• Leftychat
    176 replies, posted
it is odd since a lot of left wing folk back in the day like Marx himself were pretty damn pro-gun
That's one of the problems I face being a liberal individual who happens to be very pro-2nd amendment. I was rooting for Sanders the whole way, but If i event hint at what I do for a living or express my ideas over the 2nd I get immediately cast as a pro-Trump bible thumper. It's very frustrating.
It doesn't help that gun rights have a large number of single-issue voters, too. Trump probably won a few states in 2016 due to that alone, especially in the north.
I'm about as fucking lefty as you can go, and even I am absolutely for the right for recreational gun ownership. I consider it a liberal stance and always has, and I don't let people try to tell me otherwise. There's a lot of other policies that people don't consider liberal that I argue are, mainstream labels be damned. That being said, I am also strongly in support of regulation, education, and management methods, such as keeping a registry of firearm registrations, firearm education classes and the licenses to prove them being taken, and more stringent aptitude tests (both mental and technical). Policies that are often considered policing because of the unfortunate reality that anti-gun politicians use such methods to control and restrict gun ownership. Try as I might to convince them I absolutely abhor the confiscation and especially destruction of firearms, the moment I even suggest the ideas of regulation or control, I automatically get dismissed as being a gun-hating liberal. When in reality it's the opposite. I just happen to respect the unprejudiced power that firearms potentiate, and believe that we as a society should do our best to make sure that power is contained and directed in a positive way. I believe every man, woman, and child should have the right to own firearms and enjoy firing them, be it at an official range or their own backyards (provided they live out of the urban/suburban centers so that the sound doesn't inconvenience others). I just also believe that said men and women should be able to prove that they know how to correctly carry, use, and store those firearms; and in the case of children, that their parents are able to prove that as well (since a parent who rightfully respects and knows how to handle firearms likely won't stand for seeing their children disrespect and mishandle them). And at the same time, I also believe that the government should be able to keep track of firearms, the same way they are able to keep track of motor vehicles. I don't think it should be a big hassle, either - much like with motor vehicles, the transfer of firearms should be as simple as going to a local registrar and just saying "I want to transfer the title for X from myself to Y," and have both parties sign a simple form saying you both agree to that transfer. Needless to say, mainstream politickers from both sides of the isle don't know what to do with me on this particular subject.
What use would that have, and where has that ever been of use before? Canada is a big example of it being an absolute ($2 Billion) waste, and seizures during times of strife have happened before. Not to mention the time when a list of NY gun owners was put out to the media.
School shootings? It was only within probably the last twenty or so years that it staunchly became a partisan issue, and it's no coincidence that Columbine, the one that really started it all, just so happened to have occurred in 1999, almost exactly 20 years ago. Left leaning people generally don't want guns taken away entirely, they just want more thorough background checks, and unfortunately the coalition of heavily pro-gun republicans, and Libertarians that want less government oversight have entirely shot down these proposals; embittering those on the left. We're standing by watching in horror as children get gunned down, and then proceeding to watch as elected officials debate semantics, and proceed to accomplish absolutely nothing. It's sickening and it should incense everyone into action, but instead it's all being swept under the rug in the name of the second amendment. When honouring a piece of paper matters more to you than the lives of children; it's time to look in the mirror.
Again, as I explicitly stated, I abhor the fact it has been used for confiscation and restriction in the past. That isn't at all what I want. As to what use would it have, what use does motor vehicle registration have? I mean, if you want to argue against the registration of firearms, I hope you want to argue against the registration of motor vehicles and the existence of the DMV, too. And that's absolutely fine if you do. Just don't sit there and tell me one is fine (motor vehicle registration) but the other is not (firearm registration). Because my belief is that firearms should be registered in the exact same way.
There is a plethora of pro-gun arguments that do not involve mentioning the 2nd amendment at all. In fact, I would say "because of the 2nd amendment" is just an appeal to authority fallacy.
In that regard however there is a definitive difference. Cars being registered makes sense, as it makes for something that is immediately identifiable that can be of use immediately. Being able to know who owns a car in a car chase can be crucial within that moment, being able to know it's stolen is also something that would be relevant. However, the registry of a gun makes for something that is post conflict relevant. You can't look at a gun in the middle of a firefight and know who it belongs to, registered or not. It would only be of use after the fact when you are able to look at the serial number, but even then the need for that information is still not immediately relevant. Even if they could know right away that information wouldn't be put to use until the official investigation has started. Right now there already is a pretty damn thorough system to identify who the original purchaser of a firearm is, I know because I deal with it. The current system provides a layer of protection to those who buy firearms, so that folks who may have less ethics, morals, or just flat out hates guns can't just look up who owns what and try to exploit that. It still finds out who the original purchaser is, and it does so pretty damn quick. Having a registry would really only be beneficial when it comes to stolen firearms, but even then that would be a post conflict relevant piece of information. With that there is also a pretty damn comprehensive system for that, with the sister store to my shop having found a gun that was stolen back in 1978. As it was never used for anything nefarious it never popped up on the radar, and even if it were registered you would be looking at the same case.
Then I'm satisfied with the system as you describe it. I'm not trying to say we need to change systems, for posterity's sake. I'm just saying I believe these are systems that should be in place. Whether or not they already are is ultimately irrelevant to my points.
Part of it is also polarization. Republicans are Pro-Gun, therefore Democrats need to be Anti-Gun.
Being "anti other" is normally a conservative process, though. Especially American conservatives. I recall seeing a picture of two guys at a Trump rally that wore shirts that said "Better owned by Russia than a Democrat". I remember in one of my college courses covering political philosophies asked, "What is fascism for?" and the answer the professor gave "Fascism is pro anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-freedom".
Thanks uncle, I was getting really frustrated here. The idea that guns are on a left-right scale is a result of the way that we're educated and the population being memed on for a long time. Every single time we talk about government tyranny we bring up the soviet union and guns being taken away by their government. Noam Chomsky has some things to say about bounded though of that typet: Critically, however, the media do not stray from the bounds of ‘thinkable thought’: Herman and Chomsky reasoned that: ‘views that challenge fundamental premises or suggest that the observed modes of exercise of state power are based on systemic factors will be excluded from the mass media even when elite controversy over tactics rages fiercely’ (1988: xii). We're usually bounded in our discussions of guns being on a left-right scale from no guns to lots of guns. It's almost unthinkable that there would be guns on the left due to how much we say that's how it is. The democrats are pussies and as mentioned in the OP, if you go far enough left you get your guns back! Here's Marx (short version) on guns: https://defacingcurrency.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/marx_gun_control.jpg More here Here's the socialist rifle association, they have manuals on reloading and talk about guns a lot. I don't know that much about them re: how good/legit they are so I'm linking to them for illustrative purposes. Socialist Rifle Association Here are anarchists shooting guns, they have guns at home explicitly for defense and not hunting. This photo is taken by Emily G, who also has guns. https://twitter.com/socialistdogmom/status/993237897041063937 (yes I plagiarized the phrase from this tweet) https://twitter.com/mstnhgn/status/1030918296193912835 And there was a guy from Redneck Revolt at Charlottesville that threatened the nazi car attacker with his gun. I think he saved the lives of the people near him. It's a shame the driver went elsewhere. (can't find the link right now) In theory there could be guns everywhere for everyone, their purpose could be defending land from invasions from foreign governments, preventing a governent from creating a police force/army, home defense... There might also be nothing in society that forces people to commit crimes (not being able to afford basic necessities, debt). For me with guns I constantly alternate between pro and against because we're in a liberal society and we don't do anything for either mental health or gun control so both sides currently have points that devolve to terminal values.
In 2016 I would have (and did) argue that Democrats should slow their roll on calls for anti-gun legislation but I feel like if they did that now the schism between the centrist democrats and the progressive democrats would just widen. It's also worth noting however that a lot of their policies aren't unpopular. Support for assault weapons bans fluctuate a lot between years but two polls from 2018 show majority support(1)(2). Registration, universal background checks, mandatory mental health checks, and longer wait periods consistently poll well. It's much easier to understand why Democrats run on gun control platforms when their constituents seemingly call for them to. This isn't like the Republicans who will blame poverty and mental health and video games then do absolutely nothing to regulate in those areas, and will in fact go out of their way to attack the former two.
Prediction: All of these different politics threads will eventually turn into gun threads. Personally if my chosen party make guns rights a big part of their platform I'd find a different party, but UK has different culture than the US/other places. With regard to the guns being left or right thing, gun rights people I've met in the UK were all either unaffiliated or tory/ukip types. So the right wing connection happens here too. (I realise I said above that the UK has different culture than the US, I did not mean to imply that the US has a whole has honour culture, I meant it in a broader sense that guns have been a part of your various national identities for a long time) I think that "honour culture" generally implies gun rights advocacy (but not necisserly the other way round) and I think that Conservative social values (as well as the right wing "someday I'll own the boot" economic attitude) tend to correspond to honour culture too. So if that's correct it might help explain the right wing = gun rights thing. Examples where this is not the case might be northern countries where guns are needed to protect against bears (it'd be unreasonable to expect the state to protect you against a wandering bear, indeed I think in some places (svalbard) you have to carry a gun) or in places where people hunt or protect against pests. Although all those things would imply rural living which I think might corralate with honour culture too. Can we talk about economic stuff instead of guns?honestly gun discussion is so hot topic here it needs it's own tread
It actually does have its own thread, and I agree. Before I made my reply I was worried about continuing the gun discussion thread but uh I kinda did it anyway so v v
here is something to talk about other than guns: is it better to have a big-tent party, i.e. a broadly left party with some centrist or center-right members, or does ideological purity and unity always take precedent?
This seems like a question to which it is impossible to give a universal answer because it depends on local social and political circumstances and the goals and situation of the ideologically minded groups involved.
yeah you're right. specifically i'm thinking of the US Democrats and the general divide between its various factions, and how people think the problem is best resolved or if that even is a problem.
Centrist and center-right members should not be allowed as they would only serve as brakes for the entire party. That happened here with Social Democratic Party, a big party but way too tame with the policies and sticking with the rights of the workers. They make entire party completely tame and unable to act when needed. A lot of people around here voted for more extreme right parties because of the inactivity and lack of progress made by the SDP. Largest party still but it is obvious that government is run by centrist, centrist-right than them. Without clear ideas and path parties just go to the comfort zone and eventually die because people lose faith in them.
Unfortunately in some democratic voting systems (like the one in the US) due to the fact that to hold power one must merely get the most votes, it becomes a battle between appealing to as many voters as possible and meeting certain ideological criteria - in such systems the price of effective power is watering down policy to an ever lowering common denominator. It is too common that power perpetuates itself, not out of the malice of those who hold it but out of the very character of the system which enables people to hold said power.
This is called compromising and from what I see, it's pretty healthy in a democracy.
I'm hoping there's a bigger push for Ranked Choice voting in the near future. It requires candidates to appeal to as many people as possible instead of their own base so we'd have much less of a "Vote for me cause I'm not them" mentality. It should in theory bring all parties closer to the center as well, which is usually a pretty good thing.
Healthy in a healthy democracy, perhaps, but when the compromise is not between parties in a coalition but between factions in a party expected to toe a line it can hold a society back, strengthening the status quo - for better or worse. When one party takes all, people vote for a sort of "main party" that is as far as possible from what they disagree with politically, which in the case of the US happens to be another "main party" - we enter a situation where people don't vote for, they vote against. On the that subject, is there any actual significant movement socially/politically in that direction in the US? I certainly hope so, otherwise your hope for a future development seems pointless.
It's used in a lot of cities and states for local elections. And as of this year for the State elections in Maine. So it's out there, but there's obviously a push against it by people in power since it threatens their position. It needs more attention, since most people don't even know there's any other way to do elections than winner takes all.
No, for some reason. I'm sick and tired of gun debate. It's used to distract from issues that actually matter and that affect people more directly far too often. You could argue that guns are what you use to defend your freedom, but that argument is bullshit. The concept that you can fight the US military (or any modern military, to be honest) with an M16 is a fantasy, because they'd just hit you with a guided missile from a drone and you'd be dead before you even knew you were a target.
Funny, I find myself in a country where people make bombs out of their own piss and are consistently more well trained in ways to defeat the most advanced military in the world using old Soviet tech. They're doing a pretty good job of it, been at it for 17 years with the US. Did it with the Russians in the 80s as well. There are multiple historical examples of insurgents being able to fight a numerically superior and more technologically advanced force, and win. It really would be very easy for US civilians to utterly cripple the military. Not to mention the total landmass of the US and population size would make it impossible to control. Over 350 million people in the states, 1.3 million active duty military with 800 thousand in reserve. Most of those are support jobs. I'm sick of the "lol they will drone strike u" line, it shows massive ignorance on what the military's capability actually is and completely ignores reality. You absolutely can fight any military with anything from grandpa's deer rifle to an accessorized AR-15. There are a ton of other factors that would come into play in the extraordinarily improbable situation that we are discussing, but the biggest one is definitely the citizenry being armed.
I want a political party where we can fight climate change and have good social policy in regards to health, education, and poverty, while also being a gun toting, truck driving, flag waving southerner.
But driving trucks is bad for the environment
https://imgur.com/a/tzfGG17
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.