Why when there are some leftists appearing with guns, Jow Forums and types insist that those aren't real...

Everyone should have guns.

No such thing. Hernie was championed as a pro gun hippy and look at how it turned out.
You do realize Hitler massively loosened gun laws for the vast majority of Germans? Meanwhile the USSR imposed draconian restrictions.

Oh boy.
>"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising."

The issue is that Marx was stating this in the communist manifesto which is explictly calling for an armed revolution. He was not talking about private gun ownership, nor was he even talking about a right to bear arms. He says nothing about what would happen to the guns owned by the workers after the revolution.

Lenin said the same exact thing and calling for workers to be armed: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/20b.htm

So what did Lenin do after the revolution? He confiscated all the arms owned by peasants and imposed draconian gun laws.

>The December decree of the CPC of 1918, "On the surrender of weapons", ordered people to surrender any firearms, swords, bayonets and bombs, regardless of the degree of serviceability. The penalty for not doing so was ten years' imprisonment.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union

EVERY Marxist regime has had extremely strict gun laws.

Attached: 4326325.png (486x322, 302K)

Attached: isis.png (1080x1727, 810K)

Bernout is an old school authoritarian red larping as a demsoc hippy to make playing politics easier. Dont let him decieve you.

>"n-no true socialist!"

that amd is probably real

You didn't even read my post, you mouthbreathing mutt.

its pretty easy to identify airshit
the ones in that pic look real though

>Pro gun rights is a libertarian position.
UNDER
NO
PRETEXT

Marx was not pro-gun as commonly understood. He saw guns as a means to end. He says NOTHING about private gun ownership or an individual right to bear arms.
Do you think you can abolish private property and seize the wealth from kulaks without a monopoly on force?

Nigger thats not what i was saying. He is leftist scum either way. My point was that you shouldnt conflate him with naive demsoc retards, he knows exactly what his policies lead to.
>bread lines are good

See Fuck off leftypol.

>Do you think you can abolish private property and seize the wealth from kulaks without a monopoly on force?
Does a revolution have a monopoly on force?

>thousands of gun models available from potentially nothing to $500
>including bargain bin ARs, hi-points, trade-in/pawn anything, poly pistols, Century Old Parts Arms
>even NEET borderline homeless fags here own several firearms
>"lol leftists can't get guns"
Just learn to shoot better than them in the RAHOWA, Jow Forums.

Attached: 1546637802474.jpg (521x652, 44K)

Not necessarily, but after the revolution? Yes for an ideology that seeks to abolish private property and seize the wealth. You will have people like kulaks who do not want to give up their grain and starve, and it's much harder when they are armed. In all Marxist regimes the same thing happens: the peasants are disarmed except the vanguard party, those peasants cannot fight back, and you know the rest.

Why did Hitler massively loosen gun laws for private acquistion (you didn't even need to be a nsdap member) that was completely unconnected with serving in the SS or Wehrmacht?

The problem is that most of the SJW-type leftist (majority of American leftists) tend to not be pro-gun. The tankies who are preparing for an armed revolution are not going to be partaking in a Soros-funded protest.

Even Bolsanaro who is evem more nationalist and right wing than Trump loosened gun laws in Brazil. Or how about Chavez banning guns? I can go on endlessly.

Congratulations dumbass, you forgot half of the text that literally talks talks about the subject. Read the shit in-full before talking about it.

>2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose BETRAYAL OF THE WORKERS WILL BEGIN WITH THE VERY FIRST HOUR OF VICTORY, the workers must be armed and organized.
>The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed.
>Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves INDEPENDENTLY AS A PROLETARIAN GUARD, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves NOT UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE STATE AUTHORITY BUT OF THE REVOLUTIONARY LOCAL COUNCILS set up by the workers.
>Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
>The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during AND AFTER the approaching uprising.

Attached: orson.jpg (200x267, 9K)

>Cant afford one
>Don't want to "waste" money on a gun
and give more money to the NRA
>Afraid if they brought a real gun and something happened theyd cause real trouble.
Theyre just inching towards outright aggression. Which is so stupid no matter what political doctrine you support.
If you're going to head towards armed aggression I believe it's best to adopt the philosophy of one of Germany's ww1 gernerals: his idea was if you do decide to do it, do it as violent, vicious, and horrible as you need to get it done quickly.
Gradual escalation leads to stalemate and more chaos and death over longer time, maybe even a begrudging cease fire, and then the war returns.
Personally: I dont provoke, I don't discuss,
and I don't advocate violence towards anybody unless the time is nigh

>Very few first worlders who call themselves communist know what communism is like
ftfy

>In all Marxist regimes the same thing happens: the peasants are disarmed except the vanguard party, those peasants cannot fight back, and you know the rest.
Because the reality of the regimes has never followed the utopistic Marxist pipedream. It's the whole "not real x" meme you'll hear people spout, because they're convinced they're the special people who can make this dysfunctional dream work.
>Why did Hitler massively loosen gun laws for private acquistion (you didn't even need to be a nsdap member) that was completely unconnected with serving in the SS or Wehrmacht?
I don't understand why you're bringing this up. I'm not even a leftist.

And did you read the link I posted where Lenin said the same EXACT shit? Moronic fuck. You can fool boomers, leftypol.
You NEED a monopoly on force to abolish private property and abolish private business. Otherwise you will always have people who start a business seeking to improve their material conditions, or someone claiming a piece of land to gain the resources from it and it's much harder to seize and shut that down when they are armed.

>revolution, revolution, revolution
Marx was talking about guns in the context of a revolution dumbfuck. Not indepedent gun ownership that has nothing to do with a Marxist revolution.

>people who have differing opinions from my own do not know anything about the subject of their opinions
>everyone in the world should agree with me, everything else is stupid
Not even a commie, but fucking hell. Pull yourself together.

Attached: pm30z3.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

And for the last time. Do you realize that Marx was talking about gun ownership in the context of a revolution to overthrow capitalism? He was NOT talking about a private right to gun ownership independent of revolutionary activities.

They are real guns. They even used them to shoot pictures of Pepe.
The real question is, why are the mentally ill allowed to have guns?

youtube.com/watch?v=CywFbSdMVx0

Going by that sign, they only reason they're carrying firearms is to make people afraid. Is there no local law on the statute books that can be implemented to drag those cunts to the cells?

>And did you read the link I posted where Lenin said the same EXACT shit? Moronic fuck. You can fool boomers, leftypol.

did you learn to read in a walmart? that's exactly what he's fucking talking about
>Because Marxist ideas do not stand up to reality and get subverted by power-hungry cunts

Fucks sake I already addressed that. The Marxist idea (as what Marx said) was guns as a means to an end. He talks about gun ownership amongst the workers as a means to overthrow capitalism via a revolution. He says nothing about a private right to gun ownership indepedent of a revolution or what happens to guns AFTER the revolution succeeds.

This is not even remotely comparable to an invidual right to gun ownership espoused by the right.

Do you actually think that most dumb socialist and commie millennials and gen z actually understand communism and socialism? Not even their deity, Bernie, will actually define and layout just exactly what their end goal is and what democratic socialism actually means. If their own party won't commit to a definition and wants to beat around the bush and give it any meaning that is politically expedient, do you think their brainless, emotion-driven followers know what it is that they're supporting?

Jow Forums always shrieks that either the armed commies have airshit or that the guns are borrowed from Soros or whoever because they apparently can't afford even $300 PSA ARs despite simultaneously arguing that those same leftists are all rich trustafarian college kids. They see no contradictions there. I think this is because Jow Forums is majority noguns NEETs projecting their lifestyle, which they're deeply ashamed of, onto their perceived ideological opposites. Another MAJOR factor is the idea that only the right wing owns guns and thus their fantasy of a "Day of the Rope" will be a walk in the park wherein the neckbearded fatbodies FINALLY get to take revenge over weak, effeminate liberals, rather than the absolute bloodbath based on regional powers and ethnic and religious divides that a second American civil war would ACTUALLY be.

Attached: projecting.png (697x191, 14K)

>He was NOT talking about a private right to gun ownership independent of revolutionary activities.
So you claim he espoused the disarmament of the people after?
What do you base this on? Corrupt despots like Stalin doing so to secure power?

>This is not even remotely comparable to an invidual right to gun ownership espoused by the right.
"The right" is not a monolithic system, user. There's pro- and anti-gun people on both the right and left. The entire two-sided dichotomy is bullshit.

It'd be funny to talk to these guys unarmed.
>"What grain ammo are you using?"
>"Are you using steel case?"
>"That rifle has a 1:12 twist ratio. You should only be using 55gr."
>"Do you know which level 3 body armor will stop that?"
>"Did you leave the factory zero or did you re-zero it yourself?"
>"Did you bother to check the zero?"
>"What does that push button do behind the ejection port?"

>“Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy,” Sanders said.
Because that is explicitly clear and intellectually honest, isn't it?

left to right
> i sure wish i was cool enough to buy a gun (actually just suffers from learned helplessness)

> if i hide behind sign, i don't need to feel ugly
> still feels guilty for parents divorce

> didn't really plan on being here
> scared as balls
> slung borrowed weapon on back because it scares him
> anxious as all hell

> neck sore from tipping head back so bandana don't fall off
> lmao a single point sling -- have fun getting bean-shotted
> unironically wearing safety-goggles
> stupid gloves
> pigeon toed

> bought a vz when they were only 400
> hasn't touched it since
> literally too weak to support his skeloton arms so he rests them on gun

> can't see through eyeholes
> too weak to hold weapon
> feels cool for improvising hoody/sling debacle
> won't be able to use it in a timely manner if called upon
> almost drops the water anyway

you sound an unlikable nerd

>it's ANOTHER "Jow Forums ignores all the based libertarian socialists experiments, both historical and contemporary, for whom a universally-armed populace is a foundational characteristic of their society in order to strawman all leftist strains of thought as Stalinist bugmen"
Fuck liberals, fuck Stalinists.

Attached: C3-_6Y4WQAAF7E3.jpg (640x960, 107K)

>>even NEET borderline homeless fags here own several firearms
When I was homeless, I still had several guns. Why it's best to assume every one has a gun.

Good. That's literally what I want.

The fact that he only talks about guns as a means to end for the sole purpose of a revolution retard? This is not the same as the right to gun ownership espoused by the right at all. Fucks sake.

>"The right" is not a monolithic system, user. There's pro- and anti-gun people on both the right and left. The entire two-sided dichotomy is bullshit.

Are you a Yuropoor? Do you know that recent EU firearms directive that bans a shitload of magazines? Virtually all the opposition to that came from right wing nationalist parties, conservatives and actual neonazi parties in the EU parliament. While communist parties, democratic socialist and socdem parties voted yes on it.

One side is far more of a gun grabber than the other. If you want to bring up Trump, he was a democrat for most of his life.

>Hitler massively loosened gun laws
he also got six million germans killed. not talking about jews, i'm talking about kraut soldiers who should have been raising decent families but got conned into a war that was used to justify the creation of isreal

pretty sure hitler was actually playing for the other team, lad

Please name a single Marxist/Bolshevik/remotely Communist state where the individual right to own firearms was even remotely as open as it is in the United States today.

He's a faggot. I like you.

No, the argument is that many of them are such bourgeois faggots they either can't comprehend the use for firearms, don't have the agency to acquire them, or are felons from throwing bike locks at people and can't own them.

Which had nothing to do with what I said? Expelling the kikes and the left from Europe is a noble goal. Israel was already taking shape before ww2 and the UK had its biggest hand in its creation by actively funding and training the zionists. Hitler allied with the grand mufti in Palestine to help expel the jews from there too.

I can guarantee he's holding it this way because he saw it in Modern Warfare 2.

t. did the same with with my airshit when I was 12

Attached: antifa.png (177x557, 211K)

>ignores all the based libertarian socialist experiments
You mean Catalonia which lasted for 3 years the entirety in a civil war? Obviously people were armed there, because they were fighting a war. It's not like they had a right to individual gun ownership or that they passed pro-gun policies during peacetime.

>liberals

Stop. Modern day "liberals" have nothing in common with classical liberals who are for a free market and negative liberties such as the right to bear arms. The democrat party is socially left wing, economically I would say center. They are essentially the socdems of europe.

Leftists are stereotypically completely unfamiliar with, or even outright afraid of guns. Since they generally want to ban guns, them bearing them in public is suspicious.

>Please name a single Marxist/Bolshevik/remotely Communist state where the individual right to own firearms was even remotely as open as it is in the United States today.
>Marxist/Bolshevik
Oh so you completely missed the point of the discussion distinction I was making, then.
>Remotely Communist
>Russia post-revolution until Lenin dissolved the Soviets to consolidate Bolshevik power
>Revolutionary Ukraine
>Catalonia
>Chiapas
>Rojava
>The Paris Commune
>Yugoslavia

There are more. You know how libertarians and NatSocs don't agree on everything, or even most things? Stalinists and LibSocs are the same way, and there's a LOT of blood shed over the disagreements.

I'd argue that pro-gun is a generally non-aligned thing, and it's (mostly) lefties who have worms in their brains about it.

>t. SEETHING suicidal discord tranny

You're cool too. That guy got a chuckle out of me. There's a few types of people i know who would make that conclusion based on what I said and the pretension is so thick and exaggerated it's actually funny.

t. trump voter unprepared to face combat
> not understanding that any old douchebag with a knife, gun or broken bottle is dangerous
> not overstating their capacity when preparing for cibil war for motivation to hit the range, track and gym

>That's Not Real Communism (TM)

>secret club for right wingers
imagine typing this out, pressing "Post", waiting for it to say 100%, and then sitting back and thinking you actually made a point

see arming yourself to fight a war =/= an individual right to bear arms. that's like saying vietnam or china was pro gun because they armed the peasants to fight a civil war.
>yugoslavia
You needed a license to own guns which was strict. Nice example.

Which is just wrong because an invidual right to bear arms almost always comes from right wing parties. Including Europe.

I'm actually not pro-Trump.

>> not understanding that any old douchebag with a knife, gun or broken bottle is dangerous
I'm confident I can draw, fire, and holster, before these numale goons can figure out their safety (or realize their chambers are empty), as for the others, that's what the 21ft rule is for.

> not overstating their capacity when preparing for cibil war for motivation to hit the range, track and gym
Why would I try to convince myself to be afraid of something I'm not?

Im trying to make sense of your second point

That's funny, because I don't hear a fucking thing about that from right wing parties around here.

>based libertarian socialists experiments
"Experiments" that exist briefly in the vacuum of a conflict are not things you should strive to be.

>in order to strawman all leftist strains of thought as Stalinist bugmen
When the majority of leftists in the U.S. are decadent students or complete failures who who can't get their shit together, let alone organize an effective network of revolutionaries, they do it to themselves. I have met several of these types in New York, Atlanta, and Seattle. They are so isolated from reality it isn't even funny. Pic related.

Attached: infoshop-calendar-2014-feb.jpg (1089x842, 456K)

>economically center
>bernie
>aoc
>insert dem here with le ebin "tax da rich" plan
The first two are strawmen, yes, but consider the fact that a massive part of the dem base unironically wants redistribution of wealth

1. assume they're competent (i know, i know)
2. prepare to fight competent enemies
3. have easy victories
4....?
5. profit

Which country? In Switzerland and the Czech Republic the right wing is actively campaigning for a right to bear arms. The referendum in Switzerland was started by the SVP, the right wing nationalist party. The lawsuit against the eu filed in the czech republic again was by a right wing party.
AfD is pro-gun rights. UKIP wants to unban handguns and semi autos in the UK, etc.

>Chiapas
Notice you ignored that one :^)
Also, the parameter was
>Even remotely as open as it is in the United States today
And Yugoslavia's gun laws were more permissive than those of many US states, and again, they had a national doctrine of having an armed, trained populace (coincidentally to repel a Soviet invasion).

I'm not saying any of those societies were perfect, I'm saying that the idea that the left as a spectrum of beliefs is universally for draconian gun control is provably untrue.

Also loving your argument based on nothing that anarchist societies would have confiscated weapons because the Bolsheviks and Maoists did doesn't hold water, considering many of the places we're discussing literally went to war with the Bolsheviks and Maoists over it.

I get strongly pro-gun views from Republican Party voters, empty platitudes from the Republican Party, vaguely pro-gun views from """Libertarian""" Party voters, the same token empty promises from their party, and strongly pro-gun views from actual Libertarians and Ancaps, maybe sometimes from centrists, then very seldom from Democrat Party voters (with the occasional "Trust me guys, I'm Pro2A!" as they vote on some AWB or Red Flag shit), and finally, I hear them sometimes from communists, probably with some heavily ulterior motives.

Ah I understand the concept now. It didn't seem like that from the original post.
I don't know why it *isn't* standard to assume that leftists would be a competent force and fight against them like they're worth their salt. It'd be a rude wake-up at least, assuming they're better than expected.

Well, I guess it's because I'm in Scandinavia and I'm fucked. The place is swarming with socialists who hate whites, and corporatists or rightwing statists pretending they're my friend.

>chiapas
They need arms to fight against the Mexican government. Yes, people are armed for this purpose. It has nothing to do with a right to bear arms. Do you think Mexicans can just go to Chiapas and purchase a gun from the revolutionaires for individual purposes that has nothing to do with their armed conflict? Shit, FARC is pro gun too I guess.
>yugoslavia had laxer gun laws than most states
False. You needed a license to own guns. Link an actual source or gtfo.

I think mostly the other democrats just throws out "TAX DA RICH" to get votes, Bernie seems like he'd almost go through with it, hence why he's getting his cock slobbered by the leftists so much.

Libertarianism is right-wing, retard. Right wing mean less government whereas left wing means more government.

>Right wing mean less government
Right wing libertarian would be. A society could be right wing and actually be heavily authoritarian.

GOP states are passing constituional carry laws. SD and Oklahoma for example. The only expansion of gun rights comes from GOP states. The counties that passed sanctuary laws for gun owners in Washington? All Republican.
Trump is not pro-gun but you need to consider the fact that he was a democrat for most of his life. The GOP has a lot of neocons too who were literally democrat politicians that joined the GOP because of their foreign policies that they opposed the Democrats on.

Are you me, i dont remember posting this.

A government being big and powerful is what makes it left-wing. A government being small and limited is what makes it right-wing. A government cannot be authoritarian without being big and powerful. The notion of "right-wing authoritarianism" is therefore self-contradictory.

please don't use yugoslavia as an example for your shitty ideological dogma.
Before our country dissolved consider this shit:
>owning guns was never about having people be able to keep the government in check.
>the idea of "expressing your rights" via carrying weaponry was never on the table
>gun ownership was encouraged because youth were forced to take mandatory national homeland defense courses, and marksmenship was tested for all able bodied men and women (at least in Serbia and Bosnia according to my parents and grandparents)

Yes, did the government permit us to have guns? Yes, but only insofar as it was a tool of national defense, not a personal liberty.
This kind of nuance is something that is lacking from your lazy talking point of a """list"""".
Ultimately, that regime and similar ones like it never once cared about personal freedom, so you cannot include it in a list where "individual rights to own firearms were even remotely as open as it is in the US today."

Attached: cica_sa_oruzije.jpg (553x800, 89K)

>I don't know why it *isn't* standard to assume that leftists would be a competent force and fight against them like they're worth their salt.

Because they’re not. They’d get shit on in a fight just like they get shit on everyday when I demand more chicken in my bowl at Chipotle.

>Autistic who's never carried a rifle for any amount of time.
Ive never played modern warfare, nor did i airsoft as a wee lad. Its just a comfy way to sling a gun when you dont want it on your back.

for thousands of years, the most frightening thing on earth was a group of men with spears.
we killed every animal on earth - horses, deer, elephants and bear with a sharp stick and teamwork.
Whales can swim miles deep and eat boats whole, but we still killed them

Now, men use magic spears that can stab through walls and kill at hundreds of yards
It sounds like thunder and the wound, though smaller than what we used to make, is still likely to pass through both sides of the body

but the entire thread is full of people saying,
> these people could never hurt me
> Although i don't take care of my body
> or develop my skills as a warrior,
> these guys with weapons do not present any credible threat

it's a fallacy built on peace and soft living

Attached: what we have here.jpg (640x427, 15K)

Everybody in the shop is now looking at me because i just laughed like a retard. Thanks

Whether they say it as a meme for votes doesn't change the fact that their base wants it, and votes for it in droves. How else would they get universal basic income, free college and free healthcare that mainstream democrats are yearning for?

>couldnt be anymore wrong.
But go ahead and try to top yourself fucktard.

Several states require a license to own guns, retard. And the restrictions on those guns once you have a permit are unironically more strict than the ones governing gun ownership in Yugoslavia were.

It was unironically easier to get a gun in Yugoslavia than it was in California

>Too young to remember but acts like he'd a primary source
>Doesn't understand that the Second Amendment is about arming the militia to defend the US, not "keeping the government in check," AKA the exact same rationale behind Yugoslav citizens being able to own guns.

>several leftist states have stricter gun laws than this leftist country
>see we are pro gun!
Fuck off.
No it doesn't. It's about an individual right to bear arms. Hence the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. Courts have already ruled on this.

Then why not shit on them so badly that they feel forever outmatched through raw tactical skill and destroy their morale rather than being complacent and fighting them casually.
That's what I've come to believe.
While there's definitely a concern to be had with bubba and his .300 win mag in his tree stand, that's not going to be a primary factor in any conflict. It's going to be riflemen ambushing each other using technicals and improvised weapons with loose military strategy. You need to be fit and proficient, just keeping your BMI below obese seems to be enough for most people and it's kind of worrying.

>GOP states are passing constituional carry laws
That's true, and that's very good, but there's enough of them who don't care, or outright look at signing anti-gun bills, that it's a problem.

>Trump
He's kind of a wildcard, if anything. I saw he wanted to legalize industrial hemp, which would be really cool, given the material uses and potential jobs, but I'm still very salty he banned bumpstocks.

I mean the resting his arms on it part. When I have my AK on a sling I let it hang between my right arm and torso.

Attached: Goalpost.gif (568x320, 2.66M)