True, but then they’re generally seen as a tool of self defence/hunting rather than an extension of your personality you use to oppress others, so not an alternative to what most of them are really protective of guns for.
no guns for reactionaries tho.
Also I think a gun distribution system similar to the yugoslav should be the goal: Everyone gets basic defence education in the scope of PE at school (gun, close combat and a bit of asymmetrical + urbal/rural guerilla training).
But no individual gun ownership outside of sports, with each community having an armoury under the control of the local elected executive council. They can decide to destribute arms among their community if a grave situation warrants it.
For example: in the case of an invasion/occupation to which the central goverments hasn’t had time to react yet or if a coup, powerstruggle or change of government by other means massively corrupts the central revolutionary government or even deposes it (like in the case of Deng Xiaoping taking power or in the cases of Grenada, Burkina Faso, Guatemala, Chile etc. etc.)
Rights are right, period. If you’re denying a right to people that you disagree with politically, then it’s not a right.
Sure, train everyone. But the right to keep and bear arms is, and should be, an individual right, not one that can only be exercised if the gov’t decides that you should be permitted to do so. That’s authoritarian bullshit.
I suggest you look up the tolerance paradox. If you are tolerant of the intolerant, they will eventually win.
When someone is part of a know fascist organization for example, they should not get a license to bear arms or pass the background check or whatever. Common sense for every revolutionary (government) imo
I’m fully aware of the tolerance paradox. And it doesn’t apply here. Or to the exercise of any rights. The tolerance paradox applies to social pressure, not legal and gov’t pressure. The problem you run smack into is that the less intolerance you allow from a legal perspective, the closer to approach fascism, until the two are indistinguishable.
They didn’t believe me when i said if you go far enough left you get your guns back
True, but then they’re generally seen as a tool of self defence/hunting rather than an extension of your personality you use to oppress others, so not an alternative to what most of them are really protective of guns for.
no guns for reactionaries tho. Also I think a gun distribution system similar to the yugoslav should be the goal: Everyone gets basic defence education in the scope of PE at school (gun, close combat and a bit of asymmetrical + urbal/rural guerilla training). But no individual gun ownership outside of sports, with each community having an armoury under the control of the local elected executive council. They can decide to destribute arms among their community if a grave situation warrants it.
For example: in the case of an invasion/occupation to which the central goverments hasn’t had time to react yet or if a coup, powerstruggle or change of government by other means massively corrupts the central revolutionary government or even deposes it (like in the case of Deng Xiaoping taking power or in the cases of Grenada, Burkina Faso, Guatemala, Chile etc. etc.)
Oh, fuck off with that.
Rights are right, period. If you’re denying a right to people that you disagree with politically, then it’s not a right.
Sure, train everyone. But the right to keep and bear arms is, and should be, an individual right, not one that can only be exercised if the gov’t decides that you should be permitted to do so. That’s authoritarian bullshit.
I suggest you look up the tolerance paradox. If you are tolerant of the intolerant, they will eventually win.
When someone is part of a know fascist organization for example, they should not get a license to bear arms or pass the background check or whatever. Common sense for every revolutionary (government) imo
I’m fully aware of the tolerance paradox. And it doesn’t apply here. Or to the exercise of any rights. The tolerance paradox applies to social pressure, not legal and gov’t pressure. The problem you run smack into is that the less intolerance you allow from a legal perspective, the closer to approach fascism, until the two are indistinguishable.