What is your position on the private ownership of armaments?

If you're too lazy to put some effort in at least use wikipedia

Why are you getting triggered or misunderstanding my the use of the word private in the opening post? I'm obviously not talking about "factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, seas, etc" when referring to armaments.

You aren't even being pedantic in this situation since your use of semantics as equally correct as mine. There is no room for misunderstanding because the terms that I used eliminate any confused meaning of private.

You just want to educate me on your knowledge of synonyms while posting off topic, don't you?

The point is that the personal/private distinction makes it obvious what the general position on armaments is.

If you think about it, you might just figure it out.

No, sorry. It's just that we're all so used to people coming and not being able to tell the difference between what is private and what is person. Anyways, yeah, I'm 100% pro-gun. If I could get guns right now, I'd be going after the drug cartels with a militia right now. I can get them illegally, but I might not want to risk 2-7 years in prison.

Why do people on /k/ get triggered over the word "clip" when it's obvious they meant "magazine"? Terminology means things to people.

In any case I personally look forwards towards making my own. Violence and the tools for committing it deserves a better, more thorough political understanding than just "It's bad and only bad people use them!"

Oh you could just stop trying to repurpose the definition of words for your Newspeak crap and articulate yourself intelligently.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Heh.

Armaments cannot be private property if defined by your needlessly specific version of it.

I do not make assumptions. Care to explain it to me, the obvious dum dum?

Yeah, I get it. Some of you are trying to be helpful while at the same time derailing the thread.

My assumption is that /k/ justifiably gets upset because the language clip and magazine does not overlap, unlike in this situation.

...

...

It is an atypical use of two words that only serves to obfuscate discussion and confuse people. Just stop using them already. It's easy enough to get the point across in another waste that doesn't waste everyone's time looking shit up or being brow-beaten over not knowing any better.

No. It's just obvious that either

1) you came here in bad faith, or;

2) you haven't put in any effort to understand the Marxist distinction between private and personal property, or;

3) all of the above.

It's really not that hard to understand the difference.

Private and personal ownership have two different meanings.

Privately owned arms would be like arms owned by a private military corporation that are available for use by, but not owned by, the people employed by said company. Yes, armaments can be private property.

Personally owned arms are when a singular person owns a weapon and uses it for their own needs.

Dictionaries tend to prioritize the most common collective understanding of words over fringe definitions. The meaning of words is defined by how the majority use it.

If anyone is wrong about the meaning of the word socialism, it is leftypol since you are in the minority.

merriam-webster.com/help/faq-words-into-dictionary

So "literally" now actually means "figuratively" because there's a bunch of illiterates that use it like that over and over?

leftypol is exactly like the identity politics crowd trying to force their language onto everyone.

LEARN MUH PRONOUNS!
DON'T SAY COLORED PEOPLE SAY PEOPLE OF COLOR
DON'T SAY PRIVATE PROPERTY SAY PERSONAL PROPERTY

How about no.

Yes. Language is decided by the majority.
merriam-webster.com/video/literally

...

Aren't you gonna feel silly when the majority decide that the word majority actually means fewest number of people.

Pedantry aside, yes, individuals should be able to own any type of weapon. It would be nice if we lived in a world where Nuclear Non-Proliferation meant anything, but as the long as the US bourgeois has its finger on the trigger, the question is whether we should trust any random person, or a specific class of moronic psychopaths.

For a more serious answer: you need to create a socio-economic system that removes the incentive for ruthless competition and violence. In the near future, anyone will be able to create assault weapons with a personal 3D printer, so outlawing weapons would only temporarily patch up the problem.

The progressives already inverted the meaning of the word liberal. I don't harangue people about it. However I will clarify my use of the word when necessary.

...

I don't think you get it. We're using a more traditional language in the POLITICAL CONTEXT. This is a rough example but take mushrooms and other fungi. The people, which of course would consist of laymen by the majority, in common language refer to these organisms as plants out of their superficial similarities (since the grow from organic material, relatively seemingly passive, capable of being green, etc.). However, despite what people think, in biology, there are clear distinguishing categorical-demanding characteristics among the fungi that place them as their own kingdom. This is very clear withing the study of mycology and botany. Even if the common language evolves so that the word "plant" refers to anything people mistakingly perceive as "plantish" (akin to how spiders are called insects) such as fungi rather than what can seriously and scientifically be compartmentalized as belonging to the plant kingdom (and thus a plant), it would be unwarranted to expect botanists and mycologists to adapt to this arbitrary change and abandon their consistent traditional language. It'll even also make it harder for them to read older texts.
This is very similar to how the word "accent" means something in common language, and how it consistently and universally means something else within the field of linguistics.. Further examples can be provided.
In Socialist thought, the differentiation between private property and personal property is very crucial to explain our position, analysis, purposes and goals. To expect us to change this out of the lack of difference among these words in the common sphere is erroneous. These words we use are TERMS after all. Marxian thought and economics go under the fields of political science and economics respectively. They're Sciences with again, their own terms. If we subject ourselves to popular usage, we'll constantly have to be changing our language and making the study more difficult. We would be heavily undermined.

One last example: In demotic usage, the word anarchy means a state of disorder and lawlessness. This common understanding comes from the propaganda and stereotypes of the traditional anarchists as well as critiques. As a matter of fact, I have my own physical dictionary and it defines it in such a sense. So morphologically, anarchists would be defined as those who advocate for such lawlessness and anarchism would be defined as the advocacy of such lawlessness. So according to you, all the serious political anarchist writers, political scientists philosophers and activists have to change their name? This is just silly. If this is applied universally to all studies, such a practice would confuse, marginalize, and harden the intellectual study.

If I identified as leftypol, that is exactly how I would speak to people.

lolno it comes from the fucking root of the word. If you want to describe yourself as anything but "opposition to government", then perhaps you should use a more descriptive word.

It isn't, really. I've explained socialism to plenty of people in my time without using that needlessly confusing jargon. I think you might just be autistic fam.

"Anarchy" etymologically meant "without ruler."
A government is only an example of a system of rule. This was prior to its politcization. We talk politics, we discuss things within the political framework.

You can dress it up other ways, but it'll still be private vs personal. Maybe I really just am autistic.

:( I so sorry

Oh an I forgot. Two can play that game. Liberal didn't originally meant classical liberal either. It just mean free. The word was used way before classical liberalism emerged. Uh-oh, I guess you just have to be more descriptive!!!!! In the political senses, I still use liberal to refer to the classical liberals. Because we're talking fucking politics you fools!!!

The situations are not analogous.

And I would like to expand on my previous thoughts. The meaning, spelling, and pronunciation of words is decided by majority consensus. This is because language is for a large pool of people to quickly understand each other. You are gunking up the communication process with your originalist interpretation of words.

If you are so concerned about the original meaning of words, go learn original german, anglo saxon, latin, french, greek, and old english which english is made up of. Even if you manage to do that, the people who spoke those languages as they were created would define the same words differently just as they do today.

Good luck on your quest of being able to talk to no one.

If you want to make your the orginalist quest the most precise, you would use the definition of the word as it was used by the original creator of the word instead of as it was originally popularly used.

So some guy makes up a word cakil which he defines as a dancing goblin, but when the word entered the common language it was defined as party goblin, you would use the dancing goblin definition.

Tracking down the first meaning of every word will be difficult. Good luck!

no

yes. and I maintain the mental health and background checks should be mandatory.

You don't understand what I'm trying to say. We are not using common language; we don't pretend to. We are using a specialized language. If the word "spirit" mean something very specific in schools of philosophical/theological thought or systems, regardless as to whether the common understanding of the word changes, within these schools of system the word will not reflect or submit to this erratic popular change. If people commonly use the word "insect" to refer to spider, do not expect the entomologist and their tradition to change their word to something else just to exclude spiders. In articulacy phonetics for example, the phrase "speech sound" refers to something very specific and precise and yet again, no matter how the common language changes, this technical language will remain the same. All of these distinctions are meaningful. That's why they're called TERMS.