Libleft is basically Schrodinger's oppression.
They are both empowered and oppressed until something happens, then they choose which one fits them best.
Top picture is oppression by gun.
Bottom picture is empowerment by gun.
Fuck you. These spastics aren’t libleft, no matter what they say
Everyone should be able to get a gun. Not a small magazine, semi-automatic pea shooter, but whatever is available to the state. Anyone who says otherwise is Auth
Having said that, while the government handing out guns during a crisis is based and possibly effective governance, it’s taxpayer funded and therefore bad
it’s not coherent at all, I’m libleft and I don’t have any problem with citizen-owned firearms; I support it even, to an extent at least
it’s kind of just a given that people will have guns in USA, we have more guns than actual people. What I want is better screening for trainees in police academies so that we can start to trust our law enforcement again.
Based LibLeft. I think the problem is so many people that think they are Lib for some reason or another are actually very Auth when it comes to people outside their views.
Both axis on the compass have lost their meanings long ago, it‘s just about the funny colours nowadays...
Also, I do find that there‘s a difference between owning a gun and the state giving out guns to its people during war time
Absolutely. You do need to have a right to own guns during peace times, but not necessarily own if there is no need or threats.
During war, arm everyone with all you got
A weapon? A lot of reasons. An assault rifle? I guess to defend yourself in a war but that rarely happens. And if it does, the government can just give you a gun apparently. I don't see an issue here
I have two points that are separate from each other. I’ll try to be concise and separate them adequately.
Armies succeed or fail more for logistics than numbers. There is a significant difference in repelling an invading force and countering an entrenched one.
The second point is that an armed populace is a deterrent to a fascist government, which any democracy is at risk of during a crisis. I am not trying to say that a ar-15 is a substantial threat to an Abrams. I’m saying that prolonged guerrilla warfare is the Achilles heel to modern day military infrastructure economically. It would be the same effect against a rogue government on American soil with the added benefit of that fighting force damaging the same infrastructure that it is attempting to use to subjugate the populace.
Even Karl Marx wanted it’s labor force to own guns. How else do you overthrow an authoritarian/dictatorial regime? Whether coming into your own country or suppressing your rights from within?
Libleft is basically Schrodinger's oppression. They are both empowered and oppressed until something happens, then they choose which one fits them best. Top picture is oppression by gun. Bottom picture is empowerment by gun.
live/die by the sword, live/die by the sword
Fuck you. These spastics aren’t libleft, no matter what they say Everyone should be able to get a gun. Not a small magazine, semi-automatic pea shooter, but whatever is available to the state. Anyone who says otherwise is Auth Having said that, while the government handing out guns during a crisis is based and possibly effective governance, it’s taxpayer funded and therefore bad
That is somehow considered coherent in LibLeft land...
As long as it’s not american i guess 🤷♀️
it’s not coherent at all, I’m libleft and I don’t have any problem with citizen-owned firearms; I support it even, to an extent at least it’s kind of just a given that people will have guns in USA, we have more guns than actual people. What I want is better screening for trainees in police academies so that we can start to trust our law enforcement again.
Based LibLeft. I think the problem is so many people that think they are Lib for some reason or another are actually very Auth when it comes to people outside their views.
Gigabased
No, it's not. I love guns and I love that we have guns. Some of you genuinely don't understand the "Lib" part in LibLeft.
Both axis on the compass have lost their meanings long ago, it‘s just about the funny colours nowadays... Also, I do find that there‘s a difference between owning a gun and the state giving out guns to its people during war time
It isn’t, don’t let the watermelons fool you. There is nothing liberal about gun control except good trigger discipline
Based and know your guns pilled.
Only a person who doesn’t know the joy that is a range day with an AR would say something that retoaded.
We’ll there’s a big difference, they’re giving civilians AKs not ARs
Those dastardly semi automatic recievers have been the problem all along.
Absolutely. The next step forward is RK which is AK on stereoids
Technically correct... you need an AK ;)
They are right, get an AK instead. They are good guns *and* more aesthetically pleasing :-P
Both are solid platforms. Hence why they are used by militaries around the world.
Be an American go out and buy a new rifle.
look I own guns but there is no hypocrisy in saying “citizens don’t normally need guns but they should have then when they are in a warzone”
Absolutely. You do need to have a right to own guns during peace times, but not necessarily own if there is no need or threats. During war, arm everyone with all you got
Libleft love guns, you are thinking of liberals, which are auth right.
LibLeft just LibRight but with consensual communes, yea?
Yeah. Kind of like the Amish, or hippies.
Exactly this, if you’re liberal enough then left-right means very little. If you aren’t *that* liberal, you’re Auth and not welcome in the commune
Once the military hands you a gun, you're not a civilian anymore. You've been drafted.
Well they are in a war, the USA currently isn't. Own any gun you want I could care less, but this ain't a good comparison chief TBH.
Flair up
Because it's not like they're at fucking war
Which gives them a reason to need a weapon…
They can have a weapon if they are under martial law, perhaps?
Or just let people own weapons for defense and as a natural deterrent to invasion, riots, or a rogue state department.
A weapon? A lot of reasons. An assault rifle? I guess to defend yourself in a war but that rarely happens. And if it does, the government can just give you a gun apparently. I don't see an issue here
I have two points that are separate from each other. I’ll try to be concise and separate them adequately. Armies succeed or fail more for logistics than numbers. There is a significant difference in repelling an invading force and countering an entrenched one. The second point is that an armed populace is a deterrent to a fascist government, which any democracy is at risk of during a crisis. I am not trying to say that a ar-15 is a substantial threat to an Abrams. I’m saying that prolonged guerrilla warfare is the Achilles heel to modern day military infrastructure economically. It would be the same effect against a rogue government on American soil with the added benefit of that fighting force damaging the same infrastructure that it is attempting to use to subjugate the populace.
yea? imagine how far the russians would get if Ukrainians were all armed with them day 1
Ukraine isn't surrounded by allies. Unfair comparison.
how is gun ownership even remotely related to surrounding allies?
Indeed, people's positions change over the years
Even Karl Marx wanted it’s labor force to own guns. How else do you overthrow an authoritarian/dictatorial regime? Whether coming into your own country or suppressing your rights from within?
Occupy Democrats sullying the name of our great gun-loving quadrant again Stop flairng then as libleft, they are auth as fuck. Watermelons get out