Poll of the Day > Gun rights should be a left wing position.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It is generally accepted that in the left wing vs right wing spectrum that left wing generally represents equality while right wing represents hierarchy.

The issue is that "gun control" is a distinctly hierarchical position to take, as it is granting the state control over who should be allowed to possess force.

This follows in issues that the left wing traditionally cares about, and prominent left wing figures in history all supported gun ownership.

This follows even today as the left wing very much advocates for recognizing the evils of the police, military and other government organizations authorized in the use of force. Gun control has historically been used specifically to target non-whites who recognized that they can't depend on the good will of white supremacy to grant them what they want.

Meanwhile the right wing is about militarism, and advocacy for police state on its face. Which means they should be the ones advocating for gun control as gun rights are specifically meant to threaten the military, police and all other government bodies.

As force is the bedrock for all power, force in the hands of common people is the bedrock for democratic representation. Therefore, it should be a left wing position.

Im for more gun control regardless of which party supports it

There are too many guns and its way too easy to get them

---

You might say that equality and hierarchy are a matter of perspective, and most of the time that's true. For example, some people see economic freedom as equality, where as others do not.

I challenge anyone to come up with a compelling argument for how gun control promotes equality.

gun control promotes a basic freedom of safety and security for everyone

anyone willing to get a license and register a car is allowed to drive, its not an unreasonable expectation that gun owners can be as responsible as car drivers

---

I'm not for gun control whatsoever, however I am for gun safety and hunting safety training, this is best for people like me who don't live in major cities.
---

Hop103 posted...

I'm not for gun control whatsoever, however I am for gun safety and hunting safety training, this is best for people like me who don't live in major cities.

Think of the dumbest, least responsible person you know.

Should that person be able to go to a gun show or go online and buy guns no questions asked?

---

Most leftists support the 2nd Amendment for that very reason. You might try actually talking to some of them before running your mouth off. Also, btw... gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.
.
1 out of 4 people who choose to kill themselves do so within a 5 minute period. Waiting periods for gun purchases have reduced suicide rates by 51% in the areas with such regulations. 50% of NRA members support a 5-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm.
.
40% of American gun owners do not undergo background checks. 74% of NRA members support universal background checks. Background checks for employees at gun stores are also not mandatory, which means that you can find gun traffickers in regions responsible for a majority of firearms used to commit crimes working at the stores that circulate them. Victims of abuse are 500% more likely to be murdered if the abuser owns a gun. 46% fewer women are shot to death in states with background checks. 48% fewer police deaths occur in states with background checks.
.
Mandatory storage laws, smart guns, and trigger locks reduce the number of accidental shootings of children. 1.7 million American children live in households with unsecured, pre-loaded firearms. There are no universal legal requirements in place for child safety with respect to firearms.
.
30% of trafficked guns come from gun shows. Most states do not have a purchasing limit on firearms. Most states do not have ammo restrictions either on ammo in general or on ammo drums. There are virtually no restrictions at all on online purchases of firearms and ammunition.
.
There are waiting periods before adopting a pet. There are background checks before you get many jobs. There are universal child safety laws for life jackets and cars. There are restrictions on how much cold medicine you can buy. These are not undue burdens and they are statistically proven to save people's lives.
.
Not all acts of violence can be stopped and no one is arguing that, but many of them can. Is regulation all we should do? Obviously not. Americans need universal mental health coverage so that they and their families can seek professional help without destroying their financial security, as well as increasing government action against domestic stochastic terrorism and fortifying our republic like Germany has fortified their democracy, and the repeal of Supreme Court decisions such as Buckley V Valeo and Citizens United, as well as getting rid of the restrictions imposed on research into gun violence in the USA so that we may have more data in order to formulate more solutions.
---

Gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.

quoted for truth

---

Mead posted...

Gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.

quoted for truth

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

VioletZer0 posted...

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

But we should have voting protection

---

VioletZer0 posted...

Mead posted...

Gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.

quoted for truth

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

Why do we follow a 300 year old document in the first place? Sure it's alive, but that can only lead to sentience. Forget about the dangers of AI, we should be more concerned about our future pulpy overlords.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

This follows even today as the left wing very much advocates for recognizing the evils of the police

The American left wing, perhaps, but that has more to do with the militarization of American law enforcement which, in turn, is a response to a heavily armed populace.

Police in many other countries are respected on a bipartisan basis, as they largely dispense with the "cowboy cop" attitude that seems so alarmingly pervasive in American law enforcement. As an example, in the UK it's rare for officer shootings to reach double digits in any given year. Most of the cops there don't even carry firearms. They don't need to - their odds of running into a heavily armed assailant are slim.

VioletZer0 posted...

is generally accepted that in the left wing vs right wing spectrum that left wing generally represents equality while right wing represents hierarchy.

Left wing also is generally in favour of bigger government and more regulation, while right wing is in favour of smaller government and less regulation, which is why the left generally supports gun control and the right generally opposes it.

Gun control is not an equality vs. hierarchy issue. Whether guns are restricted or not, everyone is impacted equally; gun laws don't apply to only part of the populace, they apply to everyone. In fact, if guns were completely unrestricted, that would actually make things *less* equal, because the rich could afford to arm themselves better than the poor, whereas under a complete gun ban all are rendered equal in the absence of their ability to own firearms, but even then it's a flimsy argument.
---

@VioletZer0 posted...

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

What part of "well maintained militia" do you not understand?

Well maintained, aka regulated, aka Jerry doesn't get a rocket launcher.

And if you're fundamentally against gun control, would you support the idea of legalizing C4 and rocket launchers?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Left wing also is generally in favour of bigger government and more regulation, while right wing is in favour of smaller government and less regulation

Let's go down the line, shall we?

Right-wing "small government" policies:
Criminalizing abortion, turning miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies) into suspected murder
Death Penalty
Ineffectual, absurdly expensive immigration restrictions
Bloating the already bloated military budget
Anti drug decriminalization, inflating our prison population and clogging up our justice system
Gerrymandering
Voting restrictions
Dictating whether or not you can marry the consenting adult of your choice
Dictating what bathroom you can use
Union restrictions or outright eradication
Etc...

Are you for big or small government when it comes to marijuana? Abortion? Do you think that the State allow lobbying (small government, terrible idea)? Why is it big government when we're talking about health care but not the military or immigration? It's not a matter of "big" vs "small." It's just a matter of what you personally want. This is a dishonest framing of politics and I'm sick to death of it. It's never been true.

Now, if by left-wing you mean "liberal," that's another matter entirely, but considering the statement I just responded to, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know the difference and will have to google liberalism...
---

People on the left are generally cowards and view the act of self defense as a form of aggression as thats the only emotional state in which they would engage in violence against another. Therefore anybody who desires the means to enforce power over another only wishes to do so as a means of self satisfaction in their viewpoint, and not as a means of protection or upholding an ideal.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Now, if by left-wing you mean "liberal," that's another matter entirely, but considering the statement I just responded to, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know the difference and will have to google liberalism...

Don't have to Google it at all - there is no difference. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are synonymous with "left-wing" and "right-wing". Unless, of course, you're Australian, where the "Liberal" party is a centre-right party, but everything's a little odd in upside-down land.

I swear there must be somewhere where this isn't taught, because this isn't the first time I've run into this misconception.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Let's go down the line, shall we?

Sure, let's.

Criminalizing abortion, turning miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies) into suspected murder Social issue, not political
Death Penalty Has nothing to do with size of government
Ineffectual, absurdly expensive immigration restrictions American issue, not a left/right issue
Bloating the already bloated military budget American issue, not a left/right issue
Anti drug decriminalization, inflating our prison population and clogging up our justice system Pretty much your only valid example supporting your point
Gerrymandering American issue. Is also done by the Democrats, albeit less frequently. Not a left/right issue.
Voting restrictions Has nothing to do with the size of government
Dictating whether or not you can marry the consenting adult of your choice Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment
Dictating what bathroom you can use Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment
Union restrictions or outright eradication Supports small government by attempting to maximize competition

For half your points you seem to be conflating social liberalism/conservatism with political liberalism/conservatism. Those are not the same things.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Are you for big or small government when it comes to marijuana? Abortion? Do you think that the State allow lobbying (small government, terrible idea)?

Why do you care about my viewpoints on any of these things?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Why is it big government when we're talking about health care but not the military or immigration?

It isn't.

Well, to be fair, the military and immigration are inherent responsibilities of government that can't be offloaded to the private sector. Health care can - it's a terrible idea to do it, but it's doable.

Keep in mind small government doesn't necessarily mean "spend less", though many conservatives do support that; it means "offload as much to the private sector as possible and minimize regulations so as to maximize competition and thereby maximize effectiveness." Or so the theory goes, at any rate...
---

bulbinking posted...

People on the left are generally cowards and view the act of self defense as a form of aggression as thats the only emotional state in which they would engage in violence against another. Therefore anybody who desires the means to enforce power over another only wishes to do so as a means of self satisfaction in their viewpoint, and not as a means of protection or upholding an ideal.

Statistically, guns are more likely to be abused and kill someone in your house than you are likely to kill an intruder. People on the left are generally intelligent enough to understand that you are endangering your family by owning a gun.

The majority of the left-wing still respects your wishes to own one, but not Kevin's, the man who can hear God tell him to do things. We're a little concerned about our right, non-gun owners, to not be terrorized by crazy people with your assault rifles.
---

The left-right paradigm ignores the other half of the compass, the authoritarian-libertarian divide. And leftists are certainly fine with entrusting things to a central authority.

Mead posted...

gun control promotes a basic freedom of safety and security for everyone

Gun ownership does that.

Gaawa_chan posted...

btw... gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.

And yet its loudest proponents want a total ban on guns.

Gaawa_chan posted...

1 out of 4 people who choose to kill themselves do so within a 5 minute period.

Overlooking the lack of a citation, something like that would be impossible to prove anyway.

Yellow posted...

Statistically, guns are more likely to be abused and kill someone in your house than you are likely to kill an intruder. People on the left are generally intelligent enough to understand that you are endangering your family by owning a gun.

1- The intruder *is* somebody in your house

2- Statistically, if you're going to kill a resident of your house, not having a gun doesn't really change that. Murder and domestic abuse still happens. After all, statistically speaking a friend or family member is more likely to be killed in your home than a stranger regardless of the weapon involved.

3- I can't help but suspect that the statistics are likely intentionally skewed by spouses/partners trespassing in the home after being kicked out or having a restraining order filed.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Don't have to Google it at all - there is no difference.

This is about all people need to read of anything you have posted to know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Criminalizing abortion, turning miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies) into suspected murder Social issue, not political

Abortion is a social issue and a political issue, but even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant because that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Whether something is considered "big government" or "small government" has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is a social one. You make a restriction/criminalize something? Then you need to pay for enforcement and you need to increase the size of the system for it. Therefore, social issues, especially when it comes to restrictions and criminalization, particularly on the federal level, ARE a matter of "big government."

Death Penalty Has nothing to do with size of government

Yes it does. I guess you just don't know anything about the death penalty either, then.

Ineffectual, absurdly expensive immigration restrictions American issue, not a left/right issue
Bloating the already bloated military budget American issue, not a left/right issue

No, this is not an "American" issue. Might I suggest paying a little more attention to the news? Next you'll be saying Angela Merkel is a leftie or something lol.

Voting restrictions Has nothing to do with the size of government
Dictating whether or not you can marry the consenting adult of your choice Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment
Dictating what bathroom you can use Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment
Union restrictions or outright eradication Supports small government by attempting to maximize competition

1. Yes, it does. Voting/marriage/bathroom restrictions = inflating the system and interference with a variety of parts of the private sector on the taxpayer dime. You already agree with this on drugs (which btw, you might as well have also filed as a "social" issue and therefore somehow magically not be big government by your standards >_>)

2. The State hamstringing people's rights to privately organize in order to prop up employers = big government interference in the free market, and yes, those efforts to require a "bigger government" than not having them would, particularly if it is happening on the federal level. Not so free and competitive if you're such garbage at running a business that the State has to bulk up and shield you from your own employees.

Why do you care about my viewpoints on any of these things?

They were rhetorical questions. Perhaps I should have stated that outright, all things considered. But ultimately you didn't address my point. "It's not a matter of "big" vs "small." It's just a matter of what you personally want. This is a dishonest framing of politics..." More importantly, and what I should have said earlier, is that it is a completely worthless way of framing political orientations because you run into non-stop exceptions.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

It is generally accepted that in the left wing vs right wing spectrum that left wing generally represents equality while right wing represents hierarchy.

The issue is that "gun control" is a distinctly hierarchical position to take, as it is granting the state control over who should be allowed to possess force.

This follows in issues that the left wing traditionally cares about, and prominent left wing figures in history all supported gun ownership.

This follows even today as the left wing very much advocates for recognizing the evils of the police, military and other government organizations authorized in the use of force. Gun control has historically been used specifically to target non-whites who recognized that they can't depend on the good will of white supremacy to grant them what they want.

Meanwhile the right wing is about militarism, and advocacy for police state on its face. Which means they should be the ones advocating for gun control as gun rights are specifically meant to threaten the military, police and all other government bodies.

As force is the bedrock for all power, force in the hands of common people is the bedrock for democratic representation. Therefore, it should be a left wing position.

Youre right. Thats how it used to be.

---

Zeus posted...

And yet its loudest proponents want a total ban on guns.

Who doesn't love a good old straw-man? That crazy blue-haired feminazi who wants muh guns and muh cyber wife cuz she's gaaaaaay...

Zeus posted...

Overlooking the lack of a citation, something like that would be impossible to prove anyway.

Comes from asking people whose suicide attempts failed. It's about a quarter, give or take a point. If you increase the time to ten minutes it spikes.

1- The intruder *is* somebody in your house
2- Statistically, if you're going to kill a resident of your house, not having a gun doesn't really change that.
3- I can't help but suspect that the statistics are likely intentionally skewed by spouses/partners trespassing in the home after being kicked out or having a restraining order filed.

1- irrelevant.
2- Victims of abuse are 500% more likely to be murdered if the abuser owns a gun. Oh, snap, you aren't just wrong. You're really, REALLY wrong. And I even have my citation on hand for this one. I may have to fish around to find the other ones, but here you go:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/
3- I can't help but suspect that you're assuming that the statistics are skewed because your feelings don't like the facts. Sad.
---

Yellow posted...

Statistically, guns are more likely to be abused and kill someone in your house than you are likely to kill an intruder.

Those studies include domestic violence cases. Statistically if you do not desire to harm your spouse/roommate your firearm is more likely to harm an intruder than somebody who lives in your own residence, along with any other weapon on the premises.

---

bulbinking posted...

Those studies include domestic violence cases.

well duh

they absolutely should

---

Yellow posted...

@VioletZer0 posted...

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

What part of "well maintained militia" do you not understand?

Well maintained, aka regulated, aka Jerry doesn't get a rocket launcher.

And if you're fundamentally against gun control, would you support the idea of legalizing C4 and rocket launchers?

Bull-fucking-shit, learn english. The "well regulated militia" bit is a supplementary phrase and has almost nothing to do with the original intent. The federalist papers explicitly stated the intent behind the second amendment was not to have the people's militia regulated by the government.

You say people shouldn't be allowed to own rocket launchers, but we were allowed to own cannons and entire battleships.

The left is about safety delivered by the state so they can act freely, the right is about freedom delivered by the state so they can defend themselves.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

Bull-fucking-shit, learn english. The "well regulated militia" bit is a supplementary phrase and has almost nothing to do with the original intent. The federalist papers explicitly stated the intent behind the second amendment was not to have the people's militia regulated by the government.

This.

You are allowed to have guns for any reason, so if a militia is required, the armed can assemble without the government taking a preemptive strike on known militiamen.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The left is about safety delivered by the state so they can act freely, the right is about freedom delivered by the state so they can defend themselves.

This doesn't follow either because the right wing is pro-border control and the left wing is typically more in favor of immigration.

VioletZer0 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The left is about safety delivered by the state so they can act freely, the right is about freedom delivered by the state so they can defend themselves.

This doesn't follow either because the right wing is pro-border control and the left wing is typically more in favor of immigration.

Republicans are pro-borders.

Republicans aren't a pure embodiment of the right, but they do have the paranoid "I have to protect me from outsiders" mentality that typically comes from far-right thinking.

The left are anti-borders because they assume the government will protect them.
---

Should the people own rocket launchers and C4? Yes absolutely because the government has armored vehicles.

I am not worried about spree killers because what people forget is that not only is it a freak event with an insanely low chance of happening to you, but the people who do commit such crimes NEVER get away with it. They all either die or go to jail for the rest of their life.

What do we mean by freak accident? To put it another way, there are literally more lottery jackpot winners than there are spree killing victims.

darkknight109 posted...

The American left wing, perhaps, but that has more to do with the militarization of American law enforcement which, in turn, is a response to a heavily armed populace.

Police in many other countries are respected on a bipartisan basis, as they largely dispense with the "cowboy cop" attitude that seems so alarmingly pervasive in American law enforcement. As an example, in the UK it's rare for officer shootings to reach double digits in any given year. Most of the cops there don't even carry firearms. They don't need to - their odds of running into a heavily armed assailant are slim

People in Europe adopted the policy of "appeasing their masters" which will provide a brief facade that the government will protect and care for them, until the people actually need to fight back and that facade fades away (See the yellow vest movement of France).

When people refer to the evils of police, it is not just the militarization of police. It is the prison industrial complex and how police are encouraged to adopt arrest-quota policies.

darkknight109 posted...

Gun control is not an equality vs. hierarchy issue. Whether guns are restricted or not, everyone is impacted equally; gun laws don't apply to only part of the populace, they apply to everyone. In fact, if guns were completely unrestricted, that would actually make things *less* equal, because the rich could afford to arm themselves better than the poor, whereas under a complete gun ban all are rendered equal in the absence of their ability to own firearms, but even then it's a flimsy argume

This is distinctly untrue.

In gun control, the government benefits exclusively. Also guns are cheaper than you think they are.

VioletZer0 posted...

It is generally accepted that in the left wing vs right wing spectrum that left wing generally represents equality while right wing represents hierarchy.

Yeah, no its not. This is only a perspective of a leftist attempting to make a bad faith argument and paint with an enormously broad brush.
I stopped reading right there, as that was a clear indication that the rest of this was gonna be trash.

https://bassnotesblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/hank-hill-gun-control.jpg

---

BeerOnTap posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

It is generally accepted that in the left wing vs right wing spectrum that left wing generally represents equality while right wing represents hierarchy.

Yeah, no its not. This is only a perspective of a leftist attempting to make a bad faith argument and paint with an enormously broad brush.
I stopped reading right there, as that was a clear indication that the rest of this was gonna be trash.

Do you believe the upper class should be allowed to exist? Or do you believe in equality?

Ive always been interested in what Americans who think they need gun control suggest they do about it.

---

Zeus posted...

Gun ownership does that.

Then why is the US - with its soaring gun ownership rate - so unsafe compared to its peers? And why, within the US, are states with lax gun laws so much more unsafe than states with strict gun laws.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Abortion is a social issue and a political issue

No, it's not. Whether abortion is legal or not has nothing at all to do with how a country is governed (which would be a political issue). Whether a country is a democratic, communist, fascistic, or autocratic, any of the above could permit or ban abortions without impacting how the country is wrong.

You need to spend some more time understanding what a "political issue" is.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yes it does. I guess you just don't know anything about the death penalty either, then.

I guess you don't understand what a political issue is.

I don't even need to fall back on theory for this one. The US - one of the most politically right-wing developed governments in the world - has the death penalty, yet so does China, one of the most politically left-wing governments in the world.

The death penalty is a punishment meted out to those already convicted of a crime. *How* you punish those in your custody for criminal activity has nothing to do with your political alignment and everything to do with how left/right wing you are socially.

And you absolutely can be politically one way and socially another. Religious fundamentalists, for instance, are socially very conservative, but also tend to be politically moderate, or even liberal (in favour of helping the poor, strengthening the social safety net, etc.), while big business owners are politically conservative (seeing deregulation to maximize their profits and minimize government interference) but are generally socially liberal.

The death penalty, being a punishment issue, is a social issue; it has nothing to do with political policy whatsoever and whether a country has the death penalty or not has no bearing on how it is run and administrated.

Gaawa_chan posted...

No, this is not an "American" issue. Might I suggest paying a little more attention to the news? Next you'll be saying Angela Merkel is a leftie or something lol.

Angela Merkel took a great deal of criticism for not restricting the flow of refugees from Syria and essentially opening Germany's doors to them and offering them shelter. Since you've already admitted she's not a leftist, that already shoots a big hole in your point about immigration.

The military is a similar issue, because most of the non-American militaries are of reasonable size (within 2% of the nation's GDP). America is one of a very small number of nations that struggles with military bloat. Most of the rest of us figured this shit out a long time ago.
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Voting/marriage/bathroom restrictions = inflating the system and interference with a variety of parts of the private sector on the taxpayer dime.

Except banning marriage between non-hetero couples costs the government and private business nothing (in fact, you could argue the opposite, as the more marriages the government allows the more it has to "pay out" in marriage benefits). Telling people who can and cannot use a bathroom is, likewise, not going to rob anyone of profits or require any additional expenditures by the government.

Voting restrictions aren't a left/right issue because restricting or permitting more people to vote doesn't really alter the size of government (elections will need to be secured regardless) and both left-wing and right-wing governments have a history of doing it.

Gaawa_chan posted...

You already agree with this on drugs

Because drugs involve commerce, unlike your other examples. The government banning drugs is, in essence, the government inserting itself into the world of business and banning a product/service that the laws of supply and demand would otherwise support in order to promote the health of the populace. Same could be said of things like prostitution, slavery, child labour, and copyright infringement, all with varying degrees of justification.

Gaawa_chan posted...

The State hamstringing people's rights to privately organize in order to prop up employers = big government interference in the free market

If that's your justification, I'll point out that a "true" small government approach would be to allow companies to union-bust and not get involved.

The laws supporting union formation and engagement - like collective bargaining and arbitration - are big government, as they add additional regulation and bureaucracy to the processes of employment.

Gaawa_chan posted...

But ultimately you didn't address my point. "It's not a matter of "big" vs "small." It's just a matter of what you personally want.

But it's not what I personally want. I named some things in there that I support and some things in there I don't.

For instance, if we want to talk about social issues, on abortion I am very left-wing - I believe that abortions should be available at any time, for any reason, with no expense to the mother and no hurdles put in by the government (mandatory ultrasound, talking about alternatives, etc.), up to the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. However, when it comes to recreational drugs, I am very right-wing - I believe that legalizing marijuana is a mistake that we will one day come to regret, and I'd honestly advocate banning alcohol if I thought it stood a hope in hell of ever becoming an effective law.

Very few people are "purestrain" liberals or conservatives. Most people will have issues where they cross over and that's totally normal (and, I'd argue, probably healthy).
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

More importantly, and what I should have said earlier, is that it is a completely worthless way of framing political orientations because you run into non-stop exceptions.

Only if you don't understand the difference between social and political alignments, which you clearly don't.

Political liberals believe the government is a force for good and encourage government involvement in business and the economy to address unfair business practices, while political conservatives believe that the government is inefficient and should be restricted to only those duties that cannot safely be handled by the private sector (national defence, education, etc.), with minimal intrusion into the world of big businesses so that the laws of commerce can be allowed to produce the most efficient and effective economy available, thus maximizing profits for all.

By contrast, social liberals generally favour community and collectivism, equality (especially of rights), cooperation, and new solutions to old problems, whereas social conservatives generally favour individualism, respect for a central authority, competition, and tradition.

And even those are gross simplifications. The framing is fine, it's just that "left-wing" and "right-wing" can't be easily boiled down to a single-sentence descriptor without losing a lot of accuracy.

VioletZer0 posted...

Should the people own rocket launchers and C4? Yes absolutely because the government has armored vehicles.

Can we please put this tired old myth to bed?

No, the government is not going to quake in its boots about being overthrown by Farmer Joe and his 12-gauge, because the government has tanks, drones, aircraft, battleships, and a variety of other military technology - some of which is classified and completely unknown to the public at large (like stealth helicopters prior to the Bin Laden raid). Any civilian uprising against the government will fail - that is simple fact.

And history is on my side here. We like to lionize the idea of the populace banding together, rising up, and overthrowing a dictator, but the truth is that in the last 100 years no civilian uprising has successfully deposed a dictator without the help, or at least the approval, of the military. It is the military - not the general populace - that decides when a government is overthrown. If the military stands by the government, a civilian uprising would be crushed in short order, unless they can find a foreign military to support them (see: Libya); by contrast, if the military decides not to support the government in power, either by directly supporting the rebels or by looking the other way while they storm the palace gates, then and only then will the uprising succeed (see: Egypt, Tunisia).

And that's not even touching on the fact that the idea of a dictator ever coming to power in the US is farcical to the point of fantasy. The US, being the most militarized nation on the planet, is not going to be taken over by a hostile power in our lifetimes, so no dictator could install himself by force. Thus, the only way a dictator is coming to power is democratically, and even ignoring the questionable idea of forcefully overthrowing a democratically-elected government, any government that was elected will have the support of half(-ish) of its citizens. Accordingly, the government's supporters are going to have access to those same firearms that everyone else is free to bear and any rebellion to overthrow the government is going to meet a counter-insurgency pretty quickly.
---

Mead posted...

Hop103 posted...

I'm not for gun control whatsoever, however I am for gun safety and hunting safety training, this is best for people like me who don't live in major cities.

Think of the dumbest, least responsible person you know.

Should that person be able to go to a gun show or go online and buy guns no questions asked?

i agree, mead should not be able to do that
---

I think you people fundamentally misunderstand how war works.

War isn't about conquest until your enemies burn to the ground and the leader's heads are on a pike. That is a last resort, war is a negotiation tool. You go to war to negotiate peace on favorable terms.

The relationship between government and populace is ultimately a negotiation. The most important element of any negotiation is being able to walk away from the table. Now ask yourselves, what does the civilian population walking away from the table look like?

SS #42 because I have a feeling that one is coming down.

---

VioletZer0 posted...

Mead posted...

Gun control =/= anti 2nd amendment.

quoted for truth

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

We shouldn't have gun control for the exact same reasons we should not have voting control.

What part of amendment do you not understand?

VioletZer0 posted...

Now ask yourselves, what does the civilian population walking away from the table look like?

Going to the ballot box to and finding someone else to do the job.
---

darkknight109 posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Now ask yourselves, what does the civilian population walking away from the table look like?

Going to the ballot box to and finding someone else to do the job.

Democratic vote is a mitigating factor not a solution to totalitarianism. Democracy can and absolutely has been subverted before.

In a recent example, the people clearly voted for Bernie Sanders but the DNC decided to put up Hillary anyway in a clear example of trying to rig the election.

darkknight109 posted...

China, one of the most politically left-wing governments in the world.

What
---

Zareth posted...

darkknight109 posted...

China, one of the most politically left-wing governments in the world.

What

.....you're not trying to say that China, the last major functional communist state, is a right-wing government, are you?

VioletZer0 posted...

In a recent example, the people clearly voted for Bernie Sanders but the DNC decided to put up Hillary anyway in a clear example of trying to rig the election.

And by "clearly", you mean that Hillary got 55% of the popular vote and 60% of the delegates, meaning Sanders lost solidly no matter what metric you're using.

More to the point, the DNC is a private institution and can put forward whatever candidate they like, for whatever reason they like. They are not the government. Sanders could easily have mounted a third party campaign and if he was so popular, he would have won that way.

VioletZer0 posted...

Democracy can and absolutely has been subverted before.

And every single time it's been done by a bunch of people with guns... which is what you're proposing as your remedy to this non-issue problem.

It's sort of like saying, "Hey, to stave off lead poisoning, just take this lead-based pill! Trust me, you'll be fine!"
---

Zareth posted...

What

Communism is a left-wing ideology. Its just so far left that it seems right.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Bull-fucking-shit, learn english. The "well regulated militia" bit is a supplementary phrase and has almost nothing to do with the original intent. The federalist papers explicitly stated the intent behind the second amendment was not to have the people's militia regulated by the government.

This.

You are allowed to have guns for any reason, so if a militia is required, the armed can assemble without the government taking a preemptive strike on known militiamen.

Yeah? So where does that whole well maintained factor come in genius?
---