how does one debate liberals on gun control I dont want to fall into the BRICE OB BREEDOM meme. Also would we have police under socialism or would we just have citizens with guns who defend themselves.
Guns and law inforcement
You don't. You line them up against a wall to be shot.
Yes, to stop fascist-trotskyist wreckers and reactionaries, and we will have gulags too. The citizens will be disarmed for their own safety and for the protection of the central committee.
Well, one it is the price of freedom, and there's nothing wrong with that argument other than fee fees being hurt by it. Second, we would obviously have police, though not the way we have now. Mob justice just turns into lynch mobs, and nobody wants that. There must be due process, courts, and a legal system that treats the accused fairly, yes, even filthy capitalists will have their day in court before they are hanged. However, citizen ownership of firearms must always be there, because there will always be a need for them.
More like the TrashMaster.
tell them to shut the fuck up, the guns they want to outlaw are precisely the least frequently used in crime and the most suitable to resisting the government.
I understand that but your average liberal thinks things will be good and prosperous forever, an appeal to freedom never seems to mean anything to liberals who think they'll be shot if they go to any concert.
how so, obviously they would be demiliterized and prisons wouldnt be run for profit.
Then they cannot be reasoned with.
Well, for one, they wouldn't be employed as backdoor tax collectors, like most are now, and their main charge would be simply keeping the peace and investigating real crimes with actual victims, not a fucking drug war. Admittedly, if you're a criminal piece of shit, the police won't look too different. They will still likely beat your ass if you try to fight them, but they won't be protected from misconduct either. External oversight, something resisted by police orgs now, will have to be established.
Point them to the fact that activism with guns gets results, while "activism" without guns gets laughs. Look at something like Standing Rock, which was walked all over by corporations and their goons from the authorities, whereas Bundy Ranch achieved victory without firing a shot merely through some posturing.
Guns are how you get things done. They aren't necessarily violence, but most often merely the threat of violence, underscoring your sincerity.
That had everything to do with the fact that Standing Rock was natives protesting resource extraction, whereas Bundy was white militia movement members. Cops treat the two differently
The FBI shot and killed one of them. It wasn't that different.
Yeah, that's the sort of response liberals fall back on. Both got a military-grade response, both had thousands of protesters. But in only one of those cases was it clearly possible to crush the protesters without any danger, look that liberal in the eye and ask them if Standing Rock would've turned out the same with a rifle on the back of everyone there.
Yeah I will never understand why left liberals are so scared of guns. It's almost like some kind of pathological fear.
Didn't some of the guys from Bundy Ranch wind up holed up in a ranger station after a shootout with the cops?
Also most of these militia types don't give a fuck if the BLM is screwing over ranchers if the president has an R next to his name. It's all identity to them
P.s. BLM means Bureau of Land Management in this case
Eh i dont know. Its a pretty sticky subject.
Seems like they dont want to take away all guns absolutely but make them harder to obtain requiring id n such.
This sounds like a reasonable demand to a typical cud-chewing moderate, but it is in reality a wholly unreasonable demand.
A common analogy they use is "you need a license to drive a car, and using licensed cars is strictly controlled", while of course faulty, the analogy's exact fault helps illuminate the misunderstanding such people have regarding guns. A car, while of course nearly indispensable in everyday modern life, is something you can technically make do without, and is not strictly necessary for the functioning of a democratic government. Guns, on the other hand, are something large numbers of (ideally all) people must have in order to guarantee freedom and justice, without which despotism can far more easily assert itself.
The right to bear arms is and must remain a right, specifically because it is the sole guaranteer of every other right.
I'd much rather the government focus on caring for the needs of people rather than policing them. I'd feel more comfortable with some guns and no police than I would with lots of police and no guns.
What drove me out of my anti gun shit was seeing the statistical evidence of nations with comparable firearm laws without a similar proportion of firearm crime. Serbia, pre-restriction Australia, and some east Euro country near Germany where what turned me around. Another thing is to show them the ridiculousness of firearm laws, like how one gun which is the exact same as another will not be allowed because it looks spookier. The final nail in the coffin was understanding how much historical progress would have been made impossible if not for armed movements protecting them, and that the peaceful revolution was largely propaganda and a myth. The Indian revolution had extremely little to do with Gandhi and Mother Theresa (the former of which supported the Fascists and the latter of which took sick children from hospitals and murdered them so they could "be with god"), and the civil rights era would have been lynched in its cradle if not for the Deacons for Defence and other such groups.
Point out how totally out of control the police in America are (most libs would probably agree) and ask them if they honestly want them to be the only ones who are armed.
There’s a few good arguments that apply to guns in America.
In addition to what you said, I often bring up the fact that like it or not, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. Ignoring it or interpreting it in a way that renders it toothless is extremely dangerous since it sets legal precedent. Imagine if people were to apply the same reasoning to the First Ammendment, saying shit like “well the founding fathers wrote the first ammendment before mass media and the internet so they couldn’t have known the consequences of free speech, so speech should be regulated.”
Also the fact that gun control, rather than protecting people from criminals, is primarily used as a racist tool against black and Hispanic people. It just provides one more excuse for cops to search and fuck with them.
Hate to break it to you comrade, but liberals have been saying that for years.
On the constitutional angle, another point is that up until the late 1800s, the US had no standing military. Instead, when a war occurred, individual communities would form up brigades, pool funds to outfit them with weapons and other matériel, then send them off to muster with others as a joint force. At the end of hostilities, each would return home, cache weapons in local armories (even personally retaining or selling many), and the brigade would simply disperse.
This went hand-in-hand with the fact that from 1776 up until 1934, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, rockets, machineguns, battleships, and anything else that had been developed to date.
Easiest way is to tie it into racism, talk about the BPP and Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X
In my view the police should be elected by local councils and supervised by the regional government.
post KLK lewds
What in almighty name of God did I just fucking read. Is this real? I'm convinced, there should be no firearm restrictions of any kind.
Wouldn't be surprised if that account isn't entirely factual, since it's a little too perfect and is tripping my bullshit meter in a way that most revised accounts do, but still, props for some highly effective pro-gun propaganda right there.
It sounds ludicrous, but on the other hand, it's American. It's hard to tell which way.
As an American, that seems like a perfectly plausible story to me.
mention that police are corrupt and they kill black people just cause. they're unreliable it's better to rely on your own.
police under socialism or worker defend themselves? the latter.
dank as fuck
Is that a fucking boner joke?
Tell them that if we banned guns then there’ll just be more truck attacks.
Niether. There will just be well trained militias.
We’re talking about there tactics, not there ideology. We could be using tactics invented by fascists for all I care as long as they work.
IDK, its tough OP without getting into a long, drawn out tirade they obviously won't read.
But I think most basically, it comes down to 2 arguments for me. 1) When shit hits the fan (cliche but whatever) you're gonna need a gun. Let's not pretend the US is immortal, all empires come and go in the ebb and flow of time. Eventually, the regime of the federal government will collapse, either because of mistakes, debt, resource management issues, (((capitalism))), whatever. In this scenario, it comes down to your survival and that of you family, and that alone. Are you going to rely on a collapsing government and its police force for your survival?
2) what argument do you have against guns? That violence can be commited by them? How do gun laws tackle violence committed by unregistered, illegal weapons? And in regard to the government, it exists beyond our control. You are born in your town, city, whatever. You never consented to the control the federal government has over your life. You weren't present when the constitution was written. You are not present when laws are signed by congress. They do it and you must submit. From the US Declaration of Independence:
As a result, it is imperative that gun laws remain in place in the event our government no longer represents us. And it really doesn't, if you critically analyse it. You vote in representatives who run on promises they don't keep, they have ulterior motives. The Right to Revolution is a political philosophy that founded our country:
And was a major reason the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution. Were it not for this sentiment, something our founding fathers considered to be a Right of the people, there would be no USA.
So now excuse my fervent nationalism, I'm not a proud patriot nor a happy burger, but it's simply the law we live under. And I also happen to be a fervent supporter of popular self-determination and democracy, a la the libertarian communist tradition. Guns are the ultimate last defense against tyranny, something liberals are supposed to be against.
For your first point, I would instead refine that to "if you find yourself facing a violent assailant, you are statistically least likely to be injured if you resist with a firearm" rather than "you'll probably want a gun if society collapses". The former is a far easier situation to imagine yourself in than the latter. There has been a variety of studies showing that people become more conservative when they're fearful or disgusted, and more liberal when they imagine they have super powers and are invulnerable. So the best way to get to liberals to take the correct position on the gun issue is to force them to recognize their own fragility. Explain that the police aren't this magical, omnipresent force that will teleport to their location, guns in hand, when they're confronted with violence. Grab the stats for your local police response times, and ask them if they feel that would be fast enough if you decided to plunge a pen right into their eye socket at that moment.
Hey Holla Forums watcha doing?
Fair point, what did you think of the 2nd? Too conservative?
As for what you say, I wrote what I said taking into account liberal "media", specifically I think it was a colbert video clip on youtube where the guy looked into school shootings and basically deemed that the average gun owner wouldn't be able to handle that situation, bascially illegitimizing the gun owner as a proper protector. Not that I agree with the video, nor disagree with you, but you know how liberals do. I'm gonna try to find the video
Here's the video, tried to hold back the vomit:
Highly sensationalized, nonsensical, overly-comical, but liberals latch onto this bullshit like flies on shit, so there's that.
#2 is just all around too wordy, and touches on too many points simultaneously, so you're going to lose them and they'll be standing there thinking about what they're going to say next, rather than paying attention to what you're saying.
You need to hit them hard and elicit and visceral reaction.
Lol no doubt, was something I brought up in my first sentence. Hard to convince somebody of gun rights without getting slightly wordy. Not like you can just drop a "muh declaration of independence" without a bit of explanation. This shits tough.
I got into an argument with a Bernie-tier liberal who refused to accept that revolution was EVER a viable option. Violence 100% off the table, and would acknowledge all the shortcomings of our government. Nevertheless, said you needed to play by the rules, even if you were destined to fail. Almost refused to accept the US was founded on bloody revolution. To liberals such as this, I see no way to argue with them, they simply deny the reality of force. They deny that the police could gun them down tomorrow if they step out of line. Hard to get this through to them.
If you're arguing in person, it should be easy for you to intimidate them and throw them off guard, so you can force them to really contemplate how they would react when confronted with explosive violence in the moment. After they're suitably shaken, simply explain that the second amendment is about the right of self preservation, and that firearms are the most efficient tool available for that job.
If you're not communicating with them in person, and forcing them to react on the spot, don't waste your time arguing with them.
Good advice man, I'll accept that. But its largely in relation to self protection. How do you argue in favor of revolution in a succinct manner? I feel like it sort of takes some qualifiers, such as suggesting its possible the government doesn't have you best interest at heart.
Where it gets tricky is you can start with the alphabet soup, the NSA, CIA, FBI, ect. But it's starts to get into murky water once you start getting into it, how they drone US citizens if they appear threatening in any manner. Neocons especially are more tricky in this manner since they are completely sold on US exceptionalism and all that bullshit.
I don't, at least not until they're already on board with firearms ownership. Baby steps.
word, thank you man, certainly appreciated
Best of luck, comrade.
Yup, the founders were ribald enlightenment épicures, after all.
That is absolute bullshit. The thing that their statistics rely on is "sure CCW-holders have stopped murderers, but they haven't stopped any of the big headline-grabbing spree killers". This sounds sensible for a moment, until you realize "wait, if a CCW bystander was on the scene, IT WOULDN'T TURN INTO A SPREE KILLING". Sure enough:
In other words, too low to be counted as a spree killing in statistics.
Both, police balance citizens and citizens balance police.