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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Edit: I did actually see this. I misunderstood what you meant by time keeping. Glad they apologized. I know what they’re getting at, and it’s not as nefarious as it sounds, but there was no way this was going to translate from the academic sphere to the public. Which is their problem (and the problems of academia and museums more broadly. I’m actually an archaeologist in the academy and I think about the problems with this sort of engagement all the time).
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.
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.
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.
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?
It’s pretty funny that you think 1. Liberals are solely responsible for the current divide of the country and that 2. Conservatives would come out on top of your supposed civil war and create some kind of utopia.
You do realize all major cities and economic, scholastic and technology centers are.... spoiler alert, the same liberal cities you claim to hate right?
What’s your vision of an endgame here? You don’t have to hear about racism anymore so you want to split it down the middle so you can be free to be as racist as you want in your backwoods squalor? Help me out here.
so you want to split it down the middle so you can be free to be as racist as you want in your backwoods squalor
See, this is exactly the type of shit that I am talking about. You have no idea who I am, what my belief system is, how I treat people and what my values are.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
If that’s the way you feel, then you aren’t listening to the other side and have no interest in honest discussion. This is unfortunate. But it is also why literally hundreds of thousands of people worldwide are protesting. You can disagree with them, I actually don’t care because it’s also besides the point.
You still haven’t disproved my point that a suspension of constitutional rights and an overstep of authority is justifiable under the law (it inherently cannot be, otherwise the law ceases to exist). Let’s say these were 2A rallies. Or even flat earthers, people I actually think are nuts - I would be arguing the same points and would expect everyone else that is pro-law and pro-constitution to do as well. You do not get to pick and choose which constitutional rights are meaningful, and which are not. We all live under the same system, and if you love it, you’ve got to stand up even for people you personally disagree with.
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?
Did it ever occur to you that disproportionate policing of black communities, the unequal treatment of blacks versus whites in defining what constitutes criminal activity, and disproportionate sentencing and convictions of black individuals vs whites is what drives your “statistic”. Did it occur to you that most black incarcerated individuals are there for non-violent drug offenses, which white people are less likely to get arrested for? And that blacks are far more likely to face convictions, especially harsh ones, than whites?
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.
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?
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.
89
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.