jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
37 points (91% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

progun

subscribeunsubscribe16,026 2nd Amendment Supporters readers
~41 2nd Amendment Supporters users here now

Announcement: Get Yourself Flair!

Rules:
  1. Do not create submissions that do not discuss gun politics. META posts are allowed, but should be tagged as such. Posts are not allowed for the purpose of discussing other subreddits or other redditors. Cross-posting is also allowed, but it cannot be done for the purpose of flooding another subreddit with pro-gun comments and votes.
  2. Discussion, debate, and even heated arguments are allowed and even encouraged as long as they stay on topic, remain somewhat civil and the posters avoid personal attacks.
  3. Follow all general Reddit rules (i.e. DO NOT post personal information of any user.)
Policies:
  1. The moderators will never remove a comment unless it is off-topic spam or doxxing.
See also:
created by whubbarda community for
36
37
38
submitted by Scolias
I'm a liberty minded guy. I like freedom. And obviously 2A is one of them. But I endorse the entire constitution and more emphatically.
Lately it feels like I'm alone. People support freedom, but only the ones they "like". I don't know the purpose of this post, perhaps to stir up some discussion. I do have a question for you guys though.
Why do we fight each other on liberties?
all 45 comments
[–]9mmIsBestMillimeter 32 points33 points34 points  (3 children)
Yup, I literally laughed out loud at a lot of the outrage in some of the big threads about the Apple/FBI debacle because what they were saying was identical to what we've been saying, the justifications and logic we've been using, for decades now about guns - which they've ignored - and they're saying it like it's the first time it's ever been said, as if just now the government has started to really overstep its bounds and this is the first time it's ever done something like this.
HAH.
Welcome to the party, motherfuckers.
[–]DrHappyFunTime 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
Imagine how apeshit they'd go if they could have encryption... but had to pay a $200 tax stamp, wait months for it, and were limited to iPhones in current common use. Don't get me started on background checks and prohibiting iPhones to felons and domestic abusers. Oh, and add some common sense restrictions. You don't need encryption in places like schools, the post office, or on the bus. Heck, you don't even need your phone in any of those sensitive places.
[–]SnFour 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Yup. Everyone was cheering on Congressman Ted Lieu for ripping into the FBI about how the rights of millions of Americans shouldn't be compromised because of the actions of a terrorist, and how there's plenty of legitimate reasons for law abiding citizens to use encryption.
Yet this is the same guy who introduces assault weapons bans, both while he was in the California legislature and now at the national level. And he uses the exact same "logic" that he ridiculed the FBI for using.
[–]hotairmakespopcorn 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
For most every left/right political divide in America, it's almost impossible to not quickly identify hypocrisy in the left's position. It can also be true with some items on the right, but it's nearly an universal truth on the left. Leftist politics in America is ripe with hypocrisy.
[–]StudlyMadHatter 15 points16 points17 points  (2 children)
I'm right here with you buddy. I think that both parties spew a lot a hateful things, and I think most of them are interested in taking away rights rather than expanding them. I mean all personal rights, not just 2A.
In the end, 2A rights are the ones I care about most because even if I politician won't grant me other rights, I'll be able to keep them for myself anyway.
[–]Scolias[S] 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
This just gave me an idea for a new sub.
[–]StudlyMadHatter 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Subscribed!
[–]GOA_AMD65 32 points33 points34 points  (3 children)
I just want a gay married couple to be able to defend their marijuana plants with automatic weapons. Is that too much to ask?
[–]Scolias[S] 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
Careful there, you just pissed off all the political parties in one sentence!
[–]LonelyMachines 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
Yep, and parties are the problem.
You get the Republican party if you want gun rights protected. That's part of their agenda. Problem is, waterboarding the gays and building a wall to keep single mothers under cybersurveillance is part of their platform.
If you want social liberties protected, there's the Democratic party. Kind of. They're friends of free expression, until it offends somebody's delicate sensibilities. They're good on gender equality and such, but they take a nanny-state mentality of meddling. That includes leaving my safety to the whim of a rapidly expanding, often incompetent state.
[–]OnlyStandard 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
You're right, OP. Almost no one supports liberties that go past their own nose. I find it funny that, in the so-called "Land of the Free", liberty-minded politicians like Gary Johnson and the two Pauls, Ron and Rand, are dismissed by your average citizen as crazy.
Practically everyone has a "them" that they support laws against. Be it gun owners, or car enthusiasts, or Muslims, or gays.
I support calling people out on it. If you're not for liberty, you're against it. Period.
[–]JackLawless26 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
The vast majority of human beings don't want freedom, they want a comfortable cage and masters who treat them well.
[–]Scolias[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
It's sad, but I kind of agree with you.
[–]benjalss 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
quote from sons of anarchy: "True freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable."
[–]JackLawless26 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Ayup, that's what I'd have articulated if I had a team of professional writers posting for me.
I would add something about taking true freedom into your hands removes the option of blaming others for your choices, requires you to own the responsibility for your own morality. You cannot claim to be a free man and still use "I was only following orders" or "I don't have a choice because it's my job" as a moral cop-out. No pun intended.
[–]Glblwrmingisfak 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
Lately it feels like I'm alone. People support freedom, but only the ones they "like".
I know that feeling. And when you try to illustrate the hypocrisy and inconsistency they go "but that is different! Are you really comparing guns to (insert other issue here)!?"
[–]infinate_monkey 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Answer: "yes. Yes I am."
[–]Isuspectnargles 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
People aren't usually trying to be philosophically consistent, or, even when they are trying, they're just not very good at it. When people make arguments about our liberties, these are mostly rationalizations for their beliefs, rather than the reasons for their beliefs.
[–]Sand_Trout 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
You're not wrong, and I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that only a minority actually look at individual liberty as a primary concern, left or right.
And I'll admit to not being entirely innocent in this area either, as I'm pro-life/anti-abortion. I have my justifications, but it is a case of other values overriding my value of individual liberty. (Note: not trying to start an argument about the subject of abortion, just reflecting on the fact that I hold a stance that is conflicting with individual liberty.)
[–]grahampositive 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
You could make a pro rights argument for preventing abortions though, and in fact this is where i fall on the issue. It just depends on whose rights you recognize. I subscribe (by and large) to the NAP, but i choose to recognize the fetus as a human with rights. If that is the case, the NAP would suggest that you only have a right to terminate that life if you have a reasonable belief that it poses a threat to your own life.
I've spoken with pro abortion libertarians who subscribe to the NAP and do not belive the fetus has rights. I disagree, but it's a legitimate argument that is neither hypocritical nor anti rights.
[–]babyeater_420 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I applaud your honesty
[–]schrobbie 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
You see the same thing within the gun world... Trap/skeet/duck guy doesn't give two shits about black rifles being banned, long range/precision guys don't care about highly restrictive CCW laws going into effect, and so on. You all know the types I'm referring to.
As with anything; selfish, short-sighted sheep will stand by and watch others get stripped of their rights, not realizing (until it is too late, of course) that their beloved rights and liberties are next up on the chopping block.
Anyone who claims to be all about gun rights, but doesn't care if the NSA reads his emails or taps his phone calls because he's, "got nothing to hide," is absolutely clueless.
[–]akai_ferret 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
I know some conceal carry types that are cool with people having and carrying pistols ...
"But you don't need an assault rifle."
Ughhh
[–]schrobbie 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
-_- I can't stand that.
[–]razor_beast 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Absolutely agreed. The importance of the constitution in its entirety can't be understated. If we cherry pick what parts we like and don't like or more importantly allow these politicians to cherry pick then what good is having a constitution anyways?
[–]Markuss69 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
But but but "living document"!
[–]EpicGuard 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Libertarians unite!
[–]DrHappyFunTime 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
People are stupid. Not just the bottom couple standard deviations either... the overwhelming majority. Things make much more sense if you become cynical and realize that.
[–]multi-gunner Supporter 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Here's my take on it. Personal liberty is a big thing made up of lots of other little things.
And every person has their core thing that they care about. That varies from person to person; one person's thing could be gun rights, another could value encryption, or economic policy, or physical privacy, drug policy, etc.
At the end of the day, there are too many things for any one person to care about, so everyone picks thing to rally around and tries to implement reasonable protections.
I largely don't have an issue with this. For example, I'm glad that the EFF does what it does, even if their thing isn't my thing.
However, I agree, not nearly enough people take the meta view, but rather they fall into pretty tribalism or an unwillingness to extend the courtesy of respecting the liberties of others.
[–]imjgaltstill -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
Because free shit. Feel the Bern. /s
[–]Scolias[S] -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
Lol. The sad part is, these people are so dumb that they didn't learn from the last time around. The ACA is really fucking the middle class hard.
People think just because billionaires exist, that they have it so bad because they're stuck with last year's iPhone. Where do these people think the 15 trillion extra in taxes would come from?
When are they going to figure out that the handful of people who actually do have to struggle are going to have their hands out for their "free shit" too, and the people they'll be taking it from is the middle class.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't hate the poors. I was about as poor as it gets once upon a time, including wondering when I was going to get my next meal and where I get to sleep that night.
Giving poor people "free shit" isn't going to help them. They'll become even more hopelessly dependant. Why can't they figure out that helping the poor work their way up to middle class is a far better solution.
I already know why really. It all boils down to greed. Consumerism has gotten so bad, that our average person has some fantasized Robin hood complex and their going to make billionaires pay for their existence. What they always seem to forget about Robin Hood though, is that the people were poor from being taxed to death, and Robin stole the tax money from the government and gave it back to the people.
[–]imjgaltstill 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The sad part is, these people are so dumb that they didn't learn from the last time around. The ACA is really fucking the middle class hard.
They were little children and don't forget they stay on their parents policies until 25 now.
[–]bdnicho -3 points-2 points-1 points  (12 children)
Because people disagree on what liberty should and shouldn't be. Not everyone agrees, and that's okay.
[–]ipoopbycandlelight 8 points9 points10 points  (10 children)
That's actually... not ok. People vote to take away liberties because they think it's acceptable to use government force to push their fellow citizens around. The anti-gunner movement is a perfect example. The recent rise in college students protesting to end the first amendment (irony?!) because they want 'safe spaces' is another example.
[–]bdnicho 0 points1 point2 points  (9 children)
It's okay that people disagree. It's not okay when they violate protected rights as long as those rights are protected by law. If any of those laws are ever repealed, I won't like it, and I'll disagree, but I'll accept it; that's part of the social contract we accepted. If that happens then it'll be our turn to fight for change to reestablish those rights.
And yes, it's much easier to hold on to something you have than to regain something you've lost, so it's critically important to fight to keep the rights we currently enjoy. But people who disagree that a right should even be a right and try to change it through the legal system are within their right to do so.
Thus, the battle is not to try to stop people from attempting to change law, that undermines the fundamentals of our system, but, instead, to try to convince enough people to oppose them such that those attempts are rejected by vote.
[–]OnNom 8 points9 points10 points  (4 children)
that's part of the social contract we accepted
When did I accept this social contract?
And yes, it's much easier to hold on to something you have than to regain something you lost, so it's important to fight to keep the rights we enjoy. But people who disagree that a right should be a right and try to change it through the legal system are within their right to do so.
I'm fine with people who don't think X should be a right. However, they should advocate for the right to no longer be protected (constitutional amendment in the US) rather than advocate for the government to simply ignore the right. If the government can ignore one right, while can't they ignore them all?
[–]bdnicho -4 points-3 points-2 points  (3 children)
When did I accept this social contract?
When you agreed to continue living here and abiding by our laws and system of governance. Few of us have an explicit moment where we made that choice, since most of us were just born here, but it's a choice nonetheless.
I'm fine with people who don't think X should be a right. However, they should advocate for the right to no longer be protected (constitutional amendment in the US) rather than advocate for the government to simply ignore the right. If the government can ignore one right, while can't they ignore them all?
That's precisely my point. It's okay if people disagree and attempt to repeal amendments. It's not okay to implement policies in conflict with the Constitution or its amendments while they still stand.
[–]9mmIsBestMillimeter 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
When you agreed to continue living here and abiding by our laws and system of governance.
Nooope. This is such bullshit. I hate that whole "social contract", "no man is an island", crap. It all just means "you have to play along with us whether you like it or not".
No I fucking don't. I'll piss on your parade and throw a wrench in your works if I want to, don't like it too bad. No, I don't have to cooperate.
but it's a choice nonetheless.
No it isn't. It's a choice for very, very few people - typically those who are very wealthy or who had the rare good fortune to have dual citizenship (or at least the ability to easily get it) via their parents in a desirable country plus a skill/degree that's currently in high demand in that same country.
Nobody else genuinely has the choice, realistically, to leave this country if they want to.
[–]bdnicho 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Moving away isn't the only option, there is also disobedience if you feel strongly enough about an issue. But it's still a choice. The consequences are nowhere near equivalent, but it's still a choice.
In any case, if you accept the Constitution is the law of the land and provides a process to change it through the addition or removal of amendments then you've accepted the contract I'm talking about.
Thus, if there is Constitutional change to remove protections, that's part of that contract. If there are new restrictions afterward, that's part of that contract. In those cases we'll all have to decide if we still accept that contract or not. But, until then, any restrictions which violate those protections are a breach of contract and unacceptable.
[–]Scolias[S] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
social contract
This is how you say "mah feelings" + "guilt trip" + "steaming pile of shit lie" in political terms when you have nothing to back up your claims with.
[–]Vayate 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
I won't like it, and I'll disagree, but I'll accept it; that's part of the social contract we accepted.
The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not granted by government; they are not privileges of the state. They're human rights to which people are entitled because they're human beings. Even if you wanted to, you could never sign them away. Changing the law is not a matter of revoking rights, but of imposing the violation of human rights on others through government. We fought a revolution to stop that, and we shouldn't start accepting it now.
[–]bdnicho -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
I agree, our rights are inherent. The protections in the Constitution are part of our contract with the government. In exchange for us allowing it certain powers, it agrees to not violate our rights as described by those protections.
If the people no longer need or want those protections, it is within their power to remove them from the contract via amendment. That's the part I would accept.
I would not accept leaving it that way. Depending on how the government reacts and what happens afterward, it would either be time to try to reestablish those protections peacefully, reestablish them violently, or separate.
[–]kwanijml 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
You seem like a genuine person and are making calm and understandable arguments. In one way, I wish you weren't being downvoted. On the other hand the seemingly benign perspective which you hold has proven historically to be catastrophically dangerous to peaceful, prosperous society.
The science and philosophy of political economy and legitimacy of authority really has moved way past the Hobbesian/Rawlsian social contract theory, and certainly way past what's reflected in the way our modern forms of government are organized.
I sincerely hope you'll give this very easily digestible paper a read, to understand better where rights theory is now.
I don't advocate for respecting gun rights (or any other negative rights) in accordance with constitutional law, as many here cling to...but rather based on a consequentialist approach and observed principles of commitment strategy and how property norms are formed...but in any case, the ensconcing of these fundamental rights in state law was certainly a giant leap forward in human political progress, whereas nearly everything that has happened to the body of law and amended in the constitution since then has been a gradual regression. So I at least respect that people here tend to cling to the most progressive parts of an otherwise primitive and highly monopolized legal system.
[–]bdnicho 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Thanks for the recommendation, I've added it to my bookmarks for another time.
As for the rest, I've probably already wandered off into the weeds too much in this thread to add anything else meaningful at this point, but if you have any specific questions for me fire away.
[–]frogstomp427 Supporter 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I want to agree, but it's not okay. We are in a fight for our civil rights because people don't see the right to bear arms as legitimate.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 19078 on app-238 at 2016-03-07 15:58:19.851759+00:00 running 7f7e76f country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%