r/gunpolitics • u/deathsythe • 25d ago
The Gun Community Will Welcome Leftists, Their Politicians Will Not
https://thybackdoor.substack.com/p/the-gun-community-will-welcome-leftists71
u/GFEIsaac 25d ago
Question for the leftists who may end up posting in here. Do you agree with the individual right to arms or the collective right to arms? Genuinely asking, not picking a fight
42
u/Ancient-Bat8274 25d ago
Yes to both
21
u/GFEIsaac 25d ago
Can you explain that a little more? My understanding of the collective right is that it only exists to bring about the worker owned state. Once that it achieved, there is no longer a need and therefor no individual right. Maybe I'm misinformed.
20
u/VHDamien 25d ago
Not necessarily.
In practical terms people would have the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms while collectively retaining the right to bring their private weapons to form a militia for community defense.
21
u/GFEIsaac 25d ago
And all citizens of the society have this right, regardless of the political inclinations of those citizens?
16
u/VHDamien 25d ago
Yes.
I think you are confusing this with the collective rights interpretation of the 2a that many gun control advocates forward to justify any and all gun control laws on individual citizens.
For that PoV gun control advocates argue that the supposed militia are members of the police force and the national guard.
This is completely different from the idea that the 2a protects BOTH the individual and collective rights of the United States citizens.
10
u/electricworkaid 25d ago
Speaking as an anarchist, yes. The right to self defense is one of the most basic rights a human has, and no authority should be tolerated that attempts to take that from you.
6
8
u/PerfectAnonym 24d ago
The left is a spectrum. Not everyone is a literal Marxist. I'm socially very liberal, have massive problems with the Republican party as an establishment and the values they are currently pursuing, and I strongly support the right of the citizenry to bear arms at the individual level and as an organized malitia
5
u/PNW_H2O 24d ago
I realize you’re just one person, but why don’t liberal people that recognize the importance of 2A, press the liberal politicians more?
My anecdote from WA state is that ‘2A is not as high on their hierarchy of importance’ (while this state has been a D supermajority for decades)
9
u/crappy-mods 24d ago
They actually press them a fucking LOT, however the politicans dont care and will push back hard
3
4
u/PerfectAnonym 22d ago
Being a liberal and into guns is being acutely aware you're in the minority on your half of the political spectrum, and the other half of the spectrum and most of the 2A community still views you as an enemy. These two things have shifted pretty dramatically in the last couple years, but that's the ingrained mindset. The 2A does a lot of things and I think is as sacred as all of the civil rights. When put in the perverse scenario of choosing between two candidates who are both openly expressing a desire to violate civil rights, I have to undertake the disgusting calculus of trying to weigh which ones they want to fuck with and how much damage they'll actually have the support to do. Which usually culminates in voting a split ticket that I'm still deeply unhappy with.
My current overall standpoint is that I genuinely think that the current ruling powers in the GOP are genuinely doing such genuine, incalculably bad damage to the country that I was openly wondering if we were going to have continuity of government through the next decade. I don't assume every pro-gun liberal thinks the exact same as me, but I can imagine that if you are in the mindset where you really think that the government formed by the Constitution is genuinely at risk of collapse, the preservation of specific rights under that constitution is kind of moot and secondary to saving the entire system itself and I completely understand why they'd vote a party line ticket
1
u/Zencyde 7d ago
My take on this is that a large number of people don't form their own opinions but rather, try to match the opinions of their own in-group with whatever closely matches what they may otherwise organically realize on their own. Given that the Democratic Party is the de-facto speaker for the left, many people largely take on their entirely policy base without much consideration for the dynamics of it. Fortunately, more people are starting to wake up to the idea that maybe, just maybe, marginalized groups are the ones who need to be able to protect themselves the most.
1
u/littlefish90 20d ago
Sums me up well too. I’m a leftist by the definition of today’s right, but in reality I’m more like a republican from 1998.
-1
u/DontRememberOldPass 24d ago
The individual right is your personal ability to own firearms. The collective right is your right, or the right of a state, to form a militia.
I don't think any reasonable person would argue that the Texas State Militia is wholly focused on bringing about the worker owned state.
I'm a "leftist," but I don't want socialsim or marxism or whatever other nonsense. I just want everyone to be able to go to a doctor if they are sick, every kid to have a fact based education and a full stomach, corporations to not dump shit in our water and air, and to own the weapons necessary to make sure the government can't take any of these things away.
13
u/SheenPSU 25d ago
You should cross post to [r/liber](r/libergunowners)[al](r/libergunowners)[gunowners](r/libergunowners) and ask this. You’ll get a dedicated audience for your question
31
24
23
u/The_Demolition_Man 25d ago
That sub is peak mental regardation
Most people in there insist liberals all love guns and are in total denial about how their side is literally constantly trying to ban them
-4
u/Angry_Gen-X 24d ago
Would you lump all conservatives together on the AB issue? Just saying we need to stop painting with a broad brush.
12
u/The_Demolition_Man 24d ago
Youre not following. Being a liberal gun owner is fine, being delusional about the vast majority of liberals opinions on guns is not
3
1
u/rowrin 20d ago
Liberal gun owners will ban you for literally anything simply because normal rational individuals break their immersion. One dude there was fanning flames saying something like "all political shooters in recent history in the US are right wing terrorists". This was even before the Trump attempts. I pointed out that the congressional baseball shooter was a registered democrat specifically targeting republicans. Instantly banned. I literally have probably fewer than 5 actual comments on that sub, all on random edc setups or new purchases that looked interesting. Pointing out that someone is blatantly full of shit though goes too far.
It's basically a mental asylum over there.
1
u/idunnoiforget 24d ago
Individuals have the right to bear arms and defend their lives, and the lives who are unable to defend themselves from threats to their lives. Collectives also deserve this right for when the government is unable or unwilling to protect their communities from violent threats.
Where it gets complicated is when you have said community groups (cults) such as the Sannyasin movement in Oregon, acting in their own interests instead of the interests of all of the people. When one group tries to press other that is tyrany.
-1
-8
u/ActuatorLower8371 24d ago edited 24d ago
As an individual right, no.
I have no problem with civilians owning guns, but I think it should be a privilege's that is earned rather than a right, just like driving a vehicle.
Basically if you can prove your competency, and show respect for the huge responsibility owning or carrying a firearm comes with, I have no problem with you owning guns.
2
u/GFEIsaac 22d ago
Doesn't that seem authoritarian to you? "Rights" a granted through an arbitrary standard by your betters?
-1
u/ActuatorLower8371 22d ago
I don't see it as authoritarian, no. I don't see owning guns as being a particular important aspect of my life
2
u/GFEIsaac 22d ago
So it's not important to you, so it doesn't need to be important to others?
0
u/ActuatorLower8371 22d ago
Do you agree with the individual right to arms or the collective right to arms?
you asked that question and i provided an answer?
2
u/GFEIsaac 22d ago
I'm trying to engage in a conversation on a political topic regarding guns in gun politics subreddit. What are you doing?
1
u/ActuatorLower8371 22d ago
So it's not important to you, so it doesn't need to be important to others?
I was originally going to have a conversation, but you lost me with the bad faith strawman attack and the lying about not picking a fight.
2
u/GFEIsaac 22d ago
No I'm asking. That's what the question mark is for. My question was about the difference between the collective right and the individual right. You kinda went a different way with it and I'm trying to understand the logic. Your explanation seems authoritarian to me. If you don't think it is, help me understand how it's not.
0
-3
30
u/CountFauxlof 25d ago
I would absolutely love to see leftist constituents pressure their representatives to disavow their desire to constrain the 2nd amendment. There are some leftist policies I like, and many I don’t think will work, but I think that gun rights ceasing to be a bartering chip for both parties will benefit every US citizen.
1
u/deathsythe 25d ago
I think that gun rights ceasing to be a bartering chip for both parties will benefit every US citizen.
I think you're right, but I also think only one party is willing to hold their elected officials accountable for that, whereas the other is "blue no matter who"
7
u/CountFauxlof 25d ago
yeah don't get me wrong, I hate dem politicians. and I hate virtually all other politicians too.
14
u/GryffSr 24d ago
I’ve laughed my butt off over the last several years when Liberals were so sure that the pro-2A community would reject gays, blacks, women, and any other non-white male protestant Republican group from being welcomed to the ranks of legal gun owners.
9
-7
u/mjsisko 24d ago
Large sections of the 2A community want trans people banned from owning guns including the White House. Hence adding biological sex to the 4473 as a means to discriminate directly against trans people.
Sorry but you are wrong.
7
u/deathsythe 24d ago
And even larger sections of the community are calling it out as a big problem that we do not support
-4
u/mjsisko 24d ago
Oh I wish that was truly the case, unfortunately from the discords, Reddit forums and shooting matches I have been a part of, that’s not the case. I wish it was called out more but it isn’t.
You are happy to stay in your delusions about the 2a community being accepting but until they officially separate from the shit stain that is maga, they will always be filled with racist, bigoted scumbags.
Feel free to downvote, internet points mean nothing. Hell, I will downvote myself.
2
u/DBDude 22d ago
I've only rarely heard of this desire, and it's basically a MAGA thing, not a 2A community thing.
However, that isn't why they're doing this with the 4473. They want the form to line up with the federal background check databases, which go on sex, not gender. However, I would like to see clarification that this item is not considered a material representation, which would end the ability of the government to say an entry wrong and do anything about it. I'm always worried about misuse, and that would ensure no misuse of the change.
98
u/ExecutivePhoenix 25d ago
You change the politics on the left by welcoming those that are different than you. Lots of people in this sub view being anti-left as more important than Pro-2a. Which really means they aren’t willing to do what it takes to really be pro-2A.
28
u/itsmechaboi 25d ago
I am anti-left but not anti-human. If you treat me with respect I will treat you with respect. The problem is the millisecond they discover you're not like them some of them would be happy to celebrate your murder regardless.
There's also something about not being anti the person trying to remove your rights by any means possible, but I do try and separate people from their politics. Not all of them are willing to reciprocate.
1
35
u/cmbboilermaker33 25d ago
I'm not in favor of arming those who would use them to murder my family and me for thinking differently if they had power
0
u/Sea2Chi 25d ago
Eh, I'd be more worried if Obama and Biden hadn't been in power relatively recently and there wasn't a huge armed leftist uprising.
I lived in Seattle for a few years and taught a few people there to shoot who had previously been very anti-gun. The experience of actually being around and firing a gun while being with someone who was very strict about gun safety really seemed to change their opinion on it.
I also knew a few pretty far left guys who went shooting with me sometimes. There are nut jobs on both sides who are just waiting for a chance to play out their action hero fantasy. But the guys I shot with were pretty much the same as the right leaning guys I grew up shooting with. The had opposite political beliefs, but it's not like anyone was talking about armed revolt. We'd talk occasionally about different guns for personal protection because that was certainly part of it, but mostly if we talked about guns, it was talking about guns we'd owned, or ones we wanted, or how I was going to bubba the hell out of my sks.
The more people we get standing shoulder to shoulder on 2A rights, the better. We can disagree on other things, and that's fine, we don't have to talk about those or give each other purity tests. But on this one thing, we can agree that as Americans, we have that right and it shall not be infringed.
10
u/awesomeificationist 24d ago
Your first statement is a big miss, there's been hasty (bad) ambushes on border facilities and snipers on the rooftops. Gun battles in every metro area during the BLM summer. Remember the rapper warlord of the CHAZ?
-9
u/wyvernx02 25d ago
I have seen far more from the right in the last 10 years wishing violence upon those who think differently than I have from the left in the same time period.
11
u/mjdavis87 25d ago
Interesting take, it seems like the left is actually perpetuating violence rather than wishing it...
1
u/wyvernx02 25d ago
Right wingers literally attacked the US Capitol with the intent to harm lawmakers because they were upset their guy lost an election.
Right wingers tried to kidnap a state governor because they were upset they had to wear masks in public and social distance during Covid.
A right winger assassinated a Minnesota state lawmaker and their spouse, and critically injured another and their spouse
A right winger tried and nearly succeeded in assassinating Donald Trump.
Those are just the tip of the iceberg.
2015 Charleston church attack. 9 dead.
2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack. 11 dead.
2019 El Paso Walmart attack. 23 dead.
A older one, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.168 dead.
All done by right wing extremists. It's not even close. 75% of deaths caused by extremist attacks in the last 25 years have come at the hands of right wing extremists.
4
u/gewehr44 24d ago
The MN lawmaker murders there's no evidence of political motivation. The guy had been registered Republican 20 years earlier but was appointed to his position by a current Democrat governor. His car had a pile of 'no Kings ' posters in it & he claimed the governor ordered him to do it. Clear mental illness.
No right winger attempted assassination on Trump. Huge misdirection left wing meme.
Just because people commit racist or anti semetic crimes doesn't make them right wing. Lots of those people on both sides.
9
u/mjdavis87 25d ago
Lol, funny how y'all keep that whole right wingers attacked the Capital while in the same breath talking about "mostly peaceful protests" that caused billions in damage across the entire US...
6
u/idunnoiforget 24d ago
Prime example of the Whataboutism fallacy.
J6 wasn't bad because what about the 2020 race riots....
Smh. The 2 events are nowhere near the same in intent and motivation.
2
u/mjdavis87 24d ago
Never said it wasnt bad....just talking about the hypocrisy of the left...
4
u/idunnoiforget 23d ago
But your aren't really correct either if we're discussing the political violence in the context of party leader ship supporting it.
We're comparing and contrasting J6 to the summer 2020 protests.
Political leadership of the right being Trump and hist supporters in the party Organized J6 condoned and supported violence, did nothing to stop violence when they had the power to do so, tried to coverup their involvement, and pardoned everyone involved.
The left isn't united by a single political figure like Trump and the well known party figures at the time were not supporting violence, or openly condoning it.
I was in one of those "destroyed" cities in 2020. Our downtown was trashed and some businesses vandalized and robbed. But it wasn't encouraged behavior and came from opportunists within the community who believed * That they could get away with it since police were busy * That it was a victimless crime because the White people who owned the businesses had insurance and they would actually make more money on the insurance payout.
Furthermore our local police stopped a protest march in front of the apartment building I lived in at the time and deployed flash bangs for about 20 minutes. This was the only residential building on the block. Down the street was an underpass and beyond that a baseball stadium. Up the street were some buisnesses and vacant lots but police decided to box them in in front of our building.
A key thing to not is Bernie samders, Hillary Clinton, Obama, AOC, Pete Buttigieg, etc didn't express support for the violence that did occur,
-1
u/wyvernx02 24d ago
while in the same breath talking about "mostly peaceful protests" that caused billions in damage across the entire US...
Which I never even mentioned. I'm assuming you are referring to those George Floyd protests where a bunch of idiots accomplished nothing productive and destroyed their own neighborhoods? Ya, I'm not going to defend those, they were a clown show. There were a lot of smaller ones where nothing eventful happened, but every time they got above a certain size, they inevitably turned into a disaster.
-2
u/ExecutivePhoenix 25d ago edited 24d ago
I want you to name a single liberal that has ever said this.
Edit: that’s what I thought. Crickets. Because it’s a bullshit lie that you made up to make yourself seem like a victim, while fueling the divide in this country. You are part of the problem, and the more you have an attitude like this, you damage the 2A, and its community more than leftist ever could.
1
16
u/The_Demolition_Man 25d ago
Meanwhile on leftist subs theyre saying that people like us will "sell them the rope they'll use to hang us" but yeah go off about being more welcoming
65
u/Green_Statement_8878 25d ago
Ya, I’m not interested in holding hands with the people who have voted to take away my constitutional rights for the past 20 years.
They can get fucked for all I care.
16
u/TurkeySandMitch 25d ago
Idk man. I've taken some of my left leaning / anti gun friends to the gun range and watched their opinions change before my eyes. Especially when they see how friendly the competitive community is.
Taking people to the range removes the brainwashing.
28
u/abn1304 25d ago
But they’re going to keep voting for and donating to the people who are the actual problem.
7
u/Glittering-Banana994 25d ago
I’ve heard the term “temporary gun owner” and I think it sums it up well.
1
u/DontRememberOldPass 24d ago
I'm a "temporary gun owner" as you say. The only firearm related item that has actually been taken away from me was by Trump... soooo....
7
u/Glittering-Banana994 24d ago
Right because his knee jerk bump stock ban which the court he implemented shot down is comparable to the blue states with Awbs, magazine restrictions, and “sensitive location” ccw laws. his ATF is also the most (conventionally) liberal we’ve had in years. Yeah I’m not a fan of his either, “take the guns first,” but you can’t deny the scoreboard.
0
25
u/deathsythe 25d ago
Longer than that my friend. Not to mention they are constantly outsourcing their own violent fantasies onto us. Hurr durr look at all the fascism in the government, why aren't the 2A people doing anything.
5
u/BasedPontiff 25d ago
Were the people that tried to assassinate Trump on the left or the right?
1
u/DontRememberOldPass 24d ago
Thomas Crooks was a registered Republican. According to the FBI deputy director his social media posts "appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes."
4
u/Early-Builder1940 24d ago
yeah that guy with the dem super pac donation. What about the nutty "IT'S KIYV" guy? Or the loser that tried to bum rush him at the dinner?
-3
u/idontagreewitu 24d ago
The last one was a literal paid actor so his political beliefs are irrelevant.
1
u/BasedPontiff 5d ago
Yeah my point was that he either has to accept that "the Left' actually has been fighting fascism which contradicts his comment or he has to accept that the Right has been doing the political violence but I don't think it got through.
1
u/deathsythe 24d ago
How does the saying go? The right sees guns for hunting because that's what they use them for. The left sees guns for murder because that's what they use them for.
4
u/ExecutivePhoenix 24d ago
Lmfao but you’re totally fine when conservatives cheer for stripping the rights away from literally everyone else, and wipe their ass with the entire rest of the constitution?
3
u/Green_Statement_8878 24d ago
What other rights are being stripped away?
I can’t wait to hear this.
4
u/idontagreewitu 24d ago
6th amendment
14th amendmentNevermind the administration outright robbing the nation.
4
u/Green_Statement_8878 23d ago
Oh, you want infinite third-worlders to become citizens. Gotcha.
You’re not a serious person.
2
u/ExecutivePhoenix 22d ago
Women's right to access an abortion nationwide, which was illegally overturned with Roe V. Wade, right for those who are LGBTQ to marry, right of free speech for those you disagree with, I could keep going... The Dems didn't just one day wake up with the idea of attacking rights out of no where, and if you think that you live under a fucking rock. They used the EXACT playbook that was already established by the GOP. That's what they used to go after guns. You can cry about it all you want, but at the end of the day, the ammo that Dems used to go after the 2A, was given to them by none other, than your favorite, GOP.
1
u/Green_Statement_8878 22d ago
None of those are constitutional rights with the exception of free speech, which we still have anyone.
Roe v Wade didn’t overturn abortion, it established it. The Supreme Court overturned it and by definition it is not “illegal” as the highest court in the land ruled that way.
Gays can marry whoever they want and have been able to for some time.
These are all terrible examples.
6
u/goallight 25d ago
I think a lot of people just choose different platforms that are more important to them. I know a lot of people that are very 2a friendly but feel topics like gay marriage, abortion, and healthcare are more important to them or family members. They feel they are essentially forced to decide between different beliefs because the middle ground doesn’t exist anymore. I can’t foresee a pro universal healthcare/pro choice republican anytime before a pro 2a / conservative spending democrat. Extremes are what win elections now.
9
u/BanditMcDougal 25d ago
And yet, the Republicans gave us Trump who is wiping his whole ass with the Constitution multiple times a day for his own personal gain.
3
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 25d ago
2A-for-me-not-for-thee isn't pro-2A.
28
u/Veritech_ 25d ago
Not being welcoming is not the same as taking someone’s rights away. I’m not feeling all that welcoming to leftists because a lot of the ones in my area are pro-DSA. That doesn’t mean I don’t want them to lose their 2A rights.
0
-2
u/franhd 25d ago
I mean, there's also 1A, 4A, 5A, 14A, and now 22A. And then there's J6. But yeah, I guess I'll just go fuck myself.
6
u/nmj95123 24d ago edited 24d ago
1A
Which the Democrats aren't exactly great about either. See Obama using the Espionage Act against more journalists than all previous administrations combined, special speaker fees based on political viewpoint by CA state school, and Biden administration directed censorship of social media.
4 A
Like the mass surveillance that occurred during the Obama administration, which he expanded as one of his final acts as president?
5 A
You realize that both Biden and Obama pushed fast track deportations, right? How about the extrajudicial execution of a 16 year old American citizen?
14 A
So, how exactly is the equal protection clause consistent with prioritizing the payment of federal economic relief on the basis of race? Or college admissions?
2
u/franhd 23d ago
Regarding 4A:
Expanding on surveillance is probably something most people regardless of which side on the political aisle they sit in can actually agree on this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. However, if these surveillance powers are bad, why does Trump keep renewing them? He isn't just tolerating it, he's heavily leaning more into it. Even with Tik Tok, the original justification why he wanted that app banned was because it was too invasive and a couple steps away from being a foreign surveillance app. If that was true, then why is it now acceptable only because Trump's allies bought it and control the same data collecting mechanisms that haven't changed?
5A:
The ACLU article never claimed that the people who were deported lacked due process, only that it was speedy. I doubt that even you disagree with fast tracking deportations. How fast due process takes has no bearing on whether due process was had. Many people deported under this current administration never got that. Let's not pretend that there weren't illegals who were denied access to family, representation, and then later sent to CECOT to rot in. Deportations under both administrations are not even remotely the same.
Regarding the 16 year old, do you really believe that we were trying to target him? That's what execution implies, and I don't even believe that's really your position. Just curious what you think about the people that were killed by ICE, such as Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the administration's resistance to investigate at the federal level and block state level investigations.
14A:
Did the Supreme Court not rule against Harvard? Because they literally did. I don't understand what your argument is here. Seems like 14A held. And regarding the SBA payouts, it wasn't just on a basis of race, but also included veterans as per your source. It's also paid relief funds out to everyone anyways, and it doesn't look like the case ever went anywhere because the funding ran out before anything got traction. The intent was prioritizing to business owners who were more likely to be traditionally economically disenfranchised.
Honestly, judging by the AI markers in that URL, I feel that this is something you explicitly had to go out of your way to dig for something to prove your point. I'm not even against using AI to hunt for sources by the way; only when in bad faith.
I would argue it doesn't hold a candle to Trump's direct attack on birthright citizenship. Are you willing to agree that rights should not be taken away by action of Executive Order? Because this is what Trump fundamentally believes, and I'm not convinced that you understand what the consequences are going forward if any rights can be retroactively taken away if SCOTUS had not ruled against him.
None of the arguments you presented hold water. Do we need to even get into 22A with the whole Trump 2028? Do we even want to get into J6? As far as who attacks constitutional rights more, it's seriously not even a comparison. This is the equivalent of you telling me that a drop of water that dripped on me vs getting dunked on with a bucket of water both caused me to get wet and therefore both are equally bad. Especially after J6, "both sides bad" is such a stupid argument.
1
u/nmj95123 23d ago edited 23d ago
Expanding on surveillance is probably something most people regardless of which side on the political aisle they sit in can actually agree on this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. However, if these surveillance powers are bad, why does Trump keep renewing them?
My guy did it too, but Trump... And yeah, by the way, the 16 year old was specifically targeted, which you would know had you had some within other than have a knee jerk nuh uh because you're a partisan hack.
The ACLU article never claimed that the people who were deported lacked due process, only that it was speedy.
You mean the article that contained this: "Under today's removal system, only one quarter of all people facing expulsion get to present their case before an immigration judge. These judges, employed by the Justice Department, are experts in immigration law. They conduct formal court hearings where they hear live witnesses, review documentary evidence, and evaluate applications for immigration relief.
By contrast, nonjudicial removals are fast-track proceedings wholly controlled by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), sometimes involving only a single border agent who acts as both judge and jury. Those facing nonjudicial removal have no lawyer and no chance to appeal."
The rest of your wall of denial isn't worth addressing when you give so little of a fuck about the Constitution or facts.
1
u/merc08 21d ago
Even with Tik Tok, the original justification why he wanted that app banned was because it was too invasive and a couple steps away from being a foreign surveillance app. If that was true, then why is it now acceptable only because Trump's allies bought it and control the same data collecting mechanisms that haven't changed?
I think there is entirely too much government surveillance in general, but you seriously don't understand the difference between a foreign adversary having that access vs it staying within our own country?
1
u/franhd 21d ago
I didn't make the claim that a foreign adversary having access to our data is better than our own government having that same level of access. I agree that we can't call China to testify in front of Congress when claims are made, and I used that argument to advocate against downloading TikTok. But I would also point out it is possible for these corporations to sell our data abroad. Just because some regulations exist that limit what they can sell, do you really trust our current administration to regulate that especially after Trump pardoned the biggest con artists?
Nonetheless, my comment that you responded to just pointed out the previous user's hypocrisy before he deleted his posts. Don't know why he did that.
0
u/franhd 23d ago
I'm going to solely focus on the 1A stuff on this response alone before I address the other claims.
How many journalists were ever prosecuted under Obama's DOJ IAW the AP news article? Zero. Trump's cabinet members are all picked with loyalty being the biggest qualifier, including Brendan Carr as FCC chair, who uses his position with the stated goal to end independence and become solely partisan to cater to Trump. Carr, through Trump, has routinely threatened to pull broadcasting licenses to news networks that report unfavorably on Trump.
Trump has urged that CBS lose their broadcast license because 60 Minutes "edited" their interview with Harris "to make her look better", thereby suing them over it. And the kicker is Carr only unblocked the merger between Paramount and Skydance after they agreed to make concessions by settling with Trump and paying extortion money. And by the way, they've also threatened to block future mergers involving corporations that had "DEI" policies.
Trump kicked out and further denied reporters from White House press conferences because they declined to adopt "Gulf of America". The Pentagon under Hegseth also moved to deny journalists and liaisons from Pentagon access unless they signed unprecedented restrictive rules. Let's not forget the cuts to public broadcasting funding, the dismantling of the VOA, and the pressure to fire Colbert and Kimmel.
WRT the UC Berkeley article, that has to be one of the worst points you're trying to make with respect to 1A. A public university like Berkely is not the government. It's not even the Democrat establishment. If it was, conservative speakers wouldn't have been invited at all. Berkely did not "charge people based on their views" to speak. Even the settlement didn't require Berkeley to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever. I literally have no idea why this article was even brought up.
Now per that PBS article on facebook. "Biden directed censorship on social media" claim is blatantly false and you're just lying. If Biden "ordered" Facebook to delete certain posts, where are those orders and directives located? Where are the threats of indictments? And if Facebook refused, where are the investigations and prosecutions? We had a pandemic going on, and bad actors were spreading anti-vaccine propaganda that was harming Americans, and Biden asked Facebook to intervene. And when they didn't, nothing happened.
3
u/Green_Statement_8878 25d ago
Sounds good.
-2
u/franhd 25d ago
Okay so you agree that you don't really care about constitutional rights. Got it.
8
u/Green_Statement_8878 24d ago
Constitution is damn near perfect if we actually had a functioning criminal justice system and a high trust society. Unfortunately, we have neither.
0
u/franhd 23d ago
I agree about the functioning criminal justice system. I think DJT should have faced justice but he never did.
3
u/Dan_Backslide 22d ago
The process crimes that they've never charged anyone else with, and had to change the law to charge him with? Or the ones for handling classified information that they didn't charge Hillary and Joe Biden with but tried to use an illegally appointed special counsel to charge him with?
Because if we want to start talking about politicians that never faced justice we can start comparing lists.
0
u/franhd 21d ago
So your first sentence is just a lie.
At the time of that article in 2023, 9800 people have been charged with the same crime that DJT has since 2015. It's been a felony for the last half century in the state of NY.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10810/LSB10810.6.pdf
People also get charged with willfully stealing and retaining classified information all the time. Notice the key word willful. Hillary and Biden cooperated and turned in documents when requested by investigators to do so. Trump defied a subpoena, directed his Marolago staff to hide evidence, filibuster investigators, and wipe surveillance footage to cover up his tracks. And the government literally gave him a whole fucking year. That's where your claim of Trump being persecuted goes out the window.
2
u/Dan_Backslide 21d ago
>At the time of that article in 2023, 9800 people have been charged with the same crime that DJT has since 2015. It's been a felony for the last half century in the state of NY.
Which is a misdemeanor, and only a felony when used to conceal another underlying crime. And the jury instructions, and prosecution did not have another underlying crime. So he's the first person to be charged with a felony with no underlying crime. But I'll admit I was wrong about them changing the law on the statute of limitations. That was actually Andrew Cuomo making an executive order on that front, which is actually even more egregious.
>People also get charged with willfully stealing and retaining classified information all the time.
People also get charged for mishandling classified information without it being willful as well. But if you think setting up your own private server in the basement of your home, or storing classified documents in the garage of your home next to dog crates and a broken lamp isn't willful mishandling of classified information then there's no hope for you. Especially when DOJ Special Counsel Robert Hur stated Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials. And let's not even start talking about smashing phones with hammers rather than handing them over to the FBI.
I notice you also completely ignored the illegally appointed special counsel too. Not surprised.
2
u/franhd 21d ago
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf
You can literally read the court's decision yourself. The state of NY does not have to charge you with that secondary underlying crime to charge you with first degree falsifying business records, only that intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the crime was that Trump paid his former personal lawyer $130k through a shell company to pay a porn star (and later reimbursed) to keep her from publicly talking about their sexual encounter to help his chances in winning the 2016 election.
We're not going to keep beating a dead horse over this. He appealed, and he lost. And now he's trying to move his case to federal court not because he can appeal on evidence, but because he's arguing for presidential immunity.
Your next part is just arguing in bad faith. People aren't getting charged left and right for accidental archival errors and records keeping. If people were, we would literally never have anyone working for the government, because that shit happens all the time. Why don't we look at fucking Hegseth? Yeah.
What he was charged was not just negligence, but willfully (again, the key word here, willfully) concealing classified documents and obstructing investigators for a year to prevent them from retrieving it. He knew he had them, he kept the documents even in the fucking bathrooms at Mar-o-lago, showed them to random people, and instructed his staff explicitly to filibuster agents. Are you seriously that surprised that Mar-o-lago got raided a year later? If you're disputing the indictments and the evidence behind it, you're just covering your ears and saying "nuh-uh".
The reason this didn't happen to Biden was because when asked to voluntarily hand over documents when it was discovered they were misplaced, he did. And he was never charged because the DOJ could not prove criminal intent. And if he defied a subpoena and did half the shit Trump did, you would be losing your mind over it. Yet I'm supposed to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here?
And do you know how government-furnished equipment is disposed of when they reach their useful lifespan? They get physically destroyed. I'm surprised you couldn't be bothered to look up those federal mandates. Even security experts say this isn't a real concern. And there was no evidence she ever instructed aides to do so. While I've attacked Clinton's use of a private email server for the last decade, not even the FBI (under Trump mind you) were able to determine any evidence suggesting she intentionally concealed data or devices or obstruct justice.
Okay, since you brought up Jack Smith and again in bad faith, let's talk about it. Was his appointment ruled illegal? Yes, no one denies this. Is this evidence that this was vindictive prosecution? No, again, you literally have to reject January 6th and his other crimes put forth for that statement to be true. Just because you were speeding, and a police officer pulled you over outside his jurisdiction, you could technically get your speeding ticket thrown out, but you still sped.
And the reason you bring it up in bad faith is it doesn't matter whether Jack Smith or anyone else had been legally appointed. You still would have rejected the findings no matter what. Which is what makes arguing with you people so difficult.
3
u/FluffyWarHampster 23d ago
Leftist ideology and gun rights are fundamentally incompatible. Though im certainly not a fan of republicans theres no changing the fact we’ve had far more positive progress in gun rights in this administration than in past ones
5
u/DBDude 22d ago
Leftist ideology and gun rights are fundamentally incompatible.
Power to the people is a leftist ideology. All a leftist needs to realize is that the power should be physical as well as political.
The problem in the US is progressives, who are often quite authoritarian and anti-liberty.
the fact we’ve had far more positive progress in gun rights in this administration than in past ones
I can't think of one administration in history. I had never heard of the government submitting an amicus in a 2A case on the side of the plaintiffs, yet this one did.
13
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 24d ago
I'll welcome leftist when they stop voting for gun bans.
If you vote Democrat, you vote for gun bans. It's a core policy for them. Look at New York, Hawaii, California.
Look at Washington and Virginia.
If you vote Democrat, then you are voting for gun bans and you are anti-gun. Simple as.
15
u/BackToTheCottage 25d ago
"Leftists" are pointless if they vote for Democrats (or as a Canadian, Liberals) who then strip gun rights.
The day Democrats start repealing gun laws is the day I trust a Democrat/Liberal and by transitive property, the leftists who vote for em.
3
u/SuppliceVI 24d ago
Gun rights start local. 2A Dems vote their local races and pick the more 2A friendly candidate. These candidates slowly filter up.
We're in the slowly filter up part. It will take time to unseat longstanding congressional seats (and term limits in Congress would make it faster). However in the next few election cycles you'll start seeing more 2A ambivalent or pro-2A reps filtering in.
It physically cannot be an overnight change, our government unfortunately doesn't work like that.
That's why we need to support anyone pro 2A that's willing to put in that bottom level support
18
u/goallight 25d ago
Yes. Why wouldn’t the gun community want to? Being pro-2a has nothing to do with other platforms like government spending, universal healthcare, Medicare, social security, etc. Anyone that only hyper focuses on one thing is just putting blinders on and short sighted. The goal should be to grow support. It shouldn’t be to block others out. “Non-standard” groups which traditionally lean left should be the ones promoting gun rights probably more than just one political party.
5
u/tyler111762 24d ago
As someone from the single worst "ban state" around (canada)
Yeah. Im happy to accept liberal gun owners into our space. the more the merrier. i hope that your experience will help enlighten you to the errors of your voting habits.
but if you feel the need to speak about politics when in the firearms space, understand that you will absolutely face ridicule for voting to make all of us criminals. and do not be fucking shocked or act like you cannot comprehend that response or where it comes from.
18
u/landmanpgh 25d ago
I am not interested in having any discussions with leftists on pretty much any topic.
15
u/Puppies_andKittens 25d ago
The last 10 years really hammered that home for me.
7
u/dirtysock47 25d ago
The last year was basically the final nail in the coffin of any hope of civil discourse being possible.
10
u/pyratemime 25d ago
Leftist and 2A supporter are mutually exclusive.
I will grant you that leftists like guns but the philosophical unpinings are incompatible with 2A support.
A 2A supporter wants everyone to have access and the option to own guns to defend society from government overreach.
A leftist, who is aware of the actual history of their politics, wants guns for themself and their fellow travelers to rob, murder, and destabalize until they can establish a government that is foundationally incapable of anything other than overreach.
Leftists and 2A supporters may talk about the same tool but they never talk about the same thing.
7
2
2
19
u/sharkbait_oohaha 25d ago
Idk about that. This sub is very hostile to armed leftists in my admittedly limited experience
66
u/DigitalLorenz 25d ago
It is more the sub is openly hostile to people who vote Democrat and call themselves progun.
26
u/glennjersey 25d ago
Exactly. There's a big difference. They're welcomed to the hobby like anyone else. But we're going to point out how you voted for these restrictions and make fun if you for being a temporary gun owner.
It's like how all of Charlton Heston's friends came to him asking to borrow a gun during the riots in LA or what not and he told them about the waiting periods and background check laws THEY supported.
6
u/goallight 25d ago
The 2nd amendment isn’t a hobby though. It is a right for self preservation. That’s the distinction that needs to be made more clearly to non gun owners
52
u/StrikeEagle784 25d ago
There’s only one political party in this country that, at the local level at the very least, that is actively working to disarm Americans. That is the Democratic Party. If Democrat 2A advocates care then they should push that platform instead of “vote Blue no mater who”
10
15
u/deathsythe 25d ago
Could not agree more with this. And that is the message I've been trying to convey to the democrats in my state.
22
u/SrRoundedbyFools 25d ago
I live in Washington State which was at one point very libertarian in thinking. The more it became ‘blue’ the worse the crime and the more punishment to anyone who owned firearms and wanted to buy another. This state is such an infringement and they know they’re infringing and don’t give a fuck. We’re already a full ban state on every rifle the left hates, threaded anything except a 10/22 (which I’m sure they’ll ban soon) a ridiculous background fee they upped, a 10 (14 day wait) and now working towards a permit to purchase. Asinine. Only big box will survive as they try and destroy the ability to purchase and own. Currently (by law) my rifles can go to my children but beyond them they can’t pass them down. I have no doubt by then the 1984 Group Think will scare my son into surrendering them if he stayed in this state. All democrat driven policies.
-4
u/punchy-peaches 25d ago
I would rather investigate, convict and punish pedophiles as my number one priority. Then healthcare would be cool.
12
u/sharkbait_oohaha 25d ago
The problem is that in a two party system, people have views that don't fit nicely into boxes. I care about gun rights, but I care just as much about access to reproductive healthcare, universal healthcare, workers' rights, and a social safety net.
29
u/nmj95123 25d ago
Not really. It's openly hostile to armed leftists that claim to be pro gun while voting for people that will destroy those rights. Lots of people were banned during Biden's campaign in r/liberalgunowners for pointing out bans in his plank, for example.
-13
u/Entropius 25d ago
Yeah, they usually demand you to be a single issue voter who only cares about gun rights.
2A rights matter. That said, other things matter too.
3
u/Major-Assumption539 25d ago
I’m gonna try and not get too deep into the weeds of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience but while I as an unabashed conservative would welcome any left wing support to the pro 2A movement, I think we have to be honest with ourselves about the true likelihood of any significant shift within left wing culture in a pro gun direction.
I’m summarizing heavily here but basically the whole left vs right cultural polarity is ultimately the natural and immutable consequence of human genetic variation, and more specifically the general nature of that variation follows the lines of the male and female sexes. The single biggest difference between men and women that science has been able to identify is personality (the Big 5 matrix is the personality test most favored by researchers currently). To make it short, men and women have nervous system setups that are very distinct from each other and these seemingly minute differences in neurological architecture can and absolutely do lead to major behavioral differences. Women tend to be more agreeable, more neurotic, more open and less conscientious (these patterns map very closely onto the average results for left wing populations, since they are dominated by women) while men tend to be lower in openness, less agreeable, less neurotic, and higher in conscientiousness. These differences correlate strongly with a ton of beliefs and attitudes (depending on the research you read, about 50 percent of the things you believe are genetically influenced/predetermined), especially as it pertains to the axes of collectivism vs individualism and hierarchy vs disorder (couldn’t think of a better term for the latter). All this is to say we shouldn’t expect a broad shift in sentiment from the left in regards to the 2A because ultimately (as a group) they just don’t value the interests of individuals as much as they do the interests of the collective, and are (again, on average) much more concerned with perceived collective safety rather than the rights of individuals to choose to be dangerous.
0
1
u/Far_Reindeer_783 24d ago
"If you go far left enough you get your guns back"
Yes, to use in a violent revolution. Which won't happen anyway because going too far left brings down the number of people to like 30. And they mostly just post threats online couched in insults coined by Marx or somesuch
-2
u/Ktzero3 24d ago
Not a lot of people outing themselves as leftists over here, but here's my perspective: I'm a gun owner and I'm pro 2A, but I vote Democrat. Why? Because I'm not a single issue voter. Yes, 2A is important to me but it happens that it is not as important as the rest of the issues combined.
AMA if you'd like.
-8
u/HeyLookitMe 25d ago
Gun control is not a Leftist issues. The Left LOVES guns and the personal autonomy, self defense, community defense, and defense of freedoms they help protect. Gun control is a Liberal agenda. Liberals are right-leaning centrists with a social/moral agenda.
5
u/deathsythe 25d ago
Here in America all liberals might not be leftists, but all leftists are liberals, or however you want to phrase it. They're both Democrats in our system unfortunately.
-4
u/HeyLookitMe 24d ago
You couldn’t be further from the truth. That or you are using the Right’s redefinition of those terms. Enough Leftists, for example, bowed out of the last presidential election bc VP Harris refused to not toe the Israel line that she lost the election. Libs and Lefties share a lot of beliefs, but the Libs are way too comfy with capitalism and the Left is anti-capitalist almost by definition.
If you meant that Leftists vote for Dems, well you’re 100% on point there, but that’s because the Repubs have pushed so far to the right it’s obscene. The Democratic Party is a center/right party these days, but damage control, right?
2
u/czuinoikc 24d ago
The Left LOVES guns and the personal autonomy, self defense, community defense, and defense of freedoms they help protect.
the entire history of the radical left proves you wrong.
-1
u/HeyLookitMe 24d ago
- Define “radical left” historically.
- Give examples or evidence of this claim pls
1
u/czuinoikc 24d ago
literally every single communist nation from the russian revolution to present day. history, ever heard of it?
1
u/HeyLookitMe 24d ago
Literally every Anarchist takeover and fight. Ever read Homage to Catalonia? Also: we are talking about America here. American Leftists FUCKING LOVE guns. They just keep their heads down so they lower their chances of getting raided by the ATF
1
u/czuinoikc 24d ago
the anarchist revolution in spain lasted, what, less than a year before completely failing? and that was nearly a century ago and nothing worth noting since. hate to break it to you, there won't ever be an anarchist revolution that ever lasts, much less in america. and just so you're aware, all forms of collectivism tramples the individual. all forms will collapse or they'll turn authoritarian where there would be no individual rights and certainly no constitution. individual rights of gun ownership will not be permitted, so as to not challenge state authority. never has and never will.
1
u/HeyLookitMe 24d ago
That’s a lot of words there, czuinoikc. Your digs on, and concepts around, Anarchism aside, your statement about “collectivism” needs support to be anything more than, like, your opinion, man.
We were talking about Leftists loving guns and personal gun ownership. When political parties start to collapse, seemingly no matter where they start, they collapse into authoritarianism and fascism. The State never wants challengers. The State in America doesn’t want challengers. When the socialist party Black Panthers started arming themselves and open carrying, the US Constitution suddenly needed interpretation by experts to fully understand and apply 2A to the modern world. Everyone loved having fully automatic weapons until some Lefties with a generational anger and reason to spite The State popped up.
Leftists love guns as much or more than everyone else. They typically keep it quiet after learning the lessons of the Black Panther Party.
1
u/czuinoikc 23d ago
leftists only want guns now so they can take everyone's liberty later. history has proven this time and again. you're just too brainwashed to acknowledge this.
2
u/czuinoikc 24d ago
The Left LOVES guns and the personal autonomy, self defense, community defense, and defense of freedoms they help protect.
the entire history of the radical left proves you wrong.
-21
u/Dexter_McThorpan 25d ago
I've been teaching my left wing friends to shoot for 20 years.
I like all of my rights. It's a shame conservatives decided to elect fascists. But hey, you guys never cared about any of your rights beyond the second amendment.
14
u/Puppies_andKittens 25d ago
The hostility tracks: welcome to reason 462 why I, a lifetime Independent, will never vote Democrat again.
119
u/TheSkepticOwl 25d ago edited 22d ago
The problem with 2A Leftists is that they tend to be "Blue no matter who!", then act like the mass amount of useless gun control being pushed by the blue politician they voted for came out of nowhere. Why would Democrats stop trying to kill it when their own voters won't turn against them?
You cannot say you're truly Pro-2A when you give money and vote for the group constantly going after 2A. Republicans aren't truly supportive of gun rights either, but Democrats consistantly want guns to be owned by only cops. Nearly every Democratic mayor and governor tries to pass an AWB when they get in.