- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
I didnt think feeling safe was why liberals where buying guns. I thought it was to make oppressors and aggressors feel less safe.
deleted by creator
Guns are literally an oppressive force. The second amendment people are ready to kill those who try to stop ICE or change the government in a way they don’t like. Their threat is literally murder, but sure more guns will solve this problem.
“The second amendment people” are the oppressive force. The guns are tools used by said force to oppress.
Semantics. There are more guns in the US than people in the US. Guns are an oppressive force themselves in these extreme circumstances.
No different than having land mines all over at this point. People die needlessly due to proliferation thus creating an oppressive force without 2nd amendment gun nutters.
People aren’t claiming that they love guns, or gun violence. The point is that gun reform is dead for the foreseeable future. And since we are all forced to live in a society with gun proliferation, it makes sense that fascist shouldn’t be the only ones with guns.
Yeah, this is just learned helplessness wrapped up in a pretty bow.
What makes sense is dealing with the problem. We can’t regulate guns, but we can regulate bathrooms!?
Yeah, I am not buying it. Also, people are claiming they love guns and plenty love war as well. My daughter’s coworkers had a spirited conversation about how we should just rip off the bandaid and invade Canada and Mexico.
Clearly there is something wrong with our society and the proliferation of guns is just another symptom that needs to be managed as you would any disease.
Yeah, this is just learned helplessness wrapped up in a pretty bow.
Lol, arming yourself against fascist is totally learned helplessness…
I just think you are either delusional, in denial, or completely ignorant of the state of current affairs in the US, if you think we have any chance of gun reform with the current supreme court.
What makes sense is dealing with the problem. We can’t regulate guns, but we can regulate bathrooms!?
The people who want to protect fun laws currently hold the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court which also have a very conservative interpretation of the constituonal amendment that protects firearms. They are also the same people who want to regulate bathrooms.
How do you suppose we enact firearms regulations?
Also, people are claiming they love guns and plenty love war as well. My daughter’s coworkers had a spirited conversation about how we should just rip off the bandaid and invade Canada and Mexico.
I was talking about the people in this current forum…
Clearly there is something wrong with our society and the proliferation of guns is just another symptom that needs to be managed as you would any disease.
Yeah… No shit. There are literallly fascist running the government.
I would love to live in a society where I don’t have to think about gun violence, that would be rad. It’s just clearly not the society we currently inhabit, and ignoring that fact does not make you any safer.
You might have the privilege of living in a more civil part of the country. I on the other hand am in an interracial marriage in the most violent and racist state in the union. So excuse me if I teach my friends and family how to defend themselves and build a mutual defence network among other minorities and the queer community.
Pretending you are not engaging in learned helpless is pretty silly as it is obvious you are. Clearly you don’t understand what is really going on, and that is okay. Fascism is not new, not even a little bit.
There are so many good solutions to our issues and the fact that you haven’t even spent time thinking about them is very telling. Instead you are a reactionary. Guns will never make our society safer, if they did we would be the safest society in the world already.
I have seen the damage gun culture does to the minority and queer community. The needless deaths and violence. Pushed by those who are mentally ill professing perverse defense fantasies created by the marketing department of gun manufacturers.
Just another fascist cog doing exactly what your are supposed to.
Traditional gun enthusiasts have “their scenario”. That is, the thing they think they will need their cache of ARs and survival gear and 10k rounds. SHTF, end of the world as we know it, meth addled home intruder, zombie apocalypse, whatever.
I think folks on the left never had “their scenario” and correctly assessed the odds of those scenarios happening was low. So, logically, no need to arm themselves.
Those odds have changed and we’ve been watching those scenarios play out live on social media. Leftists have taken notice and are adjusting their relationship with firearms appropriately.
Yeah, well said. I’m a pro gun progressive but there limits to gun ownership. Sometimes the Calvary is not coming and the only way to protect ourselves is to buy guns
This meme assumes liberals, or the left broadly construed, view guns in the same way.
Conservatives want to bring their AR-15 into Burger King, because they view guns as a sort of magic totem of protection.
Of the left gun owners I know, liberals, Anarchists, Marxists, etc. They have a far more grounded view of guns, and see them much more for the tool that they are.
Yeah, well said. I’m a pro gun progressive but there limits to gun ownership
Yeah you’re right, instead I should trust that the police will use restraint, arrive instantly, and do the right thing 🤡
You white and rich? Then yeah. You black and poor? Then FUCK no.
A dog is much better protection than a gun.
Dogs get shot.
Life isn’t a video game.
Ask a real world security professional and they’ll tell you to get a dog.
A gun salesman will tell you that if you buy a gun you automatically become Annie Oakley
I think we’re talking two different things. I’m not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I’ve known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I’m saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don’t care.
But so a gun doesn’t help either. It just means they call SWAT and take you down with superior numbers and firepower, doesn’t it?
The only real place where a gun helps is in an actual civil war, or possibly against a single non-governmental bad guy (with risk of being shot yourself as well).
I have a dog. I’m also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I’m keeping guns because I’d rather live than die for some abstract moral point you’re trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don’t need guns.
deleted by creator
Ask a real world security professional and they’ll tell you to get a dog.
I am a (former) real world security professional.
And I’ll say that a gun is much easier to carry around with you than a dog.
I taught my gun to walk, now I don’t have to carry it anymore :D
Good boy!
No they will fucking not.
deleted by creator
Look up MOVE.
Philadelphia police bombed a house in the middle of the city.
If it comes to an armed conflict, I really doubt that the folks who couldn’t get Bernie nominated are going to win a firefight.
Stop living in videogame land.
deleted by creator
Nothing your wrote makes me think you could handle an actual gunfight.
We don’t know that. It might be, and unfortunately I think who ever is playing has gotten bored.
deleted by creator
By that logic, a gun won’t either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don’t really care. Power disparity is too great already.
This fight is won elsewhere.
deleted by creator
The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the “prevailing party” to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1848
The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don’t take 2nd amendment cases).
But here’s the thing. Cops don’t arrest right wing armed protesters. Why do you think that is? Cops are willing to shoot unarmed protesters in wheelchairs, but fail to move on a fat out of shape protestor with an AR-15. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/protests-houston-police-shoot-unarmed-man-wheelchair
“Winning” requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn’t right. And proposing alternative solutions.
But here’s the thing. Cops don’t arrest right wing armed protesters. Why do you think that is?
Oh I know exactly why that is.
Against random criminals, not occupying forces with an itchy trigger finger.
Good thing Alex Pretti was armed. Oh wait.
If only he had a dog with him…
Yeah the dog thing is silly too.
An organized and effective political movement is what will protect us, not weapons.
An organized and effective political movement with weapons.
I don’t see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they’re almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I’d rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
I mean I’m not opposed to people being armed but it really should be viewed as a last resort to hurt your enemies as much as possible before you’re totally wiped out rather than a realistic path to political change.
Cops love to shoot dogs.
¿Por que no los dos?
Even chihuahua?
They’re smaller and harder to hit.
Smaller hitbox. Fair argument.
They distract the invaders while I load my crossbow.
Elaborate.
I know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm’s way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
Edit: and furthermore if you buy a guard dog, your risk of being mauled by a dog will likewise go up.
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend yourself with in all situations.
Ok you bring a claw hammer and I’ll bring a rifle we’ll test your theory out
Think to yourself for two seconds why a gun would be better for self-defense than a hammer.
“Oh no, now everything looks like a nail! Guess it’s Hammer Time.”
deleted by creator
Are we shooting eachother across a field or are you invading my house?
What advantage does a hammer have over a gun in a moment of self-defense?
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure. Its just going to be easier and more reliable to hit someones head with a hammer than it will be to shoot them.
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand about how guns are bad in all contexts.
it can safely be left out
Honestly, I wouldn’t leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
you don’t have to load it
True
or aim it
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure.
Skill issue. Requires training time.
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that’s only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it’s a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm’s reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you’re also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you’d be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
Unless you’re fighting nails, a claw hammer is not not the best thing to defend yourself with in any situation.
Conservatives want guns to protect themselves from a bunch of DEI boogymen that don’t exist. The left is buying guns to protect themselves from the boogymen that are currently publicly stripping away/violating their rights while doing multiple genocides.
Trying to act like the two groups are the same makes you either a boldfaced liar or an idiot. But hey, at least you get to be smugly superior with your snappy little meme.
Get to feel smugly superior. Because they certainly aren’t.
I’ve always been of the belief that more guns cause more death, and I still hold that belief.
However, the last decade has proven to me that this country is far too stupid to maintain a democracy so, unfortunately, the guns are necessary, because things are about to get a whole lot sketchier in this nation. And as things degrade, I need protection, particularly from low IQ aggressive conservatives.
I don’t think ‘feeling safe’ is the goal so much as the understanding that the Nazis are making a huge comeback, and that votes and protest signs don’t generally do a great job of killing Nazis.
Like, if you’re going down anyway, might as well bag a few Nazis on your way out; or maybe you see some Nazis harrassing someone and you’re a safe distance away with a rifle.
So… you could be part of solving a gigantic problem, but it will 100% not make you safe. To the contrary, it’ll make you a target.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Right, the only people who should be armed are the christian nationalists who are already armed to the teeth and itching to use them. As we all know, nothing bad ever happens when people without guns confront people with guns. It worked out great for the native Americans!
The native tribes had guns
The Cherokee were disarmed just prior to the Trail of Tears. They had to surrender their weapons as invaders broke into their homes, destroyed their crops, and split families apart. They were then reliant on the federal government’s soldiers, who rounded them up into camps until they were marched to what was to be only their land forever, Indian Territory. Now Oklahoma. Where we still fight the state and governor Stitt for our treaty rights.
There are still Cherokee in North Carolina because one man, Tsali (pronounced like Charlie), fought back when his wife was being stabbed by a soldiers bayonet and killed him. He then led survivors to the mountains for a hard couple of years of starvation until the government relented. They worked with Yonaguska, a chief, to reach a diplomatic solution to allow the refugees to stay in their homelands. If they executed Tsali and all of his children so no one else would rise up.
They killed him and his son for trying to defend his home and family. They killed many others in the camps and the trail itself. Many children were stolen and enslaved. But the Cherokee wanted a reasonable, diplomatic solution that didn’t involve violence when the US government absolutely wanted all of those things.
I’ll keep my guns.
You do that, and let me know when you actually do something useful with them
I think I will be dead by that point. Not sure if you read my previous comment or not.
Probably should have organized into a militia then
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Exactly. This idea that indigenous people are savages who will go up against an ar-15 with a bow and arrow is nonsense. Even going back to the 1600s there are MANY reports of going from “What is that scary noise maker” to “I want one… and I can get it off this dead fool”.
And they used them to great effect. Often against even more heavily armed “whites”.
Until the military rolled up.
Gun nuts just don’t want to understand (probably because NRA TV doesn’t talk about it…). If privately owned firearms were a threat to the government, they would be banned. That is WHY gun control happened (no, it is not all about those uppity Blacks buying glocks on their way to march with Dr King). Many of our modern day laws can be traced back to fears of another “wild west” or even 20s/30s where “gangsters” had literal machine guns and were better equipped than the national guard.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn’t take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
Privately owned firearms are only a threat to civilians.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn’t take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
Tell that to Afghanistan.
The “1600s” could be 200 years after the Spanish arrived.
Lol, liberal
You are comparing a professional army to civilians. Like, hell, if other side has a gun and you don’t - you will loose. If you have a gun but other side a tank - you will loose again. The point here is to make the confrontation more equal against people equipped with handguns and not anti-tank missiles.
But, there is 1 thing in what civilians have a leverage - they run most of economy and infrastructure. If we are talking about confrontation between government and civilians, civilians don’t even have to use guns. They can simply gather resources and then stop doing anything except surviving for a few days. This means that no factories will be working, no commercial transporting, no offices are running. Yes, this is a very unlikely scenario but it will literally cause huge problems to the country without the violence. And what your army gonna do? Come to you home and force you to go to work?
The other thing is if we are dealing with other armed civilians, then having guns can benefit. But only if you can use them. And yes, you are right that having a gun in home without strict discipline leads to more casualties.
So, what I think is that owning guns has bad and good sides, but you don’t even need them in most cases.
You are comparing a professional army to civilians.
And who do you think is going to be coming after you if you build up a militia and start screaming “Wildcats”?
And who do we see, time and time again, side with the fat white kids who crossed state lines to murder some n****rs?
The point here is to make the confrontation more equal against people equipped with handguns and not anti-tank missiles.
So you might even say
Privately owned firearms are only a threat to civilians.
L take. Also Glock didn’t make a gun until nearly 10 years after MLK was killed by the FBI.
They didn’t have 55% of the population of the country though. Or immunity to the common cold. Or money and clout.
deleted by creator
This is not a question of whether someone should or not, but a question of whether doing so will make them feel safer.
The answer to the first question is usually “yes”, but the answer to the second question is usually “no”.
If the state wants you dead, a gun and a couple boxes of ammo aren’t going to be more than a minor inconvenience to the state.
Actually, I’m more concerned about how cool Nazis are again, than the actual government.
This is why you organize, the real trick is that they make you think you should be doing it alone.
If the state wants you dead, a gun and a couple boxes of ammo aren’t going to be more than a minor inconvenience to the state.
I’d rather inconvenience the state than march quietly into the concentration camp, thank you.
Amen to that. I’ve studied enough of my history to know that, whatever ignoble and unpleasant end awaits me at the end of a fascist’s gun barrel will still be vastly preferable to whatever horrors await in a camp. I refuse to die in one outright, by any means necessary, even if that means dying on my front lawn instead.
deleted by creator
No no. You do it for the statistics.
When the black panthers started getting guns, they got gun reform laws up real quick.
Now imagine every LGBTetc individual getting a gun, it shows up in the Republican Excel sheets. They start getting scared and invent new laws to make it harder.
If/When you buy the gun, you disassemble it and store it in a certified gun safe. This way when they storm your apartment and kill your because “you had a gun” it’s a fuck lot harder for them to plant a gun on you.
“I have some qualms shooting people.” Aka “just as bad as Maga” Lol you need to go have your brain checked, it don’t work so good.
deleted by creator
Take your own advice you twerp.
Armed minorities are harder to suppress.
deleted by creator
If a racist, bigoted group doesn’t want you to have a thing… you should probably consider having that thing.
A lot of people on Lemmy would call you a turbolib for saying something so radical
What? No they won’t. I have never seen anyone being accused of being a liberal for being pro-gun around here.
I’m talking about the other thing conservatives want to take away from minorities
What? Rights? Representation? Not ringing any bells.
Starts with a V, many Lemmy users don’t want to have one…
Varicose veins?
deleted by creator
I agree, and they get so mad when a leftist actually does something to try and improve the world
deleted by creator
Ha, I just recently wrote a blog post about the fact that communicating effectively with your vote is a skill, you might like it
deleted by creator
Liberals never want leftists owning guns cause when liberals send Pinkertons to murder us they don’t want us fighting back.
You sound like a liberal wanting rights nshit
Saying “liberals” is incorrect. NEO-liberal is the correct word. Liberal progressives/socialists are not the same thing.
This is the stupidest comment I’ve seen on here in a while, and there’s a lot of dumb stuff on here.
Tell that to the miners Baldwin-Felts shot
Yeah, that was in the 1890s…last time that was a problem was 1937.
The event I was referencing was 1921, and the last time a picketer was shot was 2023, but whatever I guess…
Why look at recent history when you can make declarations about how this is all ancient history
Yeah because we don’t have unions or labor movements anymore. Thanks libtards.
Don’t buy a gun because it’ll make you feel safe. Buy a gun to piss off OP.
deleted by creator
Okay. Governor Reagan
It’s not going to make you safer. Best you can hope for is to take some of the motherfuckers with you when they come for you.
If you take enough of them then everyone is safer.
There’s a lot more of us than there are of them.
If even 10% of us take one of them down with us, they’ll run out of door-kickers very quickly.
(Even more so because a lot of their door-kickers are cowards and would quickly abandon the fight if they thought they were actually in danger.)
deleted by creator
I’m okay with that.
