling with swords.

Weapons are force-multipliers and we have too many people willing to use force, including our own fucking government, which was the idea to begin with; don't have a government that can do whatever because they have all the force.

In fact, you can even demand a kingdom without swords while carrying a sword. They do not cancel each other out.

The problem is there are more guns than there are people. You can't close Pandora's box, or ignore the fact your stupid, drunk, Trump-worshiping neighbor takes his guns for walks around your neighborhood. The concept of being anti-gun here is asinine.

Not everyone needs one, but ignoring the fact many should have them is ignoring reality. When the school bully is an old, racist, angry dude with an armory, you either learn to meet them where they are, or risk the lives of you and your family.

I think a lot of us confuse the tool capacity (hunting, self-defense) with actual "safety" and the powers that be in the government let the gun rights argument continue so that people keep wasting money on arms and ammunition, and the businesses lobbying those in charge get to keep selling generally unregulated or underegulated.

I hate guns, but without a doubt, the best way to have common sense guns policies is for the minorities the right hates to be armed.

best case scenario I'm wrong and guns are good for the cause, we win. worse case scenario and we get less rednecks with machine guns. unless the outcome is straight up fascism that only bans minorities they hate to have guns, in which case they really do need guns so they can at least try a revolt before ending in a concentration camp anyways.

The right wing will only defend disarmament when they feel like they're being targeted.

Rising up against the government is a LARPy roleplay fantasy by people who don't have community or culture.

However, making your insane, fascist government think twice before knocking down random doors in random neighborhoods lest they face a hail of gunfire, that is almost a necessity right now.

This country has too much wealth and resources that a lot of people would love to control, Trump is just the first to succeed at getting into the vault, but there have been many, many others who would have taken the US by force from within given the means.

Yes, better social policies and better international relations would have done a better job mitigating that, but we didn't get that, so here we are. Huddled behind our weapons and hoping they scare the monsters enough that they leave us alone.

drones are not effective against an insurgency.

as a matter of fact name when america has won a war against an insurgency? considering that america has due to distance from their theaters of war, has an untouchable war machine, and unlimited money, logistical supremicy, training, weapons, intelligence. ect. i have to go back to 1770 to get two solid examples

Probably not AI driven since that still sucks ass, but yes, remotely operated drones are the future/present of urban warfare.

It won't be done with militia. These guys are likely to just get Luigi'ed.

Aren't they literally a right though?

:: checks username ::

:: laughs ::