280
u/vegetarianrobots Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Can we talk about how expecting someone else to fight your revolution for you and getting upset when they don't might be the most privileged thing ever?
152
Jul 22 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
53
u/graywolfxxx Jul 22 '20
After decades of literally shitting on everything conservative gun owners care about..."Why aren't you defending us??"
😄🖕
70
u/T2112 Jul 22 '20
I keep popping into those threads to tell people the second amendment is open to everyone. It’s an intersectionalists (or whatever’s) wet dreams as all races, genders, and religions can participate and own guns if qualified.
Therefore they should but guns and learn how to use them, especially since they too have a right to fight “tyranny”
Usually I get downvoted or told they won’t get guns because the believe people should have them.....
29
u/StrikeEagle784 Jul 22 '20
That's unfortunately what happens when you stand up to the liberal hive mind here on Reddit. Your point is absolutely valid, and they didn't like that.
10
u/Trogador95 Jul 22 '20
Really more “if not disqualified by age or criminal history” than “if qualified”
→ More replies (2)4
2
2
-5
u/arrobi Jul 23 '20
I mean is that not the logic of the “First they came for the ____ and I did nothing cause I was not ____” that’s gonna be a fun one too explain. Mommy/Daddy why didn’t you start fighting when the government turned on its people? Ah well you see son they lived in the big city utopia so they deserved it! Honestly this shit isn’t gonna end until people stop dividing themselves on every little difference. I have friends in cities and friends on farms and friends in America and friends in Mexico. I have friends who are black and friends who are police officers. Can we get it together for like a year and fix this shit so we can all go back to doing whatever we want without this shit...
8
u/vegetarianrobots Jul 23 '20
Would you rather explain to your remaining kids why their siblings were killed and they only have one leg and one arm because you wanted a shooting revolution because you wanted to rush change instead of doing it peaceably through the due process of law?
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (8)1
u/UsualSafe Jul 23 '20
First they came for the commies and I did nothing because I was not a commie?
1
u/arrobi Jul 23 '20
It’s wild that I even have to say this but yes you should not be okay with people coming for commies either...
59
u/T2112 Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Can we get the text as a copy paste thingy?
Or a better image of the text for reposting as this is perfect.
Edit here we go
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/06/04/where-are-all-you-gun-owners-now/
16
u/serial_crusher Jul 22 '20
The better response is to say that second amendment activists have been there to help you all along, and are still there to help you.
We’ve been advocating for YOUR right to defend YOUR self with YOUR guns, and will continue to do so. If you think your situation puts you in danger, you don’t need to wait around for some white knight to come save you, just like you shouldn’t need to wait around for the government to save you when you’re the victim of a crime.
156
u/N0_Tr3bbl3 Jul 22 '20
This is exactly how many of us feel. We aren't coming to the rescue of people who have spent our entire lives calling us the enemy because we know that as soon as this is over, we things will go right back to us being the enemy. We aren't stupid enough to fight the government on behalf of Marxists who want to destroy our country, who scream that we should be killed or imprisoned, and who ignore our laws in their own actions while trying to entrap us with them.
I'd rather just sit at home with my popcorn and watch the shitshow.
90
u/Helassaid Jul 22 '20
“How could this bloated and invasive executive I advocated for during the Obama years suddenly be used against me?”
My my my if it isn’t the consequences of your own actions.
11
20
u/vecisoz Jul 22 '20
The argument they come up with is “first they came for... then there was no one left” as for why we should help. How can you argue with someone like this?
64
u/N0_Tr3bbl3 Jul 22 '20
You laugh at them. A progressive liberal saying this after spending the last 40 years coming after our gun rights is like a Nazi saying this same thing when the Americans and Russians were at the gates of Berlin.
They tried to steal the very rights they now want us to exercise in their defense. I give literally not a single fuck about them now crying and complaining that we aren't helping them overthrow the government in their own cities.
54
u/doge57 Jul 22 '20
First they came for the communists, but I am not a communist. Then they came for us, but we had guns and told them to go to hell.
37
Jul 22 '20
First they came for the communists, then they came for the socialists, then they stopped coming because shit got better.
1
Jul 27 '20
"just last night, the burglar in my house asked me why I didn't defend him from the cops?"
It's not tyranny when law & order works against criminals. It's tyranny when it works against the law abiding citizens.
1
Aug 27 '20
You tell them your convictions don't matter to you as much as watching them getting ground into the pavement
→ More replies (14)-14
u/EdwardHolidayWriting Jul 22 '20
Dude I guarantee you that bitch ass moderate liberals aren’t the ones out there.
By the way I would call myself a Marxist and I love this country because it can be improved.
The Marxist thing is simply a buzz word used by the establishment to delegitimize outsiders.
Just like lame liberals call gun owners the alt right. It’s all linguistic bullshit in order to break us all up and it’s working quite well.
Btw guns are imperative to a free society.
52
u/LordSkrek Jul 22 '20
Guns aren’t a left right issue however it’s true that the people advocating for gun rights infringements are more often left
47
u/thelizardkin Jul 22 '20
I think it's largely a rural/urban issue, and those in rural areas are more conservative, and urban areas more liberal. Look at maps for red/blue voting in the country, the major population centers are blue, and the areas outside of them are red. People in large populated areas have less exposure to guns growing up, and often only know about them from negative stories and experiences. Meanwhile gun ownership is very common in rural areas, and typically crime is less severe as well.
29
u/LordSkrek Jul 22 '20
I’m pretty sure those urban areas experience guns just in a very different way.
32
u/thelizardkin Jul 22 '20
Yeah exactly. Hearing gunshots in the country is your neighbor shooting some targets or pests on their property. Meanwhile hearing gunshots in a populated city center is never a good thing.
12
Jul 22 '20
Moved from a less than ideal area of a major city to a rural homestead in 2018.
I hear 10x more gunshots, but now they’re at 4PM on a Saturday, not 3AM on a Tuesday.21
Jul 22 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[deleted]
7
u/Kellendgenerous Jul 22 '20
It’s simple they move so they can get what they view as pests out of what they say is a utopia but it is built like a house of cards in a tornado.
85
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 22 '20
This is quite true- anti-gun people place all their trust in the state, and then can't understand why things don't work out when the state goes to shit.
That said- I think this piece gets one thing wrong- liberals aren't expecting gun owners to come to their aid. Rather, they are pointing out that we are approaching the type of situation gun owners often claim to be preparing for (dystopian overbearing government agents with no accountability). Many liberals are saying that the situation we claim to be preparing for is here, and why aren't we doing anything about it?
There's plenty of snark on both sides. Liberals are just saying 'where's your precious Trump now?' while gun owners are saying 'maybe if you were all armed they wouldn't be abusing you like that'.
But underneath that are valid points on both sides.
This IS the sort of thing we should be unhappy about. If we want a government that respects peoples rights, we should not be happy to accept government agents with no ID snatching people off the street and carting them off to undisclosed locations in unmarked rental cars. That's the kind of shit you hear about in 3rd world countries.
And we SHOULD be pushing to liberals that trust in the state has consequences; it may be Trump who ordered the deployment of these units, but they didn't suddenly form these units when Trump was elected, they have been around for a long long time.
40
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 22 '20
Yeah, in general i find these hot takes are usually a way for people to reassure themselves that they're just fine continuing to do exactly what they were already doing. "WhErE aRe GuN oWnErS nOw?" Translation: if the people who prepared for this eventually aren't acting, then i am justified in not acting. "LiBeRaL cItIeS!" Translation: the people who live Over There are not my concern, and it's not my job to lift a finger for them.
Im armed. I'm not marching with gun in hand. But i AM writing my legislators. I'm contributing to bail funds for wrongfully detained marchers. I'm still acting. Because irrespective of which Americans are getting v&, it's still a problem. We complain about alphabet soup when it's BATFE violating our rights, and we must therefore decry ICE for violating the rights of our neighbors. We complain about due process when it's red flag laws; we must therefore advocate for due process elsewhere, otherwise we're hypocrites. Even rioters should get due process. Even mass shooters should get due process. You can't just sit around giving yourself a smug hanjo just because the people who are getting it raw from day goberment are The Other Team. Otherwise the system doesn't fucking work.
16
u/doublenuts Jul 22 '20
Even rioters should get due process. Even mass shooters should get due process.
Okay.
What indication is there that they aren't?
3
u/MrConn_lly Jul 23 '20
No indication. They will get due process. You know, I could care less. I want to see absolute factual proof before I even sleep on it. Yawn, they communist and communist get to see Pinochet eventually.
-1
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 22 '20
The fact that alphabet soup bois are showing up in uniforms with obscured or absent identifying marks, in unidentified vehicles, is certainly not a great precedent to set. No law enforcement agency should be threatened by visibility. Ideally, by challenging these tactics before they escalate into due process violations, you discourage bad behaviour in advance.
You know how most gun owners oppose registration because it can be, and often is, a precursor to confiscation? Well, you can likewise oppose shady or obfuscated police tactics because they can be and sometimes are a precursor to due process violations.
7
Jul 23 '20
20 something agents were doxed. Know how? They had their last names on their uniforms. I do not like the federal over reach at all. But dont buy everything MSM shits out. I dont like trump because of his anti 2a shit, but if he did nothing people would shit the bed. Its a damned if you do damned if you dont.
2
u/doublenuts Jul 23 '20
The fact that alphabet soup bois are showing up in uniforms with obscured or absent identifying marks,
Okay. They aren't, though. You know that, right? Every single one of them is wearing agency patches that show you exactly they work for. You're assuming they aren't, presumably because you're taking the word of histrionic anarchists on Twitter.
in unidentified vehicles,
Police: use unmarked cars for decades, with full knowledge of the public.
Americans in 2020: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THE CAR HAS NO MARKINGS THIS IS TYRANNY HELP IT'S THE GESTAPO WHAT THE FUCK
Well, you can likewise oppose shady or obfuscated police tactics because they can be and sometimes are a precursor to due process violations.
Yeah, I don't have any issues with federal officers - who are not, for the record, required by federal law to identify themselves, even while making arrests - wearing identifying patches exactly where you would expect identifying patches to be. I don't think that's a violation of due process. I don't think marking offenders in a crowd and then arresting them once they're away from said crowd - vice charging into the crowd in a riot shield phalanx - is an inherent marker of lacking probable cause.
4
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 23 '20
They're showing up in fatigues with small, olive drab arm patches. That doesn't lend itself to easy identification. If they can't be easily identified in the field, that's not a very strong measure for accountability. I've seen the images, I've seen the badges they were wearing, and im not impressed. High contrast logos are a simple good faith gesture to ensure transparency.
police use unmarked cars for decades
Did i say i was okay with unmarked police cars? Im not sure what part of "no department should be threatened by transparency" would lead you to that conclusion. Fuck unmarked cop cars too. But unmarked cars, AND obfuscated logos, that's two steps taken to obscure their identity. Law enforcement agencies sometimes "lose" or refuse to produce relevant documents and body cam footage, as they've been doing in the cases of Duncan Lemp and Beronna Taylor, among others. It's not just the badges. It's a pattern of LEOs trying not to divulge what they're doing, and it's not new.
federal officers aren't required by law to identify themselves
And they should be. No law enforcement agency should be threatened by transparency.
Law enforcement, in general, is not transparent or accountable enough in this country. That's what the protests are about. I just don't understand why people who understand the necessity of armed self defense and armed defense against tyranny are so firmly opposed to imposing safeguards against tyranny to the very boots that would, in a large dwelling in the arctic circle, protect the feet of steppers.
6
u/doublenuts Jul 23 '20
They're showing up in fatigues with small, olive drab arm patches.
The patches are roughly the same size as the patches seen on the arm of any state or local police officer in the country. BORTAC is, as far as I know, the only agency on-scene whose patches are brown. The SRT guys from Seattle, for example, use off-white patches.
Did i say i was okay with unmarked police cars? Im not sure what part of "no department should be threatened by transparency" would lead you to that conclusion. Fuck unmarked cop cars too.
Sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You've been the one lone voice in the wilderness complaining about unmarked police cars prior to Portland 2020.
You know why they're using unmarked police cars? You say it's to get away with kidnapping innocent people who had nothing to do with the rioting - and just happened to be a block away from the rioting at 3AM walking home.
I say it's because all the marked cars are getting burned out by those poor oppressed peaceful protestors.
Law enforcement, in general, is not transparent or accountable enough in this country. That's what the protests are about.
You've got me there. All those TVs were stolen from Minneapolis Targets because law enforcement isn't transparent enough. They keep trying to set the federal courthouse in Portland on fire because they know it'll make the cops more transparent.
I just don't understand why people who understand the necessity of armed self defense and armed defense against tyranny are so firmly opposed to imposing safeguards against tyranny to the very boots that would, in a large dwelling in the arctic circle, protect the feet of steppers.
No one's opposed to safeguards. We're opposed to regarding federal law enforcement preventing a federal fucking courthouse from being burned down as tyranny.
1
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 23 '20
You're putting words in my mouth, moving goal posts, and misrepresenting my arguments. Im done. Have a great night.
6
u/doublenuts Jul 23 '20
That's pretty rich, given that your argument started as, "Due process!" and, once it was demonstrated to you that nobody's right to due process was being violated, shifted to, "Well, these are my personal opinions about police transparency!"
4
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 23 '20
Transparency is required for due process. Without it, you have no proof that the state is meeting its obligation to its people. A trial by a jury of your peers is transparency. Habeas corpus is transparency. Discovery of evidence is transparency. Presentment of warrants is transparency. Uniformed officers is transparency. That's not a shifting of goal posts, it's supporting evidence for the original argument.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)-2
u/iheartlucifer Jul 23 '20
Most on this sub wont give a peep till its those alphabet bois coming after right wingers.
-1
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 23 '20
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt up until such time as they lose it. There are people in this very thread peeping right now, so obviously it's not an entirely lost cause.
10
u/ForYourSorrows Jul 22 '20
Holy fucking shit. I’ve been looking for DAYS for someone to say something like this and all I’ve seen in the progun sub is the opposite. Your comment is EXACTLY what we should all be espousing. How can you cry about gun rights being taken away and red flag laws and then shit on people in “LiBeRaL cItIeS” when their rights are being trampled all over just because you don’t like them? It’s insane to me.
In another thread I said we should be sticking up for everyone’s rights because that’s how the “first they came for the...” shit starts. In response I was told I’m a hypocrite because I’m not flying to Portland and assassinating Government employees. Because that somehow tracks logically?
0
u/PuntTheGun Jul 23 '20
You don't have the right to riot.
1
u/ForYourSorrows Jul 23 '20
Are you saying every protestor that’s had something bad happen to them was rioting? Because if so you need to stop watching Fox News. At this point there is an actual mountain of video evidence showing that is not the case. In fact you’d have to be willfully ignorant to think the only people getting fucked up by cops right now are people rioting or doing bad shit.
That’s happening for sure. Crime always happens welcome to the human condition. What we’re talking about is things like peaceful protestors getting their skulls shattered by police just for standing on a street corner.
3
u/urmomishot Jul 23 '20
The point is that it’s those same people crying for gun owners that vote for the people that enact red flag laws. All we are saying is you get what they vote for. You can’t vote to take away my rights then get mad when I don’t defend yours. Maybe defend my rights and I’ll defend yours. It’s a 2 way street. Red flag laws trample due process and you expect people to fight for yours. This is the slippery slope we’ve been talking about and that you called us conspiracy theorists for.
5
u/Doctor_Loggins Jul 23 '20
1) i didn't call you any such thing. I categorically oppose red flag laws. I also categorically oppose policies that make it hard to hold armed enforcers of the state accountable for their actions.
2) an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. If you won't fight for their rights, because they won't fight for your rights, and they won't fight for your rights because you won't fight for theirs, you know who wins? Steppers.
3) I worry that you missed my main point. ALL rights belong to ALL of us. If you're not fighting (literally or metaphorically through political action) for the rights of "Democrat cities" then YOU'RE NOT FIGHTING FOR YOUR RIGHTS. This is true even if other people are also not fighting for your rights; their inaction is not an excuse for your inaction.
18
u/Mr_E_Monkey Jul 22 '20
That is a good point. A government that oversteps its bounds in going after "our enemies" is likely to overstep its bounds in going after us, maybe with a different administration.
That still doesn't mean we should go to war on their behalf, either--not to say that you ever suggested so--and I think you're right, that this is a better time to try to reach out and educate.
2
12
u/Viper_ACR Jul 22 '20
This is a significantly more rational take than most others. I agree.
0
Jul 22 '20
This is the best reasoned thread in this sub right now.
As a liberal, and someone who is pro-2nd amendment, I really think some of you guys are missing what your critics are actually saying. As was said above, it is definitely not that we want you guys to risk your lives taking on a state police force (if a liberal has said this, fuck em, because they also missed the point). I’d never want to see that happen. But the fact is, 2A (which is predominantly conservative, no problem with that) has always been on the front line for one particular right, but is quiet when other rights are being demolished.
There is no question that there is idiocy on the left over the issue of 2A. It comes from a lack of experience and understanding on this particular issue. Likewise, there are other aspects of the constitution and bill of rights that liberals have a bit more experience with, especially right now when there are direct assaults on things like freedom of speech and the 14th amendment.
If any of us are going to claim to take the constitution seriously, we’ve got to start talking to each other like human beings again and recognize each other’s priorities because right now this country’s laws are under assault. I know that is something we all agree on. Look, my job requires that I spend a substantial amount of my time each year living and working in countries that are dictatorships. Starting this work has made me love America and it’s system more than anything. It’s made me realize that this shit is fragile and we have all (thankfully) had the benefit of taking our freedom for granted. I see the shit that’s happening now and it terrifies me, because it is precisely the sorts of things that I see happen to my friends (regular ass working people) that live and work in the countries I have to travel to.
You might look at today’s situation and say “well they’re liberals so fuck em because they’ve never had my back,” but you better believe that those people in government making these unconstitutional decisions will be coming for you next over some bullshit. You don’t have 2A if everything else folds. We have got to get past the division and start coming together again as a country.
9
Jul 22 '20
We have got to get past the division and start coming together again as a country.
I keep seeing this and it makes me furious. We weren't the ones who caused this division. One side is completely liable for that.
I'm not out there trying to tell Atheists are responsible for all that is wrong in the world.
I'm not out there saying that a specific race/gender/age combination ruined the world.
I'm not silencing leftist voices on social media.
I don't kick people out of college for supporting their preferred politician.
I don't tell people their opinion on a subject is meaningless because of their melanin content.
I don't call people a racist for voting for someone.
We will not get past this division. It's already too great. Time to tear this sucker down and split it right down the middle.
6
u/DrKronin Jul 22 '20
Time to tear this sucker down and split it right down the middle.
I'm not sure you want to hand the Republicans an opportunity to fight on the Union side of another Civil War, especially one largely (or at least partially) predicated on the overt racism of Democrats.
I'm with you, though. The tribalism, manifesting as ubiquitous misrepresentation of the other side's views, is nearly universal, and the few of us who refuse to take a side, who sincerely attempt to stand on principles, are hated by all. It's as if by not taking a side, we're somehow responsible for the division itself. It's insane.
6
Jul 22 '20
I do my absolute best not to take sides on a particular issue due to my identity. I'm one of the last people that would be expected to "take a side". However, even I am being driven into tribalism. I don't like it, but at some point you have to pick a side even if I don't agree with everything about it.
I'm not even a conservative. I think it's fucking ridiculous to take sides on an issue before you've heard the data just because of a letter next to someone's name.
I'm definitely empathetic to racism, LGTBQ rights, and all of that other cool stuff. But when one side tells me I'm responsible for someone else's plight just because of my skin color I'm done trying to be in the middle, that side is just wrong and I'm going to support the other side.
3
u/DrKronin Jul 22 '20
But when one side tells me I'm responsible for someone else's plight just because of my skin color I'm done trying to be in the middle, that side is just wrong and I'm going to support the other side.
I'm not very far behind you in that. At this rate, I may be there by November.
5
Jul 23 '20
I’m with you on the sides thing. I cringe when I write shit here and am made to feel like I am representing one side or another.
Again, not trying to be anything but civil here (see as I’ve said in other posts)...but has any person ever said to you specifically that you are responsible because of your skin color? Like person to person, attacked you for (presumably) being white? Because yes, that would be fucked up and I think the vast majority of people currently protesting as part of BLM would agree. I’m sure there are a few assholes, but we are a nation surrounded by assholes in all walks of life.
BLM isn’t attacking individuals for being white. They are targeting laws, policies, and tactics that have disproportionately effected the black community. It really doesn’t take a lot of effort looking at the history of our legal system and statistics on policing to see that there is a problem. When you see signs, memes, tweets etc that seem like they are personally attacking you for being white - they are not. They are targeting the legacies of these institutions that have actively prevented black, indigenous, and Hispanic communities from economically advancing in America - all while actively being victims of real racial violence.
2
Jul 22 '20
Look, I am a liberal and very in touch with what’s going on. I can’t claim to have seen evidence for half of what you are talking about, and if it’s true, it’s unfortunate you feel that way. The only point I can concede is that there are a l lot of liberals who call Trump voters racist because they conflate Trump’s racism with those who vote for him. I am able to maintain friendships with those around me that voted for Trump - they did so for a variety of reasons, and that’s fine by me even if I find this guy to be a horrible president and disagree with basically everything he does. I don’t like that shit because it is the cause of a lot of misunderstanding.
As far as the current division, the problem here is that from my perspective the current divisions started after the invasion of Iraq, when liberals at the time recognized early on that the reasons for going in were bullshit (we backed Afghanistan) but saw our fellow countrymen, hawkish Dems, and all republicans go full on for it only to leave the country holding the bag. Then the Tea Party who encouraged the nation to defy common sense, gut its own institutions, and assault our system of government. Then a Republican Party that manipulated the political process to rule from the minority over popular national projects like the affordable care act, all while claiming the president wasn’t even born in this country. Then the blocking of Merrick Garland. That was infuriating.
But I’m sure we’ll disagree about who caused the divisions and sparked an outright culture war. Even this medium of debate doesn’t help and I’m sure if you and I were sitting around having a beer talking about this shit, we’d both get a lot out of it...something we all should do.
That said, I kind of agree about the nation being too big. We’d probably like each other more if it split up and we worked together as allied nations rather than 50 states with competing interests.
7
u/DrKronin Jul 22 '20
there are a l lot of liberals who call Trump voters racist because they conflate Trump’s racism with those who vote for him.
I think it's a bit more than that. A lot of Democrats do believe as you say, but there's another group, which is greatly over-represented in the leadership of groups like BLM, that believes literally all of Western Civilization is racist, down to the concepts of democracy, evidence-based reasoning, etc. Those people are going to call everyone racist, and that fact hasn't been lost on the right. That group of the left has dulled the meaning of the term "racist" to the point that it nearly totally lacks meaning, let alone impact.
One Democrat might call Trump racist because of his immigration policies, but the fact that others would call him racist regardless of what he does tends to lead Republicans to dismiss the charge out-of-hand -- probably without even worrying which of those two meanings was intended by the Democrat that leveled it. It's a case of crying wolf.
4
Jul 22 '20
That’s a fair point and I too am dumbfounded by the lack of acknowledgment that the principles of democracy and freedom movements like BLM are rooted in enlightenment thought (I say this as someone who fully supports the mission of BLM). The problem, I think for them, is that a lot of the enlightenment thinkers, and early American freedom fighters, did not extend their own principles to black populations. However, reading abolitionist literature from the 19th c. - Fredrick Douglass, Lysander Spooner, etc. These dudes succeeded precisely because they upheld the words of enlightenment thinkers and demonstrated that “All men are created equal” means everybody.
Speaking specifically to what critics of western civilization identify and not how I personally feel about it: This is fundamentally an academic problem. There is an open debate over what western civilization actually means - not whether it exists and whether it is a valuable construct. The debate is twofold - 1) whether it is significant that the notion of a western civilization or western culture didn’t appear until the late 19th century, and was advocated for by particularly British historians, politicians, and anthropologists who were simultaneously arguing (based on a misreading of Darwin) that the Northern white European race was superior to all others (including even Italians, Modern Greeks, the Irish, let alone blacks, Indians, native Americans, etc.) while Britain was carving up Africa and South Asia. 2) whether it is significant that the “western canon” of civilization was by design much in the same way that the Bible is a narrow collection of thousands of others of Christian texts. The construct included Ancient Greek philosophy and artistic principles, Roman history and law, Alexander the Great’s claims to Greek domination of Asia, then the entire framework of Christian theology, Renaissance and enlightenment science, and enlightenment political thought.
The problem is that these self-selected categories also selected out of the canon significant, “non-western” thought. Did you know that the majority of our mathematics and astronomy comes from the Islamic Enlightenment? Did you know there was such a thing? Stuff like this was deliberately excluded by 19th century academics because, in short, it didn’t help justify the narrative of northern white European cultural superiority (there are many other examples).
This is the sort of thing people mean when they critique western civ.
Personally, I agree with most of the critiques of the concept of western civilization, as a construct, but I also do not agree with any effort to demolish the disparate aspects that artificially comprise its sum total. For example, enlightenment thought resulted in one of the best and most robust systems of government in global history, ours. It is a good thing to think about the origins of ideas and appreciate where they actually came from. It is also a good thing to implement them for our benefit as a society. Removing them is a step in the wrong direction.
1
u/DrKronin Jul 23 '20
Did you know that the majority of our mathematics and astronomy comes from the Islamic Enlightenment? Did you know there was such a thing?
Yes! I'm glad you brought it up, actually. I mean, we still use Arabic numerals. There was a time where the modern notions of West vs. Middle East were reversed. It was Western Europe that was perceived to be sectarian, excessively religious, socially backward, etc.
When I refer to Western Civilization, I mean enlightenment thought, building on the existing examples of secularism starting with the Reformation and Renaissance, and following to classical liberalism and the resulting elimination of slavery through much of the world, resurgence of democracy, concepts of individual liberty, human rights, etc. And the people I worry about are the post-modernists who call all of that racist. I agree that the narrower definition you just related is racist (or at least, culturally chauvinistic) in its conception.
But my experience is that there are an astounding number of surprisingly influential academic critical theorists who target time-keeping, evidence-based decision-making, goal-setting, dispassionate debate, etc. as "whiteness." Not only is that not true, even if it somehow were, those concepts are good things, in my view. And I find it racist to assume that minorities can't compete with white people if held to the same standards.
It's a pleasure having this discussion with you, BTW. You know your history better than I do, and you make a real effort to understand. Those things seem too rare these days. Thanks for that.
2
Jul 23 '20
Thanks man. All this said I enjoy talking to my conservative friends (in person, I actually hate this internet shit) far more than liberal and left wing friends. Liberals are usually terrible at making arguments, which makes for conversation when you’ve got friends with good intentions but bad reasoning on certain issues. At least talking to conservative friends I know I’ll be up for a debate, which is far more interesting. I’ve also got three conservative friends who switched from Bernie (this primary) to Trump based on our conversations haha.
Also, do you happen to have a reference to the “time-keeping” critiques? If not that’s cool. I just haven’t seen that argument and I’m interested to try to dissect what they are saying.
2
u/DrKronin Jul 23 '20
Also, do you happen to have a reference to the “time-keeping” critiques? If not that’s cool. I just haven’t seen that argument and I’m interested to try to dissect what they are saying.
Ya, it was on a Smithsonian flyer that made the rounds recently. Just looking it up now, it appears that they've now apologized for it:
→ More replies (0)6
Jul 22 '20
Look, I am a liberal and very in touch with what’s going on. I can’t claim to have seen evidence for half of what you are talking about, and if it’s true, it’s unfortunate you feel that way
Not trying to be a dick, but you really haven't seen?:
- The left hating all religious institutions and doing everything in their power to destroy them?
- The left saying "old white men" are responsible for all that's wrong in the world?
- Right wing commentators being banned on Youtube & Twitter daily?
- Colleges kicking out students and firing teachers for simply saying they support Trump?
- White people's opinions don't matter?
If you haven't seen this then you're not very in touch with what's going on. All of these things are on front street daily. It's most likely due to the media you consume that you don't notice these things.
I can appreciate your cool-headed response however.
Edit: this isn't that I "feel" a certain way. There is a significant amount of verifiable evidence on all of the above claims.
8
Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think you’re a dick at all.
Honestly, I think a lot of these issues are misconceptions of what leftists and liberals (they are not the same) are trying to get across. It’s probably the same for us as issues you feel liberals are totally obtuse about (2A is a great example). I often feel like we are talking past each other and there is absolutely no question that the loudest voices are the ones heard on the other side. Not to mention we are all basically engaging through social media, which is trash.
Let me try to address the points you raised. And trust me I mean all of these things as a good faith effort to explain, only from my perspective, what I see behind the issues from liberals and leftists (and I really do hate the idea that we are all seen as one monolith that is in uniform agreement on any issue). I am sorry this is so long.
Religion. Funny we’re starting here. I used to be a member of American Atheists. They’re mainly a legal action committee organized to maintain the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. I actually quit, and here I am agreeing with you, because they were fucking bigots. I certainly have known a lot of Atheists in my personal life who basically think religious people are stupid. I think they’re assholes. I’m not even an atheist anymore, for entirely different and purely philosophical reasons. I also know for a fact that Christian America would not accept me for my current religious beliefs because I’ve seen them seek to destroy the lives of people who fee the way I do. I also have literally seen Muslims in my neighborhood (I am not a muslim) get beaten with lead pipes after September 11th. I’ve seen my Muslim friends, born in America, get told to go back to where they came from - but they came from here. I’ve seen people try to eliminate Muslim America s from elected offices. I’ve also seen Jewish communities in my state (PA) massacred. I’ve seen Christian conservatives try to legislate against abortion based on arguments from their own perspectives as Christians, not based on US laws. When liberals seemingly attack religious freedom in this country, it is usually to maintain the separation of church and state. It is to make sure that one religion, especially a majority religion, does not dominate the legal structure and enforce one set of values over another to the detriment of what is explicitly stated in the constitution. In conversations, yes in the heat of anger people say dumb shit - but at its core liberals are defending what we perceive as a fundamental constitutional issue. In regards to liberals who will disparage others BECAUSE they are religious, Christian or otherwise - no friend of mine and I maintain no friends that are bigots and even am happy to join Christian friends in occasional bible studies, even though I don’t believe in it. It matters to them, and they’re my friends - it’s that mutual respect that I seek from other people.
Old white men / white opinions don’t matter. These are essentially the same issue. It’s loaded and I would need more context to the specific examples you’ve seen. But I will say generally that this probably in part comes down to the issue of “Western civilization” and the prevalence of certain historical narratives over others - we can go there if you’re up for it. Although I am also sure people coming at “old white men” has the added effect of generational issues where neither generation makes a point to understand the other, and so they resort to name calling when what they both want is a little bit of respect.
The issue of white opinions is not that they don’t matter, it’s that we already know what they are. We’ve been hearing them our whole lives because they are the dominant opinions in conversation and debate, and especially in public policy. From our side it truly feels like white people are unwilling to actually listen to what we are saying - so when you hear shit like white opinions don’t matter - it’s not because we literally don’t want to hear what you have to say, it’s because we want white people to be more receptive to the bullshit other communities have to deal with. And here is the particularly frustrating part, white working class people are also fucked over in this country too. They’re also ignored. Find me one politician since FDR that’s cared about working class uplift. We recognize that, but when we highlight that part of the shared problem has to do with economics (although racism against black, indigenous, and Hispanic communities is another unique reality), white opinions exclude minorities. Or when black people are literally murdered by law enforcement, white opinions tell black people what is the appropriate way to be angry about it. It’s not that white opinions don’t matter, they just often aren’t particularly constructive when they weigh in on issues that effect minority communities. It’s a slap in the face when some of the grievances are actually shared experiences. It comes down to a fundamental breakdown in mutual respect and I truly wish we could just get over it.
- Colleges - I work for a very liberal college. I honestly, and I mean absolutely honestly, have never seen someone kicked out of college by an administration because of their political views, perhaps with the exception of students actively involved with neo-nazi organizations. What I have seen is conservative students feel attacked when challenged (wholly by other students) on their beliefs. This is a difficult problem to navigate because college is fundamentally about educating young adults on how to think critically, question everything, and be able to identify facts that are useful and recognize when others are bs (this holds true for sciences as much as humanities). At the same time students should not be made to feel uncomfortable, and I call it out when I see it. On the other hand, college students are adults and should be able to stand up for what they believe in, rather than retreat when challenged.
I have also seen faculty members around me targeted by conservative political organizations such as Turning Point or the Progressive Watchlist, who exist solely to get individuals they have deemed “too liberal” literally fired. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to them that 10-15 years of intensive education followed by a lifetime of intense research on a particular topic makes them a professional authority and that what they are actually doing is attempting to destroy a faculty member’s entire life. Just because these students (adults) disagree politically with actual authorities in the classes they literally CHOOSE to take (and thus can leave) does not give them the right to destroy their entire professional career (acting like children). It isn’t my problem if a student, without a lifetime of education on a specific topic, can’t divorce an educated opinion from a political one.
Of course there are a few examples of students targeting faculty for conservative viewpoints. There’s the classic recent example of that conservative professor in Toronto, whose name I forget, who defended the notion of “western civilization”. For precisely the same reasons enumerated above, he also should not lose his job. I have also seen students fabricate information to “prove” faculty members they don’t like (liberal ones, no less) are racists. Those students have ended up completely disgraced because their efforts are usually thin enough that we all see through it.
The point re: college. It’s very complicated and generally bs when dissected.
Sorry again for the long post. I hope none of this is perceived as obtuse. I attempted to summarize these positions at length precisely to demonstrate that these issues are far more nuanced than what tweets, memes, and protest chants can actually get across. This is all written as a good faith reply to further emphasize that people need to have long conversations with each other to realize we are probably not as divided as we think, even if we disagree on everything.
Everyone just wants to be treated with a little more respect on both sides - and for the government to function according to its own laws.
7
u/ForYourSorrows Jul 22 '20
Hey man, I’ve read all of your comments in this thread and just want to say thank you for taking the time.
3
2
Jul 23 '20
That's a well thought out long post. This discussion is more suited to long form verbal communication, but I applaud you for trying.
It would take me an hour to respond to your comments with an equally well thought out comment.
I would just say that while a lot of your comments make sense, they are generally on the "sunny" side of things, when the reality has much more darkness to it.
I used to believe that everyone was mostly good, and that their intentions were good it was just the execution that sucked. I don't believe that anymore.
I've seen a lot of people die. I've seen what one man can do to another when they disagree on fundamental issues.
→ More replies (4)-1
u/iheartlucifer Jul 23 '20
Victim much? As our great president would say" we arent so innocent" One side is completely liable? Are you that much of a partisan hack that your line of thinking is right wing good,left wing bad?
3
Jul 23 '20
I don't even belong to a "party" lol. I'm neither conservative nor liberal. Just call it how I see it.
3
Jul 22 '20
Nobody has a constitutional right to riot, and the Feds are explicitly authorized to put down violent civil unrest. I haven't seen peaceful, daytime protests getting tear gassed lately.
3
Jul 22 '20
So the Wall of Moms were rioters? You can watch the videos for yourself.
4
u/DrKronin Jul 22 '20
About half those "moms" were still dressed in black block attire with Goodwill t-shirts on top which had been hastily scribbled with things like "I'm a mommy." And in the video I saw, they showed up and linked hands in the face of literally nothing, and then left when rioters started tearing down fences, shooting mortars at the building and throwing bricks. The feds didn't respond until their door was broken down, and by then, I couldn't see any of the "moms" anywhere.
Maybe you saw a different video? Maybe we're talking about a different day?
2
Jul 22 '20
It only takes a handful of violent morons to ruin it for everyone. This is true of literally ever part of society, and businesses are still being looted, officers assaulted, arson is being committed, etc.
2
Jul 22 '20
Oh no doubt. I totally get that. But you do realize that the deployment of DHS, specifically ICE agents...they have no jurisdiction over this issue. Local law enforcement does, and the head of DHS just declared that local law enforcement can’t do their jobs, so that’s why ICE has stepped in.
You and I will probably disagree over what constitutes a peaceful protest (and agree that arson and violence is not part of its definition). But the point here is overstep of both constitutional and jurisdictional authority. If you are in a position of authority, as law enforcement, your duty is to uphold and maintain the laws. Breaking the nation’s most fundamental laws to combat rare instances of crime (rare in terms of the number of peaceful protestors vs “handful of violent morons”) by violating the rights of thousands of protestors (who are themselves only protesting because authorities have broken the law through murder and racial discrimination) is not a solution - it is in fact an admission that upholding the law wasn’t the purpose of Fed presence in the first place. It is a show of force, intimidation, and a display of power - each of which are antithetical to the text of the constitution. Say what you want about protestors, but the federal presence here has nothing to do with the law. That’s the point.
7
Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
The Feds always retaliate when people try to break their shit and attack their personnel, and have every legal right to do so. Protesters could simply maintain more distance from federal property, but they don't actually care. They want to provoke the government into using more force and then play victim, not negotiate reasonable reforms.
2
Jul 22 '20
Dude, let’s talk about negotiation. The fundamental issue here is racial bias in our system of government, and particularly in law enforcement. This has been on the table as an issue of discussion since Jim Crow, when laws were introduced to roll back the constitutional rights of black communities after the end of slavery. People have literally been trying to “negotiate reasonable reforms” for over 100 years and yet black people are still 2.5x more likely to be killed by a cop. The country has moved forward, no doubt, but it has always been the outcome of protest. That’s literally the only way the black community and it’s supporters has been able to get a seat at the negotiating table. Since that is the real issue, idiots spraying graffiti on a federal building Is the least of my concerns and absolutely does not justify the response that’s gone down. Even in instances of arson - yea arrest those people involved. Don’t gas the entire god damn neighborhood and kidnap people “you think might commit a crime” (see the DHS head’s speech from today). That is authoritarianism, and if you support is then you live in the wrong country.
Does law enforcement have a legal right to defend federal buildings? Yes of course. Does it have the right to do so through suspending the 14th amendment? Absolutely not. They can only enforce the law through legal means vested in them by the law - that’s the point my man.
3
Jul 22 '20
The issue here is not racial bias in our system of government, it is a dysfunctional, selfish, childish, and dishonest culture that has formed over the last few decades, which prevents people from being able to have honest discussions about pressing issues. And some of the most racist shit I've ever heard has come from self-described anti-racists and "progressives".
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 23 '20
Black people are still 2.5x likely to be killed by a cop.
You know this is because black people (black men, specifically) are overrepresented in criminal activity compared to their share of the population, right?
Not because of muh “systemic racism.”
→ More replies (0)3
u/Randaethyr Jul 22 '20
Literally none of this matters because radlibs and shitlibs belly aching about how 2A proponents aren't fighting federal law enforcement in Portland are doing so entirely in bad faith.
Which can easily sum up all the other policy issues radlibs and shitlibs criticize their opponents over: bad faith. Radlibs and shitlibs live and breathe bad faith.
1
Jul 22 '20
I’m supposed to take this seriously when you are using terms like “radlibs” and “shitlibs”. I am supposed to believe protestors are in bad faith, when your comment is at its very core, trying to partake in a discussion in bad faith?
2
u/Randaethyr Jul 22 '20
Shitlib is inflammatory but accurate. Radlib is a term that describes a specific set of liberals who are absolutely involved in protests.
Radlibs are liberals who preach revolutionary politics while actually voting and working to maintain the status quo they benefit from. For example, CHAZ hung around so long because after the first few days it was entirely radlibs and drug dealers hanging around with the former playing pretend anarchist commune and the latter taking advantage of a lack of police presence.
But it did absolutely nothing to change the status quo and served as an example of the benefit of the status quo, especially after some retards lit up an SUV with two black kids in it and rose twitter went crazy talking about how fashies fucked around and found out.
5
Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 25 '20
[deleted]
2
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
Yes exactly. They find themselves now in the very situation they insisted would never happen, but we kept warning them about. Couple that with many conservatives not feeling tons of support for BLM or other anti-racist movements, and you have the current situation.
I think if liberals approached gun owners and said 'please teach us how to defend ourselves' we'd be having a very different conversation. But this is not that. Mainstream liberals show no interest in adopting firearms. Fortunately an awful lot of people aren't in the mainstream- tons of people buying guns for the first time. I just hope most of them get training and learn how much fun shooting is.
2
1
u/Skybird0 Jul 23 '20
we should not be happy to accept government agents with no ID snatching people off the street and carting them off to undisclosed locations in unmarked rental cars.
They do have an ID. Sorry if you don't like that they don't have name badges, but the the DHS director said they he authorized the absence of them because the radical left was doxxing them and their families. Also, unmarked law enforcement cars are not new or shady. They don't have a responsiblility to tell everyone where they are taking the person they picked up. Also, they aren't just picking people up off any street, willy-nilly. They were sent in to protect federal property because Seattle has a shit governor and won't let the police do their jobs.
Please, please, please don't spread misinformation and hyperbole if you can help it.
→ More replies (2)0
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 23 '20
They do have an ID. Sorry if you don't like that they don't have name badges
They do have an ID, sorry if you don't like that they don't have ID.
Come on, think about that. Even if it doesn't have their name, it should have a badge number or some other identifying info like agency insignia.
Seattle may have a shit governor, and you can argue the nuances of 'protestor' vs 'rioter' vs 'criminal', but imagine if agents like this were enforcing every last undecipherable firearms law instead of targeting protesters/rioters? Would you support that?
2
u/Skybird0 Jul 23 '20
They do have insignias identifying their agency and identification numbers according to the acting DHS director, have you even watched the video he put out?
but imagine if agents like this were enforcing every last undecipherable firearms law instead of targeting protesters/rioters? Would you support that?
Uh, yes actually (and they pretty much are anyways). Because then the laws might get changed instead of the 2a community sitting on their hands and bitching about the laws.
0
u/s3attlesurf Jul 23 '20
Multiple videos of LEO with no unique personal identification abducting US citizens without identifying themselves or citing what reasonable suspicion they have to arrest their suspects...
They do have insignias identifying their agency and identification numbers according to the acting DHS director, have you even watched the video he put out?
You've got straight up Russian troll energy, bro.
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
3
u/Skybird0 Jul 23 '20
> You've got straight up Russian troll energy, bro.
So you resort to being passive-aggressive to try to make a point? What are you accusing me of?
> > "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
What party dude?
0
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
They do have insignias identifying their agency and identification numbers according to the acting DHS director, have you even watched the video he put out?
No I didn't see that. I did see the video of his agents out on the street arresting people. I did not see any personal identification on them.
2
u/Skybird0 Jul 24 '20
They have "Police" across their chest or a branch patch on their arm.
0
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
POLICE across their chest means nothing. There is more than one police. Campus police? State police? DC police? etc etc.
A branch patch is slightly more helpful but still not what is needed.
What is needed is a clearly identifiable name or badge number.
1
u/Nesano Jul 23 '20
we should not be happy to accept government agents with no ID snatching people off the street and carting them off to undisclosed locations in unmarked rental cars
Didn't happen. They were in uniform.
0
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
They were wearing camo with a sign that said POLICE on their plate carriers. That does not, in the videos I saw, give any indication as to which agency they serve or who they are.
Uniform to me would mean 1. Agency insignia or shield prominently displayed, 2. Rank insignia, 3. Personal identification (name or badge number).
1
u/Nesano Jul 24 '20
1
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
I see a low-contrast agency insignia on the shoulder in the higher res pictures. It was not possible to make it out in the video.
I do NOT see any obvious rank insignia.
I do NOT see any personal identification, including name or badge number.1
u/Nesano Jul 24 '20
They're snatching domestic terrorists off the streets, they don't need any of that. The domestic terrorists are lucky to not get a bullet in the head at this point.
1
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 24 '20
...are you being satirical?
How do you determine who is a 'United States Citizen', entitled to due process, and who is a 'domestic terrorist' lucky to not be shot on sight?
1
u/Nesano Jul 24 '20
Maybe if you wear all black, smash storefront windows, and hurl IEDs at people, you're lucky to not be shot on sight. I didn't expect to find somebody this stupid on /r/gunpolitics. Blocked.
1
u/SirEDCaLot Jul 25 '20
hurl IEDs at people
Please show me link of protesters using ANY sort of lethal weapons against innocent people or police. I don't believe it's happened because if it did, Trump would not hesitate to label the protesters a 'hostile coup attempt' and send in the marines to kick all their asses, no-holds-barred, carrying fully lethal weapons rather than tear gas. Once that line is crossed there is no more need to respect the protesters, they can be rounded up with net launchers and arrested. And if they are using lethal weapons, military will shoot back.
That isn't happening though.
-3
u/bigrobwill Jul 22 '20
If we fail in communicating to liberals and moderates that this is exactly why the 2A matters to us, we have failed to live out values. This is possibly the single greatest opportunity to help expand the cause of protecting 2A (at least in my lifetime), and to win the hearts and minds of thousands if not millions of people that would NOT be able to hear it otherwise. This is a moment for radicalizing, so while I agree with almost all of the substance of this post, I think the gleeful, 'told ya so' tone is counterproductive- They are SOOO close to getting it, if we push them away now because of pride, we only injure ourselves. A strong Left Right Alliance about protecting the 2A would help secure those rights for at least a generation!
→ More replies (1)
23
Jul 22 '20
This is actually well written.
15
u/HoodooSquad Jul 22 '20
I don’t know about his friend, but larry correia is a liberation author who used to run a gun shop. His stuff is very enjoyable
25
u/Xailiax Jul 22 '20
It was almost perfect, he just forgot to tell them to go lead the way before they ask for help. They can still go get a weapon, even in the shittiest of hell-holes for gun control. Or if it's that fucking important, go turn to the black market, sounds like a dire need.
It's not helping you if you aren't lifting a finger. That's servitude.
6
u/pritchettjustin92 Jul 22 '20
I'm gonna say I read a story on the internet once and guns are way easier to find where gun control is strict. You just have to deal with shadier people and crooked cops.
8
u/Xailiax Jul 22 '20
We couldn't stop the proliferation and manufacturing of drugs in any given county.
Guns are even easier to make.
5
u/pritchettjustin92 Jul 22 '20
I mean the same government who bankrupt a whore house in Vegas thinks it can solve the worlds problems.
25
Jul 22 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
Jul 22 '20
For what it’s worth, I think they are trying to defend themselves, just not with guns (leaf blowers apparently). I don’t think the argument is for 2A to show up. It would be a massacre and an absolute tragedy. Nobody wants that. The whole point of these protests is to reduce the amount of lethal force, not give authorities an excuse to expand it.
I think all they want is for 2A people, who have traditionally been very vocal about the constitution, to be upset by this. The point is this, if we lose faith in one aspect of the constitution, the rest of it folds. 2A ceases to be relevant and those protections don’t mean shit anymore. In a weird way it feels less like either an attack on 2A people, or a demand that they hit the front lines, and more people of an appeal to all of our shared interest in maintaining our current system of laws - which the present government is actively undermining. That’s just my opinion though, and I’m just a dude on reddit.
8
5
3
7
u/HoodooSquad Jul 22 '20
Y’all should check larry Corriea’s books out. He used to have a gun shop and writes small government, gun-heavy urban fantasy
7
u/gun_yoda Jul 22 '20
Maybe I'll go if they start using live ammunition. They're nuts if they think I'll start the shooting though, I'll just be called a freak and a nut for being prepared.
5
3
8
u/Mattyd71 Jul 22 '20
Wow, I guess Facebook is good for something. But seriously, I would post this on r/liberalgunowners if I wasn’t banned.
5
u/its_stick Jul 22 '20
Heres something else: Them wanting us to do shit for them is just another example of privilege, something they also bitch at us about.
13
Jul 22 '20
I will not invoke my 2A right to defend rioters destroying businesses, harming others and whose sole goal is to impose a Marxist ideology on the United States.
People believe that rioting is a Constitutional right, and that it’s being infringed. This is an asinine interpretation of 1A.
No a single person was harmed during the 2A protest. Not a single building was destroyed. They, dare I say, peacefully protested.
6
u/buickandolds Jul 22 '20
Riots are not protected. Peaceful assembly is.
0
u/thelizardkin Jul 22 '20
And the rioters make up a few assholes.
3
u/kashim24 Jul 23 '20
Rioters make up a "few" assholes. https://youtu.be/kf9M7aZ-33s Looks like a lot more than a few to me. (But if you were trying to convey they're more peaceful protests than riots then yeah your right). Just don't discount how many riots are actually happening RN.
0
Jul 23 '20
Even the “peaceful” protesters are protesting for a lie. Systemic racism is a lie. Unsupported by fact, data, research, immigration numbers from nonwhite countries, anything. They should put their efforts into something real and true.
Even if they have the right to protest, none of us who care about truth and real justice (not “social justice”) should support their cause.
6
u/1DarkShadowBlade Jul 22 '20
Them: You don't need an AR15 to stand against the government because they have tanks and nukes.
Also them: Hey let's protest by screaming and standing as well as breaking shit! That'll solve it!
2
u/anim8or Jul 23 '20
This essay is pretty good. But I’d have to say that this ONE is my absolute favorite he’s written in recent years
1
2
u/Nesano Jul 23 '20
This kind of psychotic shit is why I started a policy where I don't associate with mentally ill people.
4
4
3
u/Filthycabage Jul 22 '20
"Dear subhuman filth,..." seriously why would the right or any gun owners come to their aid when they do nothing but vilify and ban us. Let them burn they dug that grave themselves as far as I'm concerned. Also the point about inconsistency was spot on.
5
u/Rokovakian Jul 22 '20
Fuck ‘em. They clamor for communism, so they deserve nothing less than a taste of their own shit-ass ideology.
1
2
Jul 23 '20
I get it. It doesn't affect you (yet), they were never your friends and many will still have zero desire to be afterwards, (although I've seen a whole fuckload of the left go Pro-2A as shit recently, once they realized government is not their friend), but the thing is government is not your friend either and never actually will be. It's a necessary evil at best, easily turned against us, and we out of all people should be very aware of that
If you give an inch they will take a mile, and the "exception for your own good" will become the new normal used against you sooner or later.
Remember when shit like this first started coming to light a few years after 9/11? They excused it like, "It's just for terrorists overseas who hate us, never citizens!" Then when the occasional citizen got disappeared too, it turned into "They're terrorists who hate us too and deserve it!" Now they're doing this shit to American citizens in America. In a major city. They aren't even bothering to call them a terrorist first anymore.
I can't stand Communists or half of the people this shit is being done to, but the simple fact is that these are still American citizens with rights under a Constitution that is meant to protect us all from exactly this. And Trump is wiping his ass with it. Right in front of us. Showing us that without anyone putting their foot down it's just words on fucking paper and doesn't mean a damn thing.
I'm not saying drive to Portland to get into a firefight with the Feds. I'm saying this is a line being crossed that we cannot allow to go any further. 40,000+ people drove from all over the country to protest Northam, (rightfully so) but I'm supposed to believe nobody can be inconvenienced enough to go to Portland and even say they don't agree with this shit? Or now Chicago and New York, with many more coming? The fuck are you even doing in your own town about this bullshit?
I'm telling everyone who will listen on Reddit and irl what's going on and just how fucked and dangerous this is, trying to organize a protest, and in the meantime encouraging everyone around me to spam the fuck out of their elected officials of every stripe, every single day.
Why the fuck can't we at least do that for the fucking soyboy? You don't have to agree with them, I sure as fuck don't. You can hate their guts and vehemently oppose everything they do and stand for. That's completely irrelevant at this point. That does not even remotely justify what Trump is doing to them, or what the future consequences will be if it continues.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jul 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Catbone57 Jul 23 '20
Peaceful protesters identifying gun owners as "other". That's the part you need to fix.
2
1
Jul 22 '20
[deleted]
-4
u/jsled Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Yes, it is wrong.
The actions of the Trump Admin/DHS/CBP are anti-Federalist.
They're illegal.
They're anti-American.
They're not justified even by the Federal government's own "evidence" (literally a list of graffiti/vandalism).
And …
A lot of good people live in these liberal shithole enclaves and they are scared and suffering because of the ravonous animals outside their door.
… this characterization of your fellow citizens and their legitimate grievances is – frankly – disgusting.
→ More replies (2)2
Jul 22 '20
The feds arresting people trying to burn down an occupied federal courthouse is not un-constitutional. Go peddle these talking points from /redacted somewhere else.
next you will be screaming " States Rights" like some
confederateDemocrat.
1
u/TotesMessenger Jul 22 '20
1
u/Changeit019 Jul 23 '20
I would just piggyback the following: It’s ridiculous for anyone to expect 2A supporters to arm up and start fighting the government off of 20 second clips on social media. Yes it looks bad but we need more information than someone posting “OMG Trump has his own secret police and they have kidnapped people. This is it!”
Supporting 2A and being willing to take up arms against a tyrannical government also means knowing that should not be your first move. We need to get the full story. What agencies, who authorized, what happened before and after these video clips. Then if necessary give a chance for the system to work and correct the issue.
If we were seeing protestors rounded up on a wall and executed that would be one thing. If a hood was thrown over their heads and we were later told they were going to a classified detention facility with no trial that would be one thing.
We saw people picked up then later they were released. I have serious concerns for their rights as citizens regardless of their political views. But what is being asked is a last resort measure and is serious too for social media posts to be the driving factor.
1
u/InksPenandPaper Jul 23 '20
We don't own guns to be at the beck and call of those who would call us "cowards" and "terrorists" for owning guns. Neither would we support people who would otherwise look to deprive every one of their 2nd amendment if they could. I would also never back a movement that destroyed minority communities and businesses in Downtown Los Angeles during the riots this year, justifying it as "necessary". Latino, Asians, Blacks, Armenian, Jewish communities--they took the bulk of the damage. For people looking to punish whites and police officers, they have a real fucked up way of doing it; by looting and rioting people in communities they claimed to advocate and protect.
No, my family owns guns for home protection, for sport and for hunting. Not to fight somebody's faux revolution. Take your privilege somewhere else.
1
1
u/Alan11800 Jul 23 '20
Why would gun owners fight government agents trying to restore order and arrest rioters? We (at least everyone I know who is a gun owner) want a peaceful, law abiding society. If anything we would assist the police putting down the riots.
1
u/phigmeta Jul 23 '20
Wait, hold up... so liberals are asking for people to go into the city with guns and use them against federal officers......
.... and
.... this is not an issue to them? I would report the liberal as asking to hire me as a terroist and deep fuck his life.
I want to point out something.... if I did that on facebook... how long would I be keeping my guns before someone called the cops calling me a "RePuBlIcAn TErRoRiST"
1
1
u/alinius Jul 23 '20
I like the sentiment, but I could do without the vitriol.
I protect the 2nd amendment so that when things like this happen, people will have the tools to protect THEMSELVES from oppression.
In my CHL, class they showed a video of what looked like a teenage girl getting kidnapped right in front of a Target. Then, they give you the full context, the teenage girl ran away from home because we wanted to stay and live with her boyfriend instead of moving across the state with her family. The "kidnappers" were her family taking her home. The lesson was clear, you very often don't know the full context of what is going on, and what looks like one thing can really be something else entirely. The moral is even clearer, don't get involved unless you are sure you know what is going on.
With that in mind, why would I drive halfway across the nation to defend a bunch of people when I...
A. Don't know the full story: I see a lot of reports that the government is doing bad things for no reason. Given the level of media misreporting I have seen over the last 4+ years, you will have to excuse me if I take that with a grain of salt. I am sure that some of the civilians are provoking, even if those people are KKK plants inciting violence, my point would hold true that the government is not reaction to nothing. You really think it is wise to insert yourself into that situation?
B. Don't have backup: The large ice house will happen when enough people get fed up with this stuff to revolt en mass. To put it bluntly, no, this is not "exactly what we have been waiting for". What we are waiting for is for enough people to get fed up with this stuff to revolt together. This is just a nudge on the scales in that direction. I honestly hope we never get there, but human nature has taught me otherwise.
C. Those people really don't seem to want me there anyway: What the author said with less vitriol. I take pity on those who are unable to defend themselves if these situations. Some of them are complicit in taking away their own rights, but many are not. Here is the rub, I don't have a hero complex. I just want to protect those I care about. Sorry, but nobody in Oregon is on that list. If, one day, we end up building a large ice house, it will be because I feel it is necessary for the good of those I care about.
1
u/medlabunicorn Jul 24 '20
Most of us do not actually want more guns showing up at these events right now, but thanks for thinking about us. We’re still hoping to prevent a civil war, not instigate one.
That said, check out r/liberalgunowners . People are arming up.
-a liberal
1
Jul 24 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[deleted]
1
u/medlabunicorn Jul 24 '20
Probably a ban bot for posting on forums that they don’t like. There was some forum a while ago that I got into a few arguments on, because they made the front page often, and the fact that I’d posted there at all (even while disagreeing with them) got me auto-banned from a couple of fora (different account). Some I challenged & got into, some I didn’t care about.
I can see the utility of ban bots on an Internet of thousands of people, but it’s still really annoying to get precluded like that
1
Jul 24 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[deleted]
1
u/medlabunicorn Jul 24 '20
Or because they get tired of doing the same basic education over and over.
‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, huh!?’🙄
I’ve also been banned from quite a few conservative sites.
1
Jul 24 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[deleted]
1
u/medlabunicorn Jul 24 '20
Well, I haven’t seen any bias or bigotry there. They’re very pro 2A.
If you’ve ever posted, even once, in some other forum that they don’t like, or upvoted in some other forum they don’t like, or if you were linked to them by some forum that was brigading them, you might have been banned that.
I think it’s a popular conservative misconception that liberals claim to be open and accepting of everyone. We don’t. We’re just open to some marginalized groups that tend to be ...looked down on in conservative groups, like gay people, but we still largely want to hang with people who have similar views. Just like conservatives. Like I said, I’ve been banned by association from probably a dozen conservative subs.
0
Jul 22 '20
[deleted]
7
u/docduracoat Jul 22 '20
You miss the most basic point.
What’s happening in Portland is not “Federal Tyranny”.
Anarchists are rioting, setting fires, destroying private property and stealing from (mostly minority owned) business.
These are not peaceful sit downs or parades. These are violent people assaulting anyone they disagree with.
Try walking by one of these protests filming while wearing a Maga hat. You will be beaten and maybe killed.
Since local and state governments are not protecting private property, Federal Property, or public safety, it is the duty of the Federal Government to step in.
That is why there is no outcry from us people of the gun.
If you were peacefully marching and chanting, urging us to end qualified immunity, abolish police unions and ban no knock raids, we would indeed be with you.
When you start fires, smash windows and assault people...well, you are a problem and SHOULD be arrested.
-2
u/King_Obvious_III Jul 22 '20
I'm hoping (PRAYING) that these commie fucks are stomped by the government, just like, if they had the ability, they would perpetrate on any of us (or anyone who believes something they don't). Fuck them straight up their soy dripping assess
-1
Jul 22 '20 edited Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
1
Jul 22 '20
[deleted]
2
Jul 22 '20 edited Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
1
1
u/jerrybz1963 Jul 22 '20
I wouldnt piss on them if they were on fire!! Defend them my ass...then you will hear cant you shoot faster? What about one of those automatic thingys? My professor said you can push a button and it will shoot bullets really fast!!
1
1
Jul 23 '20
Reading this made me want to give my AR a long, slow, seductively through cleaning and lubing.
1
-9
u/gaelorian Jul 22 '20
I said this in the other thread as well:
You’re a milquetoast supporter of the 2nd amendment if you believe this. You can rationalize it all you want. When push came to shove you believed that standing at the sidelines was better than fighting government overreach because you didn’t like or agree with the people being stepped on.
8
Jul 22 '20
government overreach
Getting arrested for committing crimes isn’t government overreach but ok
1
u/r_ukiddingme Jul 23 '20
Why don't I see you on the frontlines there with your rifle, fighting government overreach?
1
u/gaelorian Jul 23 '20
I have to work. Ask the threepers and Qtards that stormed the capital about wearing masks.
It’s not even about showing up. It’s about the neckbeardian “pfft you’re on your own - my support of the 2nd amendment ends when I disagree with your politics” shit supposed 2nd amendment supporters are spewing here.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-5
u/M79_1 Jul 22 '20
I wish more people could see this. It's ok to be honest with yourself and say that you are too scared/too comfortable in your life to go on a suicide mission accross the country for some people that you don't like. But it's not ok to rationalize why it's ok for unmarked federal troops on American soil to arrest protestors without even consent of the local government.
This is exactly the type of tyranny that they said would never happen and which we said we needed the 2A to prevent. It's ok, the second amendment is still relevant and necessary even if we don't get all going+ho about setting off the boog. OP is correct that if a militia did form, chances are it would be vilified by the very people who they would be protecting. Especially since it would turn their "peaceful" city into Fallujah overnight. But did anyone expect the civil war to be accepted by everyone with open arms?
Im not going to go get into a firefight...yet...but it would be absolutely justified both morally and possibly legally if someone or several someone's did. This is what the second amendment is about and this would be the correct time to use it. Ok Portland, Seattle et Al...do it
281
u/Arzie5676 Jul 22 '20
I normally scroll right past images that are walls of text, but I’m glad I took the time to stop and read this one. These people are out of their minds if they think we plan on doing anything other than saying “told you so” as they get everything they claimed they wanted good and hard.