Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
652 Replies
It isn't meaningless to you because it is basically a catch all for people who have political beliefs and behaviors that you despise.
But that isn't a very useful definition for the rest of the world.
Well, he has a gun.
I doubt those same people share your view that all political violence is Marxism.
The term cultural Marxism (which, as an aside, has a strong whiff of antisemitism in its origins) was a label that certain right wing people in the United States began attaching to various social views a few decades ago.
As best I can tell, their logic was:
--We don't like Marxism.
--We don't like these social views.
--Hey, let's refer to these social views as "cultural Marxism." The reasoning doesn't matter much. Marxism has generally negative connotations in the United States. Maybe it will resonate and stick.
In other words, their logic was much the same as your logic.
It worked out just fine in Tombstone, and in a number of other movies in the 70s and 80s.
*all political violence against democracies with decent constitutions but sure let's remove that part and claim Luciom considers you marxist if you fight for freedom while under a regime because we want to troll
Much like you, my omission was in the interests of brevity. The additional qualifier doesn't make your definition less ridiculous.
You used the example of chinese repression of democratic movements claiming i would lead the repression if i could
That was in response to your post about using rubber bullets for crowd control, not about Marxism, the implication of course being that you would use overwhelming lethal force if you could.
So the Chinese government uses lethal force against peaceful protestors to keep the regime in place and this in some way makes it improper to use lethal force against violent criminals setting a neighborhood on fire at night in a western democracy I get it
Should the capitol police have opened fire on the jan. 6 folks? (yes, I realize one did, talking about all of the other ones present).
Question for you Luciom: if the Marxists manage to get into power, as they did in the Soviet Union and China last century, presumably they don't just stop being Marxist. And by your definition anyone engaging in protests against them with any degree of violence are also Marxists, correct? So we appear to have a Marxist on Marxist situation in this scenario, have I understood this correctly? The Marxists are both driving the tank and standing in front of it.
I call.
So individuals can partake in their Marxist ideals of violent demonstration?
No if the state becomes undemocratic, if the constitution becomes toilet paper and so on, violent political action isn't Marxist as I wrote repeatedly and you seemed to acknowledge.
You can have Marxist v Marxist confrontations but that would require other elements to call the group Marxist.
For ex china and Vietnam had a war in 1979
Plenty people regardless of their social class are anti immigration. An anti immigration stance is essentially based on ethno tribalism, again at its core.
Right. Anyone or group regardless of their ideology are marxist as soon as they resort to or advocate violence, due to Marxism also advocating violence. Which means all violent riots/groups/people are marxists. Not that Marxism isn't the only ideology that advocates violence, it's that all groups are Marxist instead...
Or maybe (and just run with me on this one for a minute), Marxism isn't the only ideology that thinks violence is justified.
Right. There is also Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism.
It is not moral because you may have enticed a drunk and/or desperate, usually law abiding, citizen to do something bad in a moment of weakness on a late Saturday night.
But what if you lived in a town that has recently been terrorized by a band of home invaders that sometimes killed their victims? Is planning a similar sting with some buddies immoral if we assume that your money flashing in a public place will entice those pros only to enter your house with guns, and if you don't flesh them out and eliminate them, they will continue their crimes? (I realize that the police themselves would probably set something like this up. I just want to make sure that you agree that if they refused to, your life saving action would not be immoral).
(
Good boy, you are getting it
In vino veritas David, you don't become a robber while drunk if you aren't one inside. I have been drunk many times and I guess many people on this forum did as well and I don't think we ever robbed anyone in that state
do you think the government can set people up and entice them to lie under questioning?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia...
Australia is going to need to ban knives next.