What is it about the pro-gun left that seems to break the minds of the right?
The idea that your enemies are just as interested in arming themselves as you are should be easily accepted common sense, but right-wingers will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging this basic fact. There's something odd going on when seeing your first reaction to seeing your enemies arming themselves is claiming that it's all some sort of elaborate hoax. What's the deal with this?
Other urls found in this thread:
It destroys their narrative that the left is nothing but ``cucks'' and pansies.
Whoops, left an extra "seeing" in there.
Anything that compromises their narrative is going to be met with butthurt. It's a bit like Trump supporting the Saudis and having former Goldman Sachs bankers in his cabinet along with the fact that he loves Israel.
Why are you running away from that thread, instead of actually engaging with the people you are talking about?
Dead thread, no one's responding anymore.
Because we've already had this shitpost today.
The democrats are the party in america that tries to ban guns. That is where "your side wants to take guns" comes from. I don't see why its so hard to understand that.
this pretty much. as long as the democrats are considered left, anything they do will be associated with and blamed on leftists
just another victory for the propaganda system
Reminder to bully everyone on this board that lets the Democrat branding of leftist slide.
There's a big difference between conflating the Democrats with the Left and this weird outright refusal to believe that lefties could ever be pro-gun.
not really. in their minds, "left" means anti-gun. they're inseparable
it's just how their ideology works
They conflate themselves with the left. Everywhere they go, they call themselves the left and, furthermore, they demonize everybody who isn't them as being on the "right" or being a "fascist". If you want to stop it, kill the source first, they're absolutely awful.
You guys obviously don't know what I'm talking about.
The problem isn't them equating us with the Left. It's people autistically insisting that we're the true "Left" even if it's unlikely we'll convince a majority.
The whole left-right divide is part of the liberal circus anyway. Did Marx identify as "left"? Did Lenin identify as "left"?
"Left" since it's earliest days that it became a thing has always been bourgeois liberalism. We're really losing out by clinging to a term that has never meant "socialism" from the very beginning.
You're butthurt Democrats consider themselves but then are confused when people say the left are anti gun
you're saying rightists find it impossible to grasp the idea that leftists might own or want to own guns, yes?
Yes, actually, you stupid cunt?
Fucking hell, you're can't be this bloody stupid. Kys.
Mind providing a source on that? Because I can't find it anywhere. (And I mean explicitly "left", not socialist, radical, etc.)
The whole origin of the term dates back to the French revolution. The "Left" back then were the merchant class, the nouveau riche: bourgeois to the core.
The idea of the "left" back then being some form of proto-socialists runs contrary to the historical reality. (Nominally identifying as "egalitarian" is not the same as pushing for socialism) Socialism may have grown out of, but the "left" wasn't originally socialist.
I would've, but considering how English works, it's too much of a bother. You have to take me up on my word. You don't think I'd lie about this, do you?
Yes. And?
no one is concerned about your airsoft gun collection
because the left hates god and guns
4/10 I reacted
It would certainly convince me. Is it something that was lost in his works' translation to English?
Imagine if we started calling ourselves fascists. (even though Socialism and Fascism don't compute). Then imagine every time someone accused us of being totalitarians we'd insist they are wrong, and that Mussolini and his gang never were fascists to begin with.
That's about the level of silliness we're on here.
If you're annoyed at liberals calling themselves left you shouldn't be surprised. Because Liberals have been the Left from the beginning. Bourgeois and explicitly pro-capitalist.
Now people can continue clinging to it even though it's utterly autistic and does little to win us followers, or we can just call ourselves socialists and explain how we have nothing in common with bourgeois idpol liberal left.
Are you aware that the word "left" has more than one meaning in the English language?
No, we aren't. Nobody ever says that commies are the same people who did the French revolution. Stop being stupid, you stupid idiot.
Yank liberals don't call themselves left because they actually care about the French revolution, you impossible cretin. They do that because they're one of the two parties with real power, and if they didn't pay lip service to the left, they'd lose their voting base. Jesus fucking Christ, I can't believe a human being can be such a complete retard. Fuck off and die in a fire, imbecile.
WEW LAD, those fallacies are sticking out like a sore thumb.
How I was it was the rich were the ones in power and landowners exploiting the poor. The poor rose up against those in power and overthrew them. It was oviously the poor that were at the least not captitalist because that would be siding with the landowners and they can't be authoritarian because they are against the ruling class. So they were for personal freedoms and encompass slightly to majorly left on the spectrum.
Nowdays, I think the libertarian and or green party should take the lead insead of the dictators.
What would be your dream- gun, Holla Forums (for anons who don't own them)?
SKS.
Pic related
Just give me Salvador Allende's AK-47 from Castro and I'll be happy.
AK74SU
vz 58
AK-47 obviously
LARP-tier
customised ar-15, as long as there's enough .223 to go around
Settle down, Laclau.
Probably a FAL, old and reliable. Otherwise one of the modern updates of the AK platform in 5.45, like a AK12, because that is the caliber that is most prevalent in my country's military.
Does poor babba want a picatinny?
Pick one
He asked about dream guns and you niggers posted guns any asshole can get. Like honestly, it's not even like you wanted a particular AK or SKS. This is like your dream car being a used V6 Mustang.
Oh, it was more because I live in a place of pretty well restricted guns and I really like the AK74, so would be very lucky to get my hands on one. If the realms of realism is not involved I'd like an AS VAL with one of those fancy new scopes that tracks targets and highlights where to aim before it fires, specially calibrated. It would be unfairly OP.
My mistake. Forgot not everyone is amerifag.
To be fair one of them said Salvador Allende's personal gun given to him by Castro, the one he supposedly killed himself with.
Even if AK-47's are all over the place that specific one would cost a small fortune and I'm not sure it even exists anymore.
Mista's revolver.
It's probably being held by some clueless rebel somewhere.
Do leftists like AR-15's or any Western made weapon?
If you're American, you should like it, or at least acknowledge that it's the best choice in the states. I like it very much. I learned on an M4, and have never been tempted to own one of the many AK variants. An AR does everything.
What brands would your recommend, what price range?
Aero Precision and BCM are my favorites right now. Avoid keymod handguards. I own one, but MLOK is better. Colt is always good, but overpriced. Palmetto State Armory has good shit on sale, just don't buy their PTAC line. Make sure you have a tighter twist than 1:9. I like 1:7, but 1:8 works. Get as heavy a buffer as will reliably cycle (h is good for 99% of everything out there), and try to get mil-spec parts. PSA had some issues using cast parts in their BCGs, so for that, just buy an Aero or BCM BCG, since PSA sells their shit without most of the time.
You can get a good rifle for about $600, but always consider peripheral equipment. You're going to need magazines, sights, a sling, a weapon light (more than a red dot), a carrying case (to take it out to the range), a cleaning kit, and other stuff if you're more into it. Load bearing gear will also be something you will want if you're going to learn how to really use it. By my own independent estimate, it would take about $4k per man to equip you with everything you need to fight effectively, and that doesn't include ammo, food, training hours, expensive equipment like NODs, or transport. Simply put, fighting is expensive, but guns are cheap, so get one just in case Soros-sama wants to give us some of dat cash money.
As always, the most important part is to train your body and mind. Before you worry about the rest of the gear, go out and get fit.
Also, get a good cleaning kit. Don't use those nasty steel rod GI ones. Otis makes a good kit.
Thanks Comrade!
No problem. Stay safe out there.
Well, then you are no longer "left". If you support an egalitarian bedrock for society, you cannot allow the masses to defend themselves because if they are allowed, then they will revolt. Or you're just making a case for special pleading (because arms rights extend to all people, even the 1% as they are citizens, legally speaking). Just making it out as if your own group will become the vanguard for implementing the utopia while allowing the masses a means to revolt against you when they become displeased is an untenable and debunked position to hold (with nothing to substantiate it beyond ideology).
You need to read more. The point of revolution is the abolition of class. Once that happens there will be no more 1%, which already controls the armies of the world.
What makes you think the utopia you seek to implement will annihilate the classes? On what basis can you reach this conclusion outside of your arbitrary ideology? Where is your evidence? How can you ensure the workers of tomorrow do not inherit wealth or make a fortune to become the next 1%? Like I mentioned, if you support an egalitarian bedrock for your utopia, you cannot allow the citizens, even the ones in your utopia where any and all class differences are destroyed (with no supporting evidence for why that will remain in a constant static state), to hold weapons as they will revolt. It's just a case for special pleading, like you admit to (we can have these rights, but not others).
The plan of action for every country is different, none hold the same situations and opportunities.
That implies that there is a plethora of evidence to be presented for varying degrees of the execution for the "utopia". Present them. You've just said "there are lots of different types of evidence I could present…."
Because the relationship to the MoP will change, as it does every time we change our society. Capitalism is not forever, you know this, right?
Well, it's not arbitrary. It's an observable fact that those that control the MoP are the ones that dictate how the relationship takes place. It's an observable fact that those that have to sell labor are at the mercy of those that buy it, and it's an observable fact that class can only be defined by these relationships. Make the relationship equal, and you eliminate class. That's not arbitrary, it's a demonstrable relationship.
The last 100 years of constant capitalist crisis, an the fact that there is nothing that is going to create new jobs when automation comes on line. Those that sell labor will have no choice but to revolt against those that own the world.
By eliminating private property and money. How dumb are you?
For what purpose? Because you said so? Or is it because you don't understand what we mean by anything?
We're going to need every citizen armed one way or another, and I'm not sure how citizens can really revolt against themselves anyway.
Not actually. This is to be decided by the communists in that country. I don't have the time to study the conditions lending themselves for a revolution in each country by myself alone.
As to this, it is an area of study that I will get to myself in my studies.
And the rest kill them. How hard is this for you? One percent of the population revolting in an attempt to take things away from the rest would end pretty quickly. Nice job, retard.
Except I never discussed capitalism. This was about the hypocrisy of arbitrarily selecting rights to benefit you over others that will, for the same reason, use them against you.
Nice projection, though.
Just stating how "the relationship [to the MoP] will change" doesn't actually present a valid case for how it will come forth. On what basis, outside of ideology, do you arrive to this conclusion? Where is your evidence?
Many people have taken up/taken away arms for different reasons/under different flags. Or are you saying "no, my specific ideology isn't arbitrary because taking up/away arms is mutually exclusive to my ideology". That's a laughable position. My your own admission, there are systems of governance that are as far removed from what I can assume to be your ideology, yet they engage in taking away/giving arms. It isn't mutually exclusive, therefore it is arbitrary. I am concerned with the action, not the flag it occurs under.
Yes. If I have an apple and you want to buy it, you can't just reverse the role so that you both have the apple and want to buy it from me. But this isn't about trade, but about gun rights. Stop diverging.
This isn't really a substantive point. What do you define as capitalist crises? How does job creation have anything to do with gun rights? You really want to diverge to a market discussion (or lack thereof). I didn't ask for your evidence FOR market abolition or whatever.
So, then barter is what is left? Of what? Again, gun rights, not markets.
Let's extend this to your own assertions and see how they hold up. "By eliminating private property and money." For what purpose, because you said so? Yours is an emotional claim. I am making a logical statement: you cannot allow citizens to hold arms because they will revolt against you when you arbitrarily select rights and naively assume your utopia will be free from dissent (with no evidence to back it up). It's the same argument you are using, extended to your ideal system.
Until they revolt against you for no more or less than your intentions.
You dismiss your point by admitting you cannot defend it with evidence, thus rendering it untenable. Thanks for being honest.
Yeah, how's that been going for you.
Power corrupts. You cannot assume a stance of authority by eliminating those who currently hold power and assume there will be no rationale for dissent once the proles you fight to defend observe your actions and justify their own revolt for no more noble a cause you took up in the first place. You are making a case for special pleading when your own systems of governance are in the spotlight and it reeks of hypocrisy.
You have first to explain why they would revolt in the first place.
But for what? It rests on you to explain why this will happen invariably according to you.
Evidence to what you faggot?
Your whole post is retarded and rests on the assumption that I am now somehow king instead of everyone living in a democracy. You said that equality would lead to revolt, but refuse to engage in the economic argument, and the relationship between private property, money, and labor is how class is defined, which is why there is no reason to revolt. As for your idiotic reference to barter, you should know that we plan to eliminate this too. Planning will take over and it may take forms we have not yet known, but planning is possible now and is being done now. Just look at Black Rock and see if they aren't engaging in it. The fact of the matter is that you haven't done a bit of reading, and you are so retarded that you think I'm going to somehow be ruling under communism, which is supposed to be a stateless society. Congratulations on displaying how retarded you are.
Yes, which is why we aim to eliminate it by dissolving classes, you stupid idiot. Class derives from control of the MoP, so by eliminating that, you have no way to gather more power. You're just an average schmuck, no more Napoleon, no more Stalin, no more Hitler. This is the end of history.
Basically this. Most right wingers tie their frail sense of masculinity to politics and thus see left wing politics as their opposite.
This is why they are particularists and so obsessed with seeing others as inhuman: it rationalizes the fact that the left wing has historically been far from feminine.
I guess the emigration and brain drain of the USSR just disappears when you want it to. You revolt because you observe exploitation when you cannot rationally discuss said exploitation or provide a basis for its existence without dismissing your own faculties. If that is means for revolt, then anything is. It also assumes that the masses who revolt must have a well thought-out purpose for their actions, when many naturally rebel against authoritative figures.
Follow the topic of discussion and find out. Improve your reading comprehension, for starters.
Except democracies don't have kings and I never claimed that monarchies and democracies can coexist without one trumping the other. I am glad to hear your personal input on what you think my post is ("retarded"). That's all it is, though: your opinion.
Devolution will naturally spark revolt when the masses realize what it entails not for the 1%, but for anybody with aspirations for personal success. Yes, I refuse to discuss economics because this is about gun rights and your arbitrary selectiveness when it comes to defining rights.
A society cannot exist without trade. You are advocating for a black market. And you ask why people will revolt: your ideology is rife with revolt, if it is as you claim.
"Will"? A rather great leap of faith with very little in the line of substantive evidence to land on.
What is Black Rock? I feel like this is evidence, but you need to elaborate and tie it in together. How does Black Rock substantiate your claims?
How do you intend on "abolishing" anything (like barter or private property) without centralized authority? The "banning" of anything will naturally cause rebellion. You aren't even asking to tax it first, then ban it. Just upright banning it will cause national revolt off the bat. Or they will be foolish enough to hand over power to you in your "state but don't call it that but we step in and ban 'x' when it is necessary".
What exploitation?
You didn't give a single reason why it would happen.
Removing hierarchies based on power… with power, thereby shifting the hierarchy in your favour. Great going.
Evidence? Outside of brainless ideology with no proof. Where is your evidence, or are you just making a conclusion and working backwards?
Try not to get too emotional.
If tomorrow I told you that I was taxing 'x' because I see it as being exploitive to a people, there will be dissent. Let alone banning 'x'. You are removing the freedom to 'x', which, even for people who do not possess 'x', will trigger a response. You observe the same response with gun rights, which is what this entire discussion was supposed to be about until you lot decided to deviate to substantiating your arbitrary ideology with… post hoc arguments.
An AK-107 as my special snowflake gun
that recoil compensation system is cooool
You use terms which have specific meanings for communists. Do you even know what private property means here?
You also keep asking for proof. Theory looks at the world, sees, and draws conclusions. You can not reduce theory to simple scientific experimentation as is known today inside the lab.
Narcissist, aren't you? One term is not defined in a vacuum as it is not dependent on your specific ideology. Private property is not mutually exclusive with its role (or lack thereof) under communism.
Looking at the world and drawing conclusions relies on empirical evidence. Present yours. What real world evidence have you observed?
Words have different meanings in different fileds. Are you 8 or do you really need this explained?
Marxism is not empiricism. Sociology and politics is not done in a laboratory, they are inevitably conditioned by their underlying interests.
One basic thing, for example, are classes. There are, basically, those who have to sell their labour to survive, and those who buy this labour and extract surplus value from it. These are proletarians, and bourgeois, respectively.
Yes. We were discussing gun rights, then you demonstrated your blind loyalty to your arbitrary ideology by making 'private property' mutually exclusive with its communist definition. Not really debating the point, just raising semantic arguments with no real substance. Nice try, though. Hypocrisy still exists in your arbitrary selectiveness of rights.
So what "real world evidence" are you talking about? You just refuted your statement earlier.
Not all evidence is observed inside of a laboratory. Not all real world evidence is observed inside of a lab, either. You claimed you had some, so provide it.
The prostitute chooses to sell her body. She has the freedom from taking part in the sex market. In what world does freedom from 'x' equate to coercion?
If I sign up to work for some guy, what "surplus" is he stealing from me? Who voluntarily signs up to have their assets robbed? Or do you mean to assert that my labour is the determining factor behind ownership, despite any terms I might have signed onto when I was first employed? Miners own the diamonds they mine? If you want that to be the case, go work for yourself. Then, you own what you create for yourself. You don't automatically own what you create/harvest/produce/etc. when you work for somebody else. Nobody owes you anything just because you work for them. Just having a false sense of entitlement, that waiting tables makes it so that your pay must be substantially increased without regards for your merit or the contract you signed onto is telling of why Marxism and empiricism are not related/why Marxism does not employ evidence-based assertions.
There series of posts you have made prove to me that you have not updated your particular type of trolling at all from the last time I engaged you. I have seen this before: putting words in the other's mouth, equivocating terminology, derailing the discussion as you do in that autistic tirade at the end of your post, asking for hard proof as is this were a physics class, then accusing one of being ideological when responded to, being blatantly idealistic with scenarios disconnected from context, and more.
Unless you are going come back here again in good faith, I can only recommend an act to you: kill yourself.
For a detailed guide, see the pic to the left of this text.
All that effort and you couldn't substantiate your claims with the "real world evidence" you claimed you had here:
If all else fails, just tell the other party to kill themselves. Great job with that intellectual honesty. You have yet to present the point you're trying to make beyond semantic arguments, nor have you argued the main point, which was arbitrarily selecting rights/hypocrisy of expecting no dissent when you ban 'x'.
"Proof" is not an equation. The word "proof" is not confined within equations. I'm asking for your proof. If you claim 'x' occurred, where is 'x'? How can you ascertain the existence of 'x' as you claim?
Instead, just tell them to kill themselves. When given the opportunity to retort, that's all you managed to put forward. Given how you think that is a valid use of your brainpower, let's extend the same logic to yourself.
"Kill yourself"
He's right though. AK's don't have available ammo in most western countries, you're better off with an AR or a FAL for protracted conflicts in the west.
...
And yet you respond. Even in your "le funny faec replies", you show your hypocrisy: haha lololo wasting time responding let me put the meme arrows to make it more of a joke haha.
Try providing evidence. Oops, I forgot that always means an equation for physics (funny how you get to manipulate definitions to fit what you want them to mean to shy away from substantiating your claims, but private property is dependent on its communist definition and not the other way around).
...
By not typing anything or presenting your point outside of "you dummy", you cede any position you might have presented earlier, thus rendering it untenable. Willingly withdrawing your involvement, ceding the stance in my favour.
Your trolling is too weak. Try again.
By not typing anything or presenting your point outside of "you dummy", you cede any position you might have presented earlier, thus rendering it untenable. Willingly withdrawing your involvement, ceding the stance in my favour.
Thanks for playing. Dialogue is a two-way street, so refusing to defend your point is submission.
Вы слишком аутичный.
By not typing anything or presenting your point outside of "you dummy", you cede any position you might have presented earlier, thus rendering it untenable. Willingly withdrawing your involvement, ceding the stance in my favour.
Thanks for playing. Dialogue is a two-way street, so refusing to defend your point is submission.(Save your (you)s)
This guy understands dialogue.
Well, fiat currency is just currency with no commodities to back up its worth. No gold standard, for example. Or any commodity set as standard.
Not sure how that has any relevance to my point, as I never discussed currency, but I can do that now. Just take a step back and observe how far we've deviated from the original topic.
Commodities aren't necessarily backed by any labour. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Likewise, having a currency that is fiat actually removes the necessity for labour if your argument rests on commodities being produced necessarily by labour. Fiat is not backed by commodities, or labour.
Bigger thread here:
most leftists are dweebs or harmless normies, right wingers think of themselves as masculine. They also (the NEETs and normies turned Nazis that is) think that they own all the guns and are infiltrated completely into the military and LE agencies. So, the existence of leftists especially those with military or law enforcement background, is highly challenging to this hegemonic view they hold and the total lack of respect for the physical prowess of leftists (which isn't without merit). Its like seeing a functional un-married couple or a smart black person it freaks people out, its weird to see.
It's only the Far-Right that seems to care.
I have a lot of Rightist Libertarian friends that are fine with Leftists owning guns. We even go shooting together.
I'm cool with the left owning guns.
Who said they're not?
The far right mostly
They think were cucks. They think were liberals. Us owning guns undermines all of that.
I've always been interested in the AN-94
get a real mans gun you pussy leftist faggot.
Wrong, right wing retards only see the world as being black and white. They can't understand the complexity of the real world and thus result to objective(right or wrong) ideologies.
Oh I don't know maybe it has to do with tankies plotting and threatening to kill them? Gee i wonder hmmm