The Rifle on the Wall - A Leftist Argument in Favor of Gun Rights

[Willie Sutton]

If you move more to the left of "progressives" in my circular chart, you get to the "occupy movement", aka "anarchists" IMHO. Once you get to the radical apex of the chart, I think if you continue around the circle toward the right where you first come to activist conservatives who want change (TEA party??). Then you move on to more mainstream conservatives and on around the other apex of the circle toward liberalism. The lower section of each side of the liberal vs. conservative chart is where the apathetic reside.

Just my 2 cents worth...maybe my Taoist component is dominant today???


Your Taoist component is actually dead on. Don't forget for a moment that the NSDAP was the National Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (National Socialist German Workers Party), a party dedicated to nationalizing industry, a general anti big-business orientation, a belief in mandatory profit-sharing between the large industrial companies and the workers, free health care, general and cumpulsory child care, and dedicated to many other progressive ideals such as universal firearms registration, etc.

While a few still refer to the NSDAP, most of the rest of us call this *leftist* government the Third Reich.

And also never forget that the leadership of the NSDAP was elected to power in free elections, under a democratic constitution in a free parlamentary republic, without any violation of the laws of the country or conflict with the constitutional requirements of the county. Constitutional Democracy does not always work out well.


I'm a soldier of freedom in the army of man
We are the chosen, we're the partisan
Well the cause it is noble and the cause it is just
We are ready to pay with our lives if we must

Nothing gonna stop us as the day follows the night,
Right becomes the wrong, the left becomes the right,
And they sing as they march with their flags unfurled,
Today in the mountains, tomorrow the world....


Right? Left? The Head bites the Tail in the middle of the endless circle.


It's the Oroboros..... (Google it)




Willie


.

 

[3212]

I agree with JSH1 that where you live tends to influence your view of gun control.I grew up in a rural area with hunting to supplement our diet.Now I live in a suburban area where most of my neighbors don't own guns.The closest city has shootings on a weekly basis.I talk to people from all three environments and the diversity of opinions based on their experience is obvious.

 

[JustinJ]

Your Taoist component is actually dead on. Don't forget for a moment that the NSDAP was the National Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (National Socialist German Workers Party), a party dedicated to nationalizing industry, general free health care, general and cumpulsory child care, and dedicated to many other progressive ideals such as universal firearms registration, etc.

I think my eyes just about rolled out of my head after reading this nonsense. Equating Nazism to modern American progressives is the epitome of intellectual laziness. Next, you're going to equate modern progressives to Bolsheviks in spite of the fact that the Nazis hated the communists. The Nazis were also extremely nationalistic, hawkish and socially conservative in a manner that makes the tea party look like the Rachel Maddow fan club. Also, regarding hitler and gun control, he actually loosened it for non-jews . He also refused health care to the mentally and physically ill. Historians have long debated if the Nazis was actually a right or left wing government and the truth is that they don't fall well into either category as they had defining traits of both.

While a few still refer to the NSDAP, most of the rest of us call this *leftist* government the Third Reich.

No, just those with a true ignorance of history.


Originally Posted by JustinJ View Post

The truth is we, the gun community, are rarely objective on the issue of gun control as weak and senseless arguments are often adopted. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to oppose gun control, only that not all of those used to argue against it make much sense.

Can you elaborate on this last point?

I'm reluctant as I guarantee it would take this thread waaay off topic. I will say that I frequently hear people actually advocate that we manipulate information or even use lies as propaganda. When challenged they will then reply, "well the other side does it". There are also often arguments of semantics which is an incredibly weak debate tactic. Absolutists arguments are also frequently made like, "gun control won't stop all murders". This is like saying "seat belts can't stop all traffic fatalities". If you'd like to discuss more feel free to PM me but if I get into any more specifics the thread will become about those arguments.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

He also refused health care to the mentally and physically ill.

That's an understatement. He made them the first target of the Holocaust.

I think that communists hated the Nazis so much because they're cut from the same cloth, but different enough to possibly supplant their power. Nazism and fascism were national movements and took the form of the culture it came to power in, communism was international.

Besides, it isn't usually fair to draw comparisons to American politics either left or right. That's just a cheap way to attack another idea. The point here is that while Hitler made guns more accessible for the average German (I.e. people he could trust), as opposed to the outright ban they had previously. He still banned them for the class of people he didn't like and wanted to exterminate (Jews).

 

[lloveless]

Ha ha ha. Smoke and mirrors all. I can understand cannibalism too. It is still wrong. Progressives have their poster places-Chicago, New york, Detroit, Washington DC, California, and Mexico. That is what progressives want the rest of America to be like, to emulate. I don't care how it is sugar coated!
ll

 

[JustinJ]

Ha ha ha. Smoke and mirrors all. I can understand cannibalism too. It is still wrong. Progressives have their poster places-Chicago, New york, Detroit, Washington DC, California, and Mexico. That is what progressives want the rest of America to be like, to emulate. I don't care how it is sugar coated!

Mexico is a liberal bastion of progressivism? Um, sure pal.

So how stupid would it sound to you if I said "1962 Birmingham is the poster place of conservatives"? Believe it or not, and in spite of what your favorite right wing pundit claims, there is actually a wide diversity of views among progressively minded people. What specifically you are referring to about these places I don't know, but gigantic cities have vastly different challenges to face than smaller ones and trying to pin them on one political group demonstrates a seriously low level of information. I know, it's easier to just say "smoke and mirrors" than to actually have an intelligent discussion but i at least tried.

 

[Sambo82]

Ok, we should probably reign this thread in before it gets closed because there is some interesting concepts in here. The tribalism and rural/urban explanations are pretty excellent, IMO.

In the spirit of balance, let me see if I can make enemies of everyone for a minute with a quick question;

Do actions speak louder than words, or vice versa? Meaning that if you claim to be "pro 2A", but vote for an anti who you agree with on other issues, are you really "pro 2a"? I mean internet pledges and promises aside; if the candidate you helped put into power is actually going out and changing our laws to be more gun restrictive, aren't you for all reasonable intents, anti 2A? I'm not saying a person has to be a single issue voter, but if their candidate supports draconian gun restrictions aren't you by proxy a supporter of those as well?

So really, are you "pro 2A" if you voted for "I support an assault weapons ban" Obama OR "I enacted an assault weapons ban" Romney?

 

[Willie Sutton]

I think my eyes just about rolled out of my head after reading this nonsense. Equating Nazism to modern American progressives is the epitome of intellectual laziness.


I never mentioned American progressives nor did I equate the NSDAP to anything whatsoever.

I simply noted and continue to do so that in a wide historical context, extreme right and extreme left positions are often virtually indistinguishable from each other. Was the NSDAP a right wing or a left wing organization? You might answer "right wing" as an initial "gut level" response, but the fact of the matter is otherwise. Extreme right and extreme left meet in the center, and that's the point made by the poster that I was responding to. Moderate right and moderate left meet at one point of a circle, and at the 180 degree point opposite radical right and radical left meet as well.

And I further note that aggressive "Nationalism" is not always "right wing", but is often driven by leftist ideals. Witness our friends Fidel and Hugo.



Willie


.

 

[0to60]

Ok, we should probably reign this thread in before it gets closed because there is some interesting concepts in here. The tribalism and rural/urban explanations are pretty excellent, IMO.

In the spirit of balance, let me see if I can make enemies of everyone for a minute with a quick question;

Do actions speak louder than words, or vice versa? Meaning that if you claim to be "pro 2A", but vote for an anti who you agree with on other issues, are you really "pro 2a"? I mean internet pledges and promises aside; if the candidate you helped put into power is actually going out and changing our laws to be more gun restrictive, aren't you for all reasonable intents, anti 2A? I'm not saying a person has to be a single issue voter, but if their candidate supports draconian gun restrictions aren't you by proxy a supporter of those as well?

So really, are you "pro 2A" if you voted for "I support an assault weapons ban" Obama OR "I enacted an assault weapons ban" Romney?

Excellent question.

One shortcoming of our democratic system is that because we're all individuals, you're not gonna find a candidate that you agree with 100% across the board. You prolly don't agree 100% with anyone, not your friends, spouse, parents, etc... A voter needs to pick the candidate that BEST represents his/her wishes and punch accordingly. A lot of people complain during elections that "they both suck, but X sucks a bit less". I'm pretty sure that was the general republican consensus about obama vs. romney.

To answer your last question, a vote for either candidate would have been a pro-gun vote. At the time of the election, and especially the final debate, both candidates were saying our existing laws were adequate.