Edit context: Hasan is calling out right-wingers for getting upset about leftists carrying guns.
It’s not even turning in the value. If you talk to most leftist they acknowledge fire arms shouldn’t be banned out right. There should just me more control so every raving lunatic who wants one can’t.
This is about the way the right wingers are reacting to leftists taking up arms in the face of tyranny. Not the leftists themselves.
Thr media literacy in this thread is sad
A friend just messaged me that Mississippi jumped from 50th to 8th in reading comprehension, not because they suddenly did better, but because everyone else did so much worse.
This thread confirms that.
They actually put a lot of time and effort into public education. Turns out, providing more resources to students and teachers has positive outcomes on education. Pretty much proves that the shitty education kids get in southern states is a choice.
Reminds me back in the day was browsing a socialist gun subredditt at my brother’s house and my brother was shocked. He said “socialist have guns!”
Every SHARP I know is armed to the teeth.
SHARP?
I have it on good authority that there are far, far more liberals and leftists armed in the USA than anyone can imagine.
The difference is when you’re not an ammosexual you don’t have to constantly scream and whine and cry about your guns. You just have them and know how to use them and not think about them 24/7.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl Marx
The number of people who think that’s the second amendment is frustratingly high
Exactly!
“You want to live in a world without the need for guns, yet you use them when necessary. Curious! I am very intelligent.”
“Oh my god! You hypocrite! You are not supposed to fight back! You have morals remember?!?”
That is not what is happening here
I’m not a big fan of guns. But fuck these losers for having a problem with people displaying their guns. Suck a donkey dick ya pussies.
The only people who should own guns are the people who really really don’t want to show them off.
I think people should be trained. Before they can own specific weapons.
The fact that they said “leftists” instead of “liberals” made me think they weren’t a right-winger.
Even liberals call most leftists liberals…
I got more context from the thread.
The right to bear arms is a liberty
I watched the whole thing he said and was immediately ready to join the Philly Black Panthers. Don’t worry about the fact that I’m a MidWest white lady.
You can join the white panthers. The white panthers back up the black panthers
I’m in.
Is this true or is this the white power equivalent because some people got mad?
The White Panther Party is legitimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party
I can understand the concern at least, it’s a white supremacist thing to co-opt things.
Idk about today, but the original panthers did have a solidarity org for white folks, called The White Panthers.
If you’ve ever heard the band, The MC5, they were in the White Panthers
The Rainbow Coalition also included an org called The Young Patriots, which was a communist group that organized white southerners and Appalachians who had migrated north to big cities
Why are people that used to belong to these orgs not being interviewed regularly? I feel like it would be useful to learn from them.
Because the companies that pay people to interview people are owned by fascists.
Sure, but I listen to a fair amount of non corporate media and you get such interviews very, very infrequently. These orgs were not that uncommon.
No he is forming a rainbow coalition just like Fred Hampton
Or maybe it’s time for a new Rainbow Coalition to rise from the ashes.
I’m sure this time the FBI won’t sabotage it. Surely.
It’s overdue
You’re not a hypocrite for following the current law and also wanting to change the same law.
One opinion is about what an individual’s best choice is, given the situation.
The other is about what laws would be best for a society to have.
What’s best for an individual is not always the same as what’s best for a group or society.
deleted by creator
The problem that we frequently run into is people who only want what’s best for them at the cost of society, while still wanting full benefits of being a member of said society.
Real leftism has always been pro-gun. This liberal anti-gun nonsense is childish.
Gun rights are a liberty dumbass
Ok lib
Okay stalinist
Its not childish. In fact the Democrat leaders that push for it are the same ones trying to betray the american people at every turn. Which makes it a Republican Tactic to keep Democrat voters defenSeless and further more to make them think it is their own idea to be defenseless.
Its a wild and crazy mentality to have, I know, and yet here we are in a world where Republicans dont want Democrats to have protection from them and Democrats also dont want Democrats to have protections from Republicans.
To add to this, political speech (much like online discourse) benefits from flattening.
Nuance (I enjoy guns and am pro-gun but I think there should be controls in place to make it more difficult for people who are likely to kill to obtain them) is harder to argue against and harder to make stick in people’s minds.
The state should not have the power to brutalize its own people. They should not have a monopoly on violence. Never again.
Well here we are lol liberals now packing guns to defend themselves from a previous democrat lol yall so dumb lol
Why do they need to defend themselves?
They don’t lol they are literally letting the ex democrat push them to the center on gun control lol he has more sway in the dem party then any democrat lol
Trump is only something to benefit Trump, he holds no values. So your shit stirring attempts don’t really hit the mark.
And what does this have to do with gun control? And how does this benefit Trump? Or is this some more red team vs blue team bs?
Man, can’t even maintain consistency and you still fall into the trap of labeling the left as liberal when it has a clear political definition.
Your telling me the left isn’t liberal? What are they then?
Depends on beliefs but they’re socio-culture progressive. They can be anti-capitalists to wanting strong safeguards for social and cultural policies from its interference. Classical liberalism is a more moderate stance and neo-liberalism is a conservative moderate stance.
Common terminology is leftist, progressive, Marxist, Leninist, Communist, Socialist. There’s actually more descriptors but those are some of the bigger ones. It’s more nuanced compared to conservative politics which are pro-capitalist and some outright fascist. Don’t confuse authoritarianism with just a single ideology, it exists as a different spectrum from left and right. Just that more often than not right wing politics scale along it but we still have those on the left we call tankies who are authoritarian left.
I’m not American so can someone clarify 2nd amendment in this context for me? Can someone actually shoot an ICE agent and evoke 2nd amendment as a defense? How does it work? What about the state’s monopoly on violence?
The second amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Many liberals support stricter gun laws so that there are stronger background checks, limits, etc in order to try and reduce mass shootings, etc. The right wing folks are generally the opposite, trying to remove limits and make them accessible.
So no, you cannot evoke the second amendment as a defense for shooting anyone. It would only be a potential legal defense against laws limiting gun ownership. The second amendment says you can own a gun, not that you can shoot people with them.
As for the state’s monopoly on violence, that pretty much stands except in clear cut cases of self defense. So if someone were to shoot an ICE agent (and survive the situation to make it to trial), it would have to be some pretty extraordinary circumstances that would allow the person to avoid conviction of a crime.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Probably some of the most talked about commas in history. But the idea that most people accept today is that the 2nd amendment allows you to have guns. That’s about it. It doesn’t give you the right to shoot anyone.
for the first…150-200 years of this country, sctous had very clearly made out that amendment to only pertain to militias specifically.
The Constitution is just empty words meant to justify whatever the fuck the powers that be want.
But also, “militia” was and is defined to mean roughly “every able-bodied adult male.” It was very clearly about preserving the ability for the citizenry to assemble to defend themselves militarily. (That’s specifically in contrast to having a standing professional army, which is supposed to be unconstitutional BTW.)
it only covered militias though, which were all eventually became the national guards…because having miscellaneous bands of disorganized militias is obviously dumb as fuck
which all comes back to…the constitution is a bunch of empty words that mean nothing
Lol no they did not. People carried firearms openly since the beginning of our nation. They didn’t magically just start doing this. There is a reason they called the colt the pistol that won the west, and there is a reason we literally gained our independence using mostly privately owned firearms. There wasn’t really big laws until around 1934 for the NFA. Which is during prohibition.
Owning firearms has been an non issue for well over a century prior to the NFA.
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/
2nd amendment is right to bear arms. It’s supposed to protect citizens against tyranny. The problem is that most people who have them seem to also love Nazis.
You can’t use the 2nd as a defense for anything other than your right to have a gun. In the South we have Castle Doctrine. We can legally shoot to kill to defend our property and belongings at our homes. If we feel threatened, we can legally kill someone. Most people try to avoid that, or so I thought. Now that I see all the cruelty coming out of the woodwork, I’m not so sure.
Cops aren’t afraid of the law because they are immune to the law. They’re afraid of guns because they’re not immune to bullets.
Plenty of people willing to kill unarmed people for a paycheck…not a lot willing to die for one.
If you shoot a federal (or any other kind of) law enforcement agent and they can prove it was you then you’re going to prison for the rest of your life. Everyone knows, or should know, that. The idea is that these officers will be less likely to take violent action against protesters if they have reason to believe they will be personally shot while doing so. A court battle being likely to go your way doesn’t help much if you take a bullet to the face.
The 2A protects your right to own a firearm, and depending on where you live and how you do it, carry it around with you. Self defense is pretty much the only argument you can make in court to justify actually using a firearm to shoot another person, and cops are essentially immune from any responsibility for their actions which means self defense claims are not accepted if you shoot them. There have been cases where cops showed up at the wrong house in the middle of the night, knocked down the door, entered the home unannounced with guns drawn, and the homeowner was still found guilty of murder for shooting one of them. The state has a vested interest in not setting the precedent that it’s OK to shoot cops under even very narrow circumstances which means these guys are totally fucked if they actually do anything with those guns besides stand around and hope they deter the cops from getting too violent.
That’s not to say what this guy is doing isn’t worth doing, but anyone considering doing this should be aware of what they’re up against. I would be very wary of being the only person in a given area doing this as well. The strategy doesn’t seem like it would have the intended effect if all they have to do is shoot one person and claim they felt threatened because he had a gun.
Breonna Taylor was shot in her own house during a (likely racially motivated) no-knock raid. Her boyfriend shot back at the police and wounded at least one of them. I wouldn’t say he got off “scott free” but he was acquitted.
So in the case where unidentified masked men raid you without a warrant, you absolutely can shoot them. The problem is the law is going to bend over backwards to convict you, so you need an absolutely airtight case, and expect to spend 4 or 5 years in jail awaiting trial at a minimum.
The second amendment is meant to protect the public’s ability, not “right,” to overthrow a tyrannical government by protecting their legal right to maintain the tools to do so. That’s because once such a rebellion actually starts, “legal rights” become irrelevant since the validity of the state itself is being challenged.
So no, you can’t use the 2nd Amendment as a defense in the incumbent government’s courts. You can only use it to win, replacing the government and not having to face a trial at all.
(Also, to be clear, the 2nd is definitely about rebelling against tyranny, not hunting or self-defense against crime or whatever else the liberals try to twist it as – remember, it was written by folks who had literally just finished doing the same.)
2nd ammendment (widely known liberty)
liberal as pejorative
Lol
Most leftists don’t think all guns are always bad so I’m not sure what value they’re supposedly turning on here. Pretty sure the prevailing complaint on the left is about how easy it is to acquire a firearm, not that people have them.
I support people’s right to own weapons but it should be a lot harder to purchase and there should be MUCH greater punishments if the weapon you own is used in a shooting (I’m thinking parents of school shooters who poorly secured their guns)
How could you make it harder? Imagine if it was hard for all the new gun owners in Minnesota? I’m guessing you just want to make the rules?
I’m obviously talking about states with weak gun laws, not the people in the photo. Minnesota’s firearm regulations are fine.
Like which states?
In my opinion, there should be mandatory training and testing to check that you know how to store and operate your firearm properly. You should also be required to own a secure place to store it.
The training and testing should be paid for by taxes though (at least the first time) so poor people aren’t restricted from gun ownership.
I believe that’s called the Firearm Safety Certificate lol
Basically, though I believe that does not require you to be certified for the gun you’re purchasing. It just requires general knowledge. I think it should go further.
Also, that is not a federal requirement to purchase a firearm. It’s only required in some jurisdictions.
Ideally, it should also require fairly frequent practice. This rule would be hard to enforce though.
All guns work the same. Only different is the action (how to load the gun) and there are only a few subcategories. How other people vote and decide to run there town is out of our hands. This idea that guns are hard to use is quite the contrary they are designed for anybody to use that’s why they are so deadly. Less then 1% of legal gun owners do a crime with there legally owned guns. USA doesn’t have a gun issue we have a criminal and mental health issue. Criminals do not follow any guns laws causing regular citizens to be outgunned. And we should ask ourselves what is going on in society that is causing people to shoot themselves? But you’re proving my point you just want the rules to be your way. How each state and country decide there laws is what true democracy stands for.
Yeah, militaries spend time training with specific weapons just for fun…
Sure, every gun uses gunpowder to fire a round. The methods they handle this can be fairly different, though it isn’t incredibly important. The important thing is, when it comes time to use it, that you’re familiar with the gun you have. If you aren’t then you’ll be slower. You also need to know how to clean it, and how the safety mechanism work (whether there is a safety switch, etc), and where it is on your gun.
Owning one should be a responsibity. If you aren’t ready to operate it then you don’t need to own one. Best case, if you need it you’ll be too slow and useless to be able to. Worst case, it’s stolen and used to commit a crime, and this isn’t unlikely. Firearms are, IIRC, the most frequently stolen item.
These people don’t understand nuance. If you’re against general unrestricted availability of guns, but are not against all availability of guns, you’ve already lost them, they’ll label you as “anti-gun nut” and then be shocked if you say you own a gun, call you “out” on turning on your own convictions.
One of my fears is if I try to buy a gun, someone will actually let me.
i dont think that comment is in reference to leftists turning on an antigun stance but right wing media turning on their hardline 2nd amendment stance to vilify them for it
Ohhh, I guess I interpreted the quoted tweet as positive
It helps to have the context of the views of the speak. Hasanabi is a left guy (I had to double check this).
I knew Hasan was left but not that the quoted tweet was a conservative reporter complaining about it
I read that as Hasan questioning the MAGAt if there was any value rightoids won’t forfeit since they are stereotypically very 2A and now this guy’s positing as if owning guns to guard against a tyrannical government is bad.
If he was trying to criticize leftists or liberals, why’d he choose a right wing source of the news to react to?
To be fair, I don’t really watch Hasan, so it’s possible my interpretation is completely wrong as clarified in one of his streams.
Yeah, that’s how I read it too.
The thing about reactionaries is that they think rules are for other people. It’s only hypocritical if one takes them at their word, but they only care about winning points in arguments. They’ll argue any position if they can twist it into sounding reasonable, and they’ll steal the language of liberation from the left to do so.
Their singular principle is that entrenched power must defend itself, because they know benefits them directly. They sincerely don’t care about the second amendment; they don’t think it applies to everyone, only “real” Americans who look and act like white supremacists.
In addition to your last sentence, the most stolen item is firearms. If it isn’t secured properly, what happens with it should be on you, even if it’s stolen. If it was secured properly and they still got to it, like breaking open a secure gun safe (not a cheap Walmart one), what happens with it after should not be your fault.
Yeah, that’s absolutely what I mean. If your kid takes your gun to school, you did a shit job securing it
Go far enough left and you get your guns back.
Im so goddamn hot for this shit
Giuseppe Memeo
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl Marx
Every protest needs to have a line of armed people standing right in front.
That, more than anything, will make ICE think twice before attacking. (Because they’re pussies.)
Every leftist should arm themselves at all times at this point.
I hope that this is not hyperbole, but that you american democrats are actively considering it. I briefly scanned the no stupid questions Lemmy community, and as a non-american, a lot of this has me worried. There is so much terror from ICE. I’ll post on X, arguing against the barrage of misinformation about my country from MAGA supporters, and there will be occasional Americans calling “Please help us!” to EU citizens.
You may need to start stocking a bit more in the pantry. Start talking to your neighbors in case the insanity starts to land on your doorstep. Consider what options you have in terms of the second amendment. During his first term it may have seen like a fluke, but with the growing inequality, harsher policies, economic protectionism…
Elon Musk on X is attempting to start a grassroots movement for implement voter ID. What will this grassroots movement turn into under Trump? Trump is “jokingly” talking about canceling the midterms. You may say he is not able to accomplish this, but who knows what will happen? The divide between democrats and republicans are now so large that it may lead to civil war if it continues.
People dismiss these things. It seems like a slow moving train wreck. It feels like something that only happens on TV. We think there are rules and regulations to prevent it from happening. What rules? What regulations? Are there any left in the US that can’t be bought or intimidated?
