Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1qqrgh wrote

I love the fact they think the left doesn’t own guns, lol.

192

Rough_Magician_8117 t1_j1qrvft wrote

You would think who ever made this would also know that “bullets” and “rounds” are two different things.

55

Tyrannus_ignus t1_j1rhgw7 wrote

I know its like this in New Hampshire but I think a lot of left wing people in other parts of the united states are anti gun violence and therefore don't exercise their right to own one.

29

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1rkw5v wrote

I’ve lived in several states and the only real diehard anti-gun people I’ve met are moderate democrats. Most people I know with actual leftist views support 2A and agree that banning guns does little to solve the underlying problem of gun violence.

It’s a real shame we’ve chosen to let two parties speak for the entire populace.

74

the_nobodys t1_j1ro2ub wrote

Right on. This is actually an issue I've changed my mind about as a progressive. I could get behind a ban on assault style weapons I suppose, or getting rid of stand your ground and other laws that make it too easy to get away with murder, but other than that I think gun ownership is a non-issue. Most gun violence is due to inequality in general, I've learned.

16

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1s2oj2 wrote

The more left I become the more nuanced my opinions on gun laws get. I think we need way more than what we’re doing now, but I also think that banning guns period is impossible and dangerous, because of the absolute freaks who will own guns regardless of the laws (not concerned about street thugs so much as domestic terrorists). Fully agree with the other comment that moderate dems are the ones who are blanket anti gun. Lots and lots of folks on the left are pro-2A for a variety of very valid reasons.

19

AMC4x4 t1_j1ujx09 wrote

Funny, same. I guess the left really is moving on the gun issue. Thought it was only me and a couple of small groups, but maybe it's more of us. I still think any weapon capable of mass murder at scale should be banned though. Anything that makes law enforcement unable or extremely difficult to do their jobs shouldn't be allowed.

4

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1urg9n wrote

Remember that there’s also a healthy distrust of law enforcement on both sides. The left wing views police as a racist institution installed to protect and serve the the interests of capitalists. Right wingers tend to be highly supportive of local police, but absolutely detest federal law enforcement.

I can’t say I disagree either. As long as the blue line brotherhood continues to cover up the misconduct of their fellow officers, none of them can really be considered “good cops.” Good cops don’t stay employed.

6

lonely_Huffelpuff t1_j1san2z wrote

Yeah I'm as left as they come honestly and I don't get why we'd completely ban guns at all. Any country who has, like England, the citizens didn't ever own many anyway and I just don't see how outright banning guns could even work here. Definitely should ban assault and semis though we never did and never could need those. You can't even hunt of defend yourself with them only kill or mame people with it.

1

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1sh1tl wrote

Fully agree. I see no reason for AR weapons whatsoever and I do not agree with anyone claiming the need for one. Shotguns and handguns are way, way more effective for home defense and a solidly built bolt-action rifle is plenty sufficient for hunting. There’s no place for a semi automatic rifle in the list titled “reasons to own a gun”. Look I’m even willing to compromise. If we want to keep these weapons legal for sport, then sure let people buy them, but they’d have to stay at the range or club.

Guns are useful tools for many people, but a semi doesn’t fit the job description of any acceptable use of guns any better than other types of weapons. The only thing it’s superior at compared with other types of weapons is hurting as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Fuck em.

1

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1skzl4 wrote

I’d love to live in a world where extremists will give up their weapons because the government tells them so. When the Proud Boys and Patriot Front destroy their ARs, I’ll destroy mine.

Living in an age where far-right factions are threatening civil war is not a time to disarm.

7

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1slrud wrote

And this is where the nuance comes in. Because I agree with you 100% and will not try to tell you that you’re wrong for owning an AR. I am personally strictly anti-AR. I don’t own one and I will not own one. That said, a lot of very, very bad people do own one (or several). As such, I understand the people who own one specifically because these extremists own them, and the best deterrent/defense against these thugs who have openly expressed their desire for mass violence is to have the same weapons they have. But, nobody I know who leans left and owns an AR ever wants to use it for its purpose. At all. It’s always something they own as a form of insurance against the bad things that are creeping closer and closer to us.

4

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1svodb wrote

> But, nobody I know who leans left and owns an AR ever wants to use it for its purpose. At all. It’s always something they own as a form of insurance against the bad things that are creeping closer and closer to us.

I’d say that’s a fair assessment. We’re not the ones marching out with our rifles to intimidate and harass others. This is what gives the perception that leftists are unarmed. Though, some more recent events have seen leftists displaying arms as a sign that they won’t be intimidated.

There’s a difference between being a idealist (“guns are bad, let’s get rid of them”) and being an realist (“bad people won’t get rid of their guns, I’d better be prepared if shit hits the fan.”)

6

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1syehj wrote

Exactly, you are putting it into exactly the right words. You’re right about people on the left being more open about their weapon possession recently, but like you said, entirely in response to escalation and threats from right wing militias. And it’s worked! Incredibly well! It’s one of the things that changed a lot of my left-leaning friends’ minds about guns, watching alt right dudes chicken out when they were confronted by a group that’s as heavily armed as they are. It leads to a de-escalation of the situation because ultimately these militia guys are cosplaying cowards. It’s just such a useful deterrent against these goblins.

3

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t1wkq wrote

> ultimately these militia guys are cosplaying cowards.

💯 absolute truth.

3

tylermm03 t1_j1v5cvx wrote

Believe it or not, AR-15’s and rifles and in general make up a small percentage of homicides, handguns make up the majority of homicides in FBI statistics. You’re also around 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death then killed with a rifle. As a gun owner myself, I think the problem causing most violent crime is mental health and socioeconomic problems, especially considering the fact that cities tend to have a lot more homicides then rural areas (see table 8).. Also considering the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban was found to have mixed results. One of the things noted in this article states that because there was a grandfather clause, it made guns grandfathered in much more expensive (this happened with machine guns when the registry closed in 1986, they now range in price from $9k-$300k depending on what you’re looking at) and thus less accessible to criminals, so they ended up turning to semi autos that weren’t banned. Instead of arguing over whether a certain gun should or shouldn’t be legal, I’d say the best thing our nation could do is find a solution that both sides would agree to, specifically Group Violence Intvention programs (aka Community Violence Intervention programs). Programs such as these have actually been proven to reduce violent crime and crimes involving firearms as much as 60%. I myself support these programs being implemented and I’d bet the majority of gun owners would as well considering that no rights are being infringed, no guns are being banned, violent crime is being reduced and a significant number of lives are being saved.

2

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v5sba wrote

That makes sense, therefore it will likely never happen.

4

tylermm03 t1_j1v7cu3 wrote

Unfortunately you’re probably right :/ . Politics suck.

1

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v7r36 wrote

The Dems will cry “but guns are bad!!!” While the Republicans will say “fund programs that help people other than myself? Why would I want to do that?”

2

jdkeith t1_j1urzh3 wrote

More like if the cops and three letter agencies give up their rifles, then we can maybe talk.

2

Sugarloafer1991 t1_j1udx4u wrote

Only real purpose I’ve seen for these besides killing people is for wild boars in the south. There’s way too many of them and semiauto rifles are the best way to take them down. Not only are they destroying farmland but they are dangerous to people/animals

4

SprinkleAI t1_j1u8mdo wrote

You realize handguns are semi-automatic, right? It just means that you don’t need to manually load the next round, it’s chambered for you after you fire one.

1

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1u9kah wrote

Semi automatic rifle was the wording I used. A handgun isn’t a rifle. Shut the fuck up I know plenty about guns and own several myself, stop being smug and pulling gotchas to try to prove how smart you are. It doesn’t work.

5

SprinkleAI t1_j1ubvsg wrote

Lol, just checking. Wasn’t following the point that semi automatic rifles aren’t okay but handguns are. I know some people who don’t own guns don’t understand the difference between full auto and semi. Not saying you’re one of them, just trying to inform for those who aren’t aware.

3

PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1uh9nq wrote

Sorry for coming across hostile, my mistake. I am tired of folks who try to invalidate an opposing view on firearms by using the “I know more than you” card and that’s where my mind immediately jumps to lol.

3

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1ut9b9 wrote

The funny thing I see is that places like Walmart have stopped selling “handgun and assault rifle” ammo. Yet, they still sell .308… which is a significantly more powerful round than .223/5.56 (most common AR round), because it’s for “hunting rifles.”

There are AR-platform rifles that shoot .308, just as there are semiautomatic hunting rifles. All they’re doing is trying to place a label on something due to how it is perceived to those unfamiliar with firearms. It’s really just splitting hairs, and broad definitions can lead to slippery slopes.

5

BurningPage t1_j1sw7vm wrote

Just take guns away from cops and we’ll be fine.

8

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v4lw0 wrote

Nah, let’s give them more military surplus equipment. How else are they going to bash the skulls of minorities, people exercising their first amendment right and other depraved individuals? /s

3

othermegan t1_j1u9ho9 wrote

I was talking to someone recently who explained why they’re on the fence about gun laws. He’s a cop so he is well aware of how easy it is to go out and illegally get a gun. He also loved hunting so you’d think he’d be super pro-gun. But he’s not.

His main point was that the whole point of Americans being allowed guns was so that the government/military didn’t have egregious power over them. If Britain came back or someone named themselves King and tried to use the military against the people, the people could defend themselves. But that was written back when it took forever to reload a musket. The founding fathers would never have dreamed of automatic weapons.

So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons. Every law abiding gun owner turns over their guns and we’re left with a handful of slower weapons. What happens if a narcissist becomes president and tried to incite an insurrection (that would never happen, right? /s). This person now has control of the military. What type of weapons will the military still have? Automatic weapons. How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?

It definitely gave me food for thought and firmly planted me on the fence more than I was already

1

ZacPetkanas t1_j1up1is wrote

> So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons.

We effectively have. Or do you mean semi-automatics?

> How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?

Occupation would require patrols, curfews, etc. The idea would be to use a cheap weapon to kill the soldier and take a better weapon of off of them (I believe this was the concept behind the Liberator pistol in WWII).

Would it work well enough to provide effective resistance to the occupiers? I'd say probably not; the French resistance wasn't able to liberate France from the NAZIs using similar tactics.

edit: fixed typo

2

AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j1vvrtt wrote

People debate about the causes of gun violence all over the place, but the real answer is mostly just population density

1

Trailwatch427 t1_j1s45yn wrote

I've lived in several states and I would not really agree with that. Where I lived, for most of my life, the people most likely to own guns were hunters. Fifty years ago, hunters owned a few guns for hunting, and that was it. They were unlikely to own a handgun, and certainly nothing military. Just hunting guns. Next most likely types to own guns were criminals or those on the edge of the law. I'm serious, I lived in a Mafia area, also biker gangs, inner city gangs, etc. These people had legal and illegal guns, mostly illegal.

Now it is a totally different world of gun owners in the US. People own arsenals of handguns and military type guns. I don't know any "moderate dems" who own guns like that. Most Dems I've known in my life weren't hunters, that's a country thing. Maybe in rural areas with hunting, you might find some liberal rednecks with guns. But most Dems interpret the second amendment in its strictest sense. That means that guns are for military and the police. A few hunting rifles are okay. And really strict controls on who gets to own them, and what type.

−2

marshal1257 t1_j1s0xss wrote

I’m a diehard Democrat. I’m in complete support of further gun control legislation. I also support the 2A and I own a lot of guns. Expensive ones, not cheap ass Glocks or Kel-Tec’s. I also know how to use them very effectively. I even own several of the scary AR-15 rifles. The difference between gun owners on the left and the gun nuts on the right, is gun owners on the left don’t feel the need to arm ourselves to the hilt when we stop for our morning coffee. We’re also smart enough to know that no one in Washington is trying to take all our guns.

16

tom_echo t1_j1t9ipm wrote

I think politicians love supporting gun control since it’s popular in many states and it gets them reelected without really having to work for anything.

2

lendluke t1_j1s44xz wrote

I assume you live in NH? That really doesn't refute Trannus' comment. Go to NYC and see how many on the left own guns, the big cities which are majority left leaning really scew things with their much stricter gun control. Not saying they are lesser for not owning a gun (I have yet to get one), just saying there is definitely fewer guns owned by people on the left and NH is more the exception that proves the rule (and I'm not endorsing left vs right violence either).

1

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1s523f wrote

Democrats aren’t left. The perspective of right-wing vs left-wing is horribly skewed in the US compared to what those terms actually mean to the rest of the world.

11

bishwhet1099 t1_j1shzgu wrote

Thank you. I wish there were more like minded people like you.

8

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1so2rt wrote

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” - George Carlin

How The United States Ended Up With Two Right-Wing Parties

6

AmazingThinkCricket t1_j1sxg6f wrote

what a dumb video. Anyone who thinks the Democratic Party is right wing needs to go back to their commie book club

−3

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1szppk wrote

I see the American education system and corporate media have failed you as they has so many others.

The Dems are capitalist; this alone puts them in the right wing of the political spectrum. Granted they are generally not quite as far to the right as Republicans, but the difference is much smaller than what their rhetoric suggests. Both are also on the authoritarian end of the scale, rather than the libertarian end. Again, Democrats are more moderate here than Republicans, but only slightly. They have actively resisted any attempt to shift the party left.

Genuinely left-wing political views have almost no presence in mainstream American politics. Bernie Sanders is the exception that proves the rule, and even he is, at best, center-left.

4

AmazingThinkCricket t1_j1t5eii wrote

>The Dems are capitalist; this alone puts them in the right wing of the political spectrum

what are you guys reading right now in your book club

−2

bishwhet1099 t1_j1ukazo wrote

We read often unlike.. never mind.

3

AmazingThinkCricket t1_j1unhqr wrote

Oh I'm aware. That's all that communists do. Thankfully they are completely irrelevant politically

−1

bishwhet1099 t1_j1uk40a wrote

Did you watch the entire 13:50 minutes of the video or did you twiddle your thumbs away before posting your comment.

1

Trailwatch427 t1_j1s31pk wrote

Many people don't own a gun because...they have absolutely no reason to do so. They don't want to learn to handle, shoot, or load a gun. They have the common sense to know that unless you practice with it regularly, have the strength to fire the damn thing accurately--there is really no reason to have one. They know that having a gun in the house raises the chances for accidental death, suicide, homicide, or serious injury.

Even the most experienced gun enthusiast stands a higher risk for injury or death because of guns in the house. And the idiot right wingers who own guns without gun knowledge will kill themselves or their family members long before they will use it to take over the country.

8

WoobieBee OP t1_j1rpz62 wrote

Again… I posted this bc of the peen placement of NH! But since we’re chatting about guns…

I think it goes along the urban/suburban/rural alignment. People in rural areas will likely have some form of shooting weapon. And many people own them for hunting bc shit be expensive right now.

Urban areas? Gun violence means something specific & most people do not want widespread gun ownership. It can be about protection but it really isn’t.

And suburban areas then fall along party lines, I suspect.

7

slayermcb t1_j1s17fm wrote

If you could hear my neighbors popping off hundreds of dollars in rounds every weekend you would doubt the reason for hunting is because of expenses.

I'm not mad at them. Just wish I knew them better to join them!

9

WoobieBee OP t1_j1wv0mg wrote

LOL that is funny. I worry that those people are potentially militia… but oh well. In plenty of places in America ammo is reserved for meat.

1

JohnnyRebe1 t1_j1t1on8 wrote

Living in an urban area is the reason I own and carry my pistol on me wherever I go. I do think a lot of people in here are just unaware of how many people on both ends of the political spectrum carry daily. Most people you know, whether friends or family, they just don’t go advertising that they own or carry a gun. It’s no one’s business.

−1

Freighttrain4 t1_j1srekk wrote

My dad who is a cop in Maine has always told me that even though Vermont, NH, and Maine are all “blue states” it’s more likely than not that when pulling someone over or entering their house they are strapped with a rifle or pistol.

The right loves to think we are all the Portland, Oregon snowflake type…. But in northern New England it’s a total different type of “blue” imo.

3

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t0n7j wrote

I wouldn’t say it’s exclusive to New England… economic class probably has more to do with it than region.

4

Coders32 t1_j1u8bzm wrote

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” —Karl Marx

3

BelichicksBurner t1_j1uaynq wrote

Yeah that's not accurate. The only places you really see that are very large cities. The other 47 states? Pretty even split.

2

WoobieBee OP t1_j1rpasm wrote

Honestly this is in so many ways inaccurate! No purple states? I would say NH is still a purple state.

10

Doover__ t1_j1s1l3y wrote

I believe the reason it’s inaccurate is because it’s from one of obamas elections, so a fair few states are out of place compared to now

2

MantaurStampede t1_j1srxyw wrote

Both senators are blue. Both reps. And it's gone blue in presidential elections since...bush's first time? cmon.

2

WoobieBee OP t1_j1wy8pg wrote

I hear ya and yet a gop governor, exec council, state senate & State house do also count.

1

WoobieBee OP t1_j1rphpy wrote

Y’all this bad meme is like 50 shades of stoopid but the NH placement had me. Lol. We are a leftist peen?!?

Honestly the lack of purple states alone, which NH is, is so absent.

5

horsewangjackson t1_j1tn2i9 wrote

And that Montana is somehow severely right. We've had a democratic governor for the last 16 years. There has been A LOT of outrage over our current governor and the want to outlaw abortion. And marijuana is recreational. If the "right" thinks that we're not toking up and plinking at least an AR-15 on the range at the public shooting hole, they are fucking delusional.

2

lightningttt t1_j1t3lqy wrote

They don't statistically. The registered Republicans have I think 7 or 8x the amount of guns as registered democrats. Just go to Texas you'll understand. Biden and guns don't go. Trump and guns do.

1

lightningttt t1_j1t41ye wrote

If you type Republicans own more guns into Google the first link has a breakdown of who owns them. And 42% of Republicans own them and almost all of them own multiple where as democrats only 16% and more than half saying its thier only gun.

0

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t4pgg wrote

How many people own guns who aren’t registered to either party? Over 1/3 of the US is registered independent.

3

lightningttt t1_j1t8njo wrote

That wasn't the question though

−1

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t9sbb wrote

Yeah, it sorta was.

The majority of leftists in the US don’t consider the Dems to be leftist at all (rightfully so). They certainly aren’t registered as one. Same can be said for the sovereign citizen crowd and the Republican Party.

Since you brought up Trump and Biden, both of them are doing the bidding of their campaign donors, just like every other elected official at the federal level. Both signed gun control legislation, Trump with the bump stock ban and Biden with more extensive background checks.

Left/Right is not the same as Democrat/Republican. People with ideals further from center tend to not be affiliated with either party.

2

lightningttt t1_j1u6lil wrote

This is just not the case. I'm sorry you are delusional. Also. Unregistered have only 11% gun ownership so even if every independent was lefty your still sitting at a fraction of the guns. I'm also from boston and have never seen this disconnect between left and democrat. They go hand in hand.

−2

sje46 t1_j1t2gmf wrote

Well, certainly people on the left have guns. But the meme is about how the left has far less guns than the right does.

If there were ever a civil war, the "left" would be screwed. And that is unfortuante, because I'm on the left. The right is the interior of the country and essentially control the supply chain, food, electricity, and infrastructure in general. And don't forget that it naturally works out that the "left's" powerbases are split in half by the enemy. People who join the military disproportionately are politically conservative, and lots of people go on to form militias and train to fight. The legacy of a militant left in the US died in the 70s. The modern day left is undisciplined, unarmed, pessimistic divided over irrelevant culture war bullshit, and believes that praxis is done by posting on twitter. If there were a civil war, which roughly corresponds to the last presidnetial election (extremely unlikely it'd go along state borders, but whatever), then the side associated with the democrats would lose handily. Not that that side wouldn't have some advantages but I think they would be minor compared to the more militaristic-minded half of hte country which can be more meaningfully said to make this country work.

Also for New Hampshire in particular...it's silly to say that NH would definitely be on the left because of the last presidential election. It is a purple state. I would say it's probably, though, because it's closed off by the rest of the country by Vermont and Mass, and the entire region is cut off by New York, so NH has no chance at all, not to mention the fact that New England has the highest ratio of food imports. We can't produce our own food for shit, and if the conservative army cuts off our territory at the seaboard, then the entire new england region would slowly starve to death, especially during the winter.

So yeah, dismal stuff.

0

RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t44ey wrote

Civil war would cause a breakdown in the supply and distribution chain that everyone relies on. Both sides would suffer in that regard.

The right may own more guns, but those stats don’t take into consideration how many guns are being stockpiled by individuals.

From all of the right wing militia training videos I’ve seen, their focus seems to be on intimidation, rather than gaining any sort of tactical advantage. The left may be unorganized by comparison (and they absolutely are), but they generally tend to be better prepared with a broader skill set as individuals. Take a look at the American Revolution… the minutemen were farmers, cobblers and merchants. They didn’t train together very much and they were scattered about the countryside. They still managed to defeat the richest and most organized imperialist army on the planet.

One other thing you need to consider is that those threatening civil war are a small percentage of far-right extremists. If they start battling with the population and attacking critical infrastructure, it’s not going to be only leftists fighting back, they’ll likely also be battling against less extreme right-leaning individuals. They will be quickly outnumbered by people who they initially believe share their ideology.

0

sje46 t1_j1t54vk wrote

Agreed, I don't actually think it'd be a geographically clean, traditional war. I'm just assuming the scenario assumed in the meme. That set of states versus the other set of states...who wins?

I don't think the right-wing larpers are necessarily super organized, agreed, but that they at least have arms (including surprisingly powerful stuff), military vehicles, camo, and a lot of them were in the military and very devoted.

Also the 18th century was basically a different world. They didn't have tanks, aircraft carriers, planes, etc. It's like how people assume Julius Caesar completely dominated the Gauls because he was from the more advanced culture. Certainly he won and he was always going to win, but since the tech level differences were smaller, it was a much harder battle than we in the modern day can truly appreciate.

So an actual civil war along these lines would involve half the military fighting the other half, with regular citizens being conscripted and sent to the front lines. It's at the front lines that the more gun-savvy and militiamen will have an advantage over the left. For the people not fighting, the conservative faction will simply shut off the roads, railroads, electricity, supply chain, and food for the enemy.

In actuality, I think any "civil war" would probably be more like small insurgencies that the government as a whole would try to take down, and it's not going to resemble the first american civil war in a "cleanly geographical" way.

1