A liberal case for Gun Ownership by Bret Weinstein

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    Yes, the leftist are "arming up",, just read some of the "Reddit Groups" that cater to Leftist/liberal gun owners.
    They are VERY clear and state often that they are NOT "liberals" but are leftists.
    They are also clear why they are arming up,, and it is not to protect your constitutional rights. But to inflict their will on all those that oppose their agenda.


    I think you are referring to is r/SocialistRA. Socialist Rifle Association. 98k members with a strong facebook, Instagram and Twitter presence along with local chapters and paid membership programs. I think they aim to be the political Far Left equivalent of the NRA.
     

    Slackdaddy

    My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
    Jan 1, 2019
    5,851
    Kinda like a "Christian Abortion Rights" group.

    Socialism (Marxism) and "Individual rights/freedoms" can NOT co-exist.
    The end game is to overpower the opposition, then strip them of their rights (and/or freedom and life) in order to instill "their" vision of utopia

    I think you are referring to is r/SocialistRA. Socialist Rifle Association. 98k members with a strong facebook, Instagram and Twitter presence along with local chapters and paid membership programs. I think they aim to be the political Far Left equivalent of the NRA.
     

    Ponder_MD

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2020
    4,564
    Maryland
    Yes, the leftist are "arming up",, just read some of the "Reddit Groups" that cater to Leftist/liberal gun owners.
    They are VERY clear and state often that they are NOT "liberals" but are leftists.
    They are also clear why they are arming up,, and it is not to protect your constitutional rights. But to inflict their will on all those that oppose their agenda.

    I believe this. I also think that there is a Leftist contingent that is arming up simply because crime is rampant. They haven't connected the dots between crime and their political choices, but whatever.

    My question is: How formidable is this group? Is anyone training them? Are they well organized? Are they communicating freely?
     

    Slackdaddy

    My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
    Jan 1, 2019
    5,851
    I believe the FBI trains them and gives them the gear they confiscate from the right wing "Insurrectionists"

    I believe this. I also think that there is a Leftist contingent that is arming up simply because crime is rampant. They haven't connected the dots between crime and their political choices, but whatever.

    My question is: How formidable is this group? Is anyone training them? Are they well organized? Are they communicating freely?
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Jus wanted to point out that he is incorrect in asserting that the U.S. Revolution was "won by men with muskets." While it is true that the flintlock rifle was the predominate small arm of the war, the war was not won exclusively by men with these arms. Rather, the war was also won by the Continental Navy at sea with commissioned and privately owned and ships, ships that disrupted commerce and even took the fight to the British mainland a la John Paul Jones.

    No offense but you are setting up a logical fallacy there. You write "not won exclusively," when Weinstein doesn't say exclusively.

    No war I know of, pre modern or modern, and have extensively background in history, has been won "exclusively" by any factor. There are usually several factors. I don't see the word "exclusive in Weinstein's piece.

    What can be said is that without "men with muskets" the US states never would have won the US war for independence. And it was without out a doubt one of the top three factors.

    All other things being equal, without a significantly armed populace, the states would not have one without men with muskets.

    Weinsteins problem, and that of "liberal" gun owners, is that they simply don't address the FACT that the Hobbesian model at the core of the left for hundreds of years, advocates the "Leviathan" (with Leviathan meaning all powerful government). In the Leviathan model, the state absolutely should have a monopoly of any and all weapons. The citizen being made to cede rights and power to the states is at the center of the modern left.


    This is why, and I am sorry but it is a fact, there is no issue in American politics and policy that is more broadly and solidly partisan aligned than "gun control" vs the Second Amendment. Some people deny this, but the numbers speak for themselves. thirty years ago, while there were still some blue dog Democrats, this was a 80:20 alignment or so, ie mostly partisan allignesd. today it is 98:2. Some can say "Bbbb bump stocks" or "Bbbbuutt red flag" but those are exceptions that prove the rule because they had on the order of 80% support among the public and anything with 80% wins. When it comes to the actual contested issues, like may issue vs shall, reciprocity, configurable rifles, adequate ammunition magazines to stop an armed criminal, and dozens of others of areas of 2A law, there is a stark near 100% alignment of legislators by party. heck, all but two of the 2020 slate of Democrat primary contenders rejected the SCOTUS Heller decision

    I applaud Weinstein for his piece, it is very good. But there is a problem in that he resists going into the basic facts of why progressivism and the left must insist the government have a monopoly of power. And why under left's models the individual must rely on the state and its police for the individual's security.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    I am glad he brought up Australia, but he doesn't really get it right. Australia is a bad for model for gun control for these two reasons.

    1) Australia is across the board a Paternalistic country with the absolute lowest respect for individual rights of any European based inheritors of English common law.

    Australia has nowhere near the First Amendment rights the US has, and nowhere near the Fourth, Fifth and sixth Amendment rights we have in the US. Australia has less homeless problem because it is way easier to involuntarily place people with mental illness or drug use in mandatory confinement and involuntary treatment. Australia has a claimed double jeopardy prohibition, but if there if any new evidence, a person found not guilty can be retried on same charges. Australian government control of the Press and speech is down there with the old East Bloc. Australian government powers and admissibility of evidence warrant requirements are much much lower. There scores of other areas large and small where the ACLU would have full conniption and the ACLU would be calling for an insurrection if a government attempted to put in place in the US

    2) Australia's gun control was not actually successful. Australian total suicide did not drop, it rose. Australian overall homicide fell for two decades after mass confiscation, but in those same two decades US homicide per capita fell even more than Australia did, as US guns increased and US gun control decreased.

    On homicide, both Australia and the US saw two decades of drops in rates from the early-mid 1990's. They went two totally opposite directions on gun control, yet both saw huge drops in murder? So what did they both do that was the same? It wasn't gun control. What both the US and Australia did was about triple total incarceration rates and real time served mostly aimed at repeat violent criminals. That is what drove criminal violence down in both countries.

    On suicide, Australian gun suicide decrease. But multiple peer reviewed studies showed very large increases in secede by other means, much of it what researchers determined to be suicide newly mislabeled as accident. Australia did not reduce suicide by one iota due to gun control, it merely increased the mount of "hidden suicide," sweeping suicide under the rug by increasing the types of suicide more likely to be ruled accidental by medical examiners.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,937
    Messages
    7,259,612
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom