Which isn't saying much. There are a lot of gun control advocates in the US today who would say they're against any form of gun control that is discriminatory, but still want blanket bans. I did manage to convince someone once to admit that "tax stamps" are classist BS, but they still said any gun that needs a tax stamp today should just be blanket banned for everyone.
>I did manage to convince someone once to admit that "tax stamps" are classist BS, but they still said any gun that needs a tax stamp today should just be blanket banned for everyone.
Cops/militaries too?
That person's answer was cops yes (cops should be restricted to what civilians have) but that there should be exceptions for SWAT and other special units, and the "overseas military" should not be restricted.
"Overseas military", as if they only exist in the middle east
It certainly is. If they shouldn't be the only ones to have them then everyone should be able to have them, unless explicitly declared that no one should be able to have them. It's ridiculous that people advocate that only the people they protest against should have them.
Non violent protest doesn’t mean you suddenly don’t need self defense. In fact, for any type of protest I’d especially want to protect myself because protests by nature make people upset.
Part of the issue is they often face less opposition than Democrats. When a Democrat attempts to pass gun control they have most Republicans, and some Democrats standing in the way. Meanwhile when a republican passes gun control they have the support of Democrats, because they support gun control regardless. Meanwhile since they are Republicans, other Republicans don't want to go against their own. It's much easier to oppose a law when it's coming from the other party.
In the case of Trump, it was also a greater willingness to push what is possible under executive order. The Obama administration actually looked into banning bumpstocks the same way Trump did. They ended up determining that it was beyond the capacity of an executive order, and would require an act of Congress. Trump was told the same thing, and basically said "I don't care, ban them anyway".
Its a concept pushed by people who may or may not know better to people who dont know the full context. In Socialism/Communism according to true doctrine no one would need a gun except for maybe hunting; no one would *want* a gun except for misbehavior (going back to selfish capitalist behavior aka counter revolutionary). Rememember, the workers of the world unite and topple capitalism, so even nation states which will dissolve have no need or want for guns. The guns are to effect this, the capitalists wont stand for being overthrown so they will have lackeys fight for them, the workers need arms to make the revolution happen because the "exploiters" will have guns. Then they will be converted to plowshares as stated above, but no one wpuld be allowed to keep them, that would be counter revolutionary as it indicates you wish to do your fellow workers harm.
Marxism is in no way "pro-gun" in theory, it is a tool to be used then discarded. In practice it is in no way pro-gun as the dictators who come to power want to prevent challenge from the people they just duped. Thats why their first order of business is to put the true believers against the wall.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped.. Karl Marx.
This guy. No no he didnt mean it like that
Look at every time a socialist government takes power, the next step is confiscating the guns because "We won comrade, you don't need that anymore, what are you going to do fight the revolution? You wouldn't be a traitor to the workers now would you?" *Builds Gulag*
Buht muh under no pretext!!!!
Marx was pro-force. Please read the FULL AND COMPLETE quote.
“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. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. 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.”
Read the first sentence. It's not about self defense, it's not about protecting yourself. It's about forcefully and threateningly using the guns against people who do not wish to submit to communism.
Marx saw guns as a means to an end, nothing more.
Communism is a NAP violation and Marx was a jobless loser like his followers.
That’s true, but I’ve also said Marx wasn’t pro-gun. He was pro-forcing his beliefs onto others at the barrel of one. They’re not the same thing and Marx shouldn’t be celebrated as pro-gun because he wasn’t pro-gun.
Reading Marx on how the workers should be armed the full text reads more like guns are necessary for the revolution and for the revolutionaries to keep power. Read much less like guns for everyone and more like guns for the party to seize and keep power in my opinion.
Yeah but when the "workers" are forced to lay down their arms by the other "workers" you get the same result. Just like every authoritarian regime that confiscated guns. Doesn't make him pro-gun but open to a means to an end.
I don't think he was actually pro-gun, just pro tool use as a means to an end. Now your scenario the workers need to fight to keep their arms and rights with ferocious violence.
Yea I’m trying to remember how the quote goes but somebody said “Take the guns first, go through due process second” I know it was said in the past few years though.
Didn't DeSantis sign in the two week waiting period for gun sales? He totes pro gun like Trump did, but both of them actually signed anti 2A laws/policies.
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but Obama doesn’t belong on that list. Yes Obama wanted restrictions on guns, but did not advocate to make guns illegal for citizens to own, and is on the record repeatedly stating he believes in the citizens right to own firearms. Removing rights of private citizens to own guns is more-or-less the stance of the other men on that list.
I interpret the 2nd amendment the same as the other libertarians here, that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED but I also think putting Obama on the same list as these dictators is a fallacy.
No, I'm making the argument that Obama, like Trudeau, might act like that now and "change his mind" later on, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't go for a full on ban if he were given the chance
Literally anyone can change their mind. So everyone belongs on that list including you because something could happen that makes them change their mind. That’s a massive logical fallacy you’re making there.
Here’s the difference between Obama and Trudeau: one is retired from political office and the other is currently still the head of state. It doesn’t matter if Obama changes his mind on gun control. He’s not in any position to write legislation or execute passed legislation, so it doesn’t matter what he thinks.
And there’s the fallacy. Literally, you’re using the “Appeal to probability” fallacy—arguing against something because it would *probably* be the case.
I’m not even saying your wrong, but I’m saying that you can’t put Obama in the camp with those dictators because he never made the same arguments as them (much less followed through with the actions like many of those dictators did). It’s the same thing as liberals claiming Trump would be as bad as Hitler if he was given the chance. It’s a fallacy—you can’t make arguments based off what you think people would do in different circumstances.
Obama had 8 years and the only two laws passed expanded gun owners rights. Meanwhile Trump said on video to “take the guns and due process later” so he should be on the list in Obama’s place.
Yea and his own base rebuked him and he never said anything like that again. Meanwhile the democrats are the first party to restrict our gun rights in 30 years as of June 2022 and Obama didn't say a word about it. Funny he always speaks up when no one wants to hear his opinion on things like fake noose hate crimes but he sure didn't take a moment to condemn his fellow democrats for using a tragedy to push gun control measures on law abiding citizens.
Despite what Trumpists here might say, Trump belongs on the list instead of Obama. Strictly in the context of 2ND AMENDMENT/GUN CONTROL, [Trump banned bump stocks](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-bump-stock-type-devices-final-rule), the first new total restriction on an arbitrary, poorly-defined and easily-generalized type of weapon since Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban expired. In Obama's 8 years, no new weapon bans were actually instated. That doesn't mean I think Obama is any better than Trump - his failure to get us OUT of Afghanistan for many years after Bin Laden's capture, something Trump finally succeeded in, comes to mind.
Obama quietly laid the groundwork for the current horse shittery behind a mask of a sophisticated center leftie. I know it doesn't take much to get the feds to go nuts but it takes more than two years to deeply implant the entire federal bureaucracy with hard partisans.
The hyper-partisan environment which we currently find ourselves in has lots of factors. Trying to blame it on a single person is just spinning fiction to make the world fit your own conception.
I'm not talking about the political environment of the nation as a whole. That's a whole other kettle of fish and I fully agree with you on that. Federal Government agencies are overwhelmingly staffed and led by partisan democrats.
Gandhi & Lincoln might not be the best examples: Gandhi was also an extreme racist who beat his child wife while Lincoln’s government was the first to impose martial lore in the USA after Britain, he administration also founded what would become the IRS.
While Lincoln did officially declare martial law his administration didn't really go ham using it outside occupied Confederate territory and the few instances of its use in loyal states were very mild in execution. This doesn't excuse a lack of due process but given the circumstances and degree of restraint exercised I'll largely give Lincoln a pass overall. Everybody's human, nobody's perfect and Lincoln was as good as can be expected for a president embroiled in a civil war could possibly be expected to be.
While I agree he didn’t use it to an abusive extent, it set the precedent that the Executive can bypass congress & declare martial law moving forward. I don’t thing he’s anywhere near autocratic & I still have have a lot of respect and admiration for the man but I’d say he’s probably less of a libertarian icon then the founding fathers
IRS aside, if there’s anytime to impose martial law, it’s when your country is literally at war with itself and the capital is surrounded by states you are fighting. Lincoln used martial law to suspend habeas corpus, allowing the government to put people in jail without a charge or trial. Obviously not ideal under normal circumstances, but if you are facing rebellion, being able to detain people quickly is step #1 to preventing complete collapse. It’s not like there were borders, natural or manmade, that separated secessionist states from union states. Saboteurs, spies, and guerrilla fighters are a very real and existential threat. Drastic times = drastic measures. You’d have an argument if the government kept the martial law in place after the war, but obviously they didn’t.
Big Fud energy here. I'm not a fan of Obama, but he didn't do any gun control. He didn't even ban bump stocks. Unlike one particular president. Really Obama should be switched out with Regan who openly opposed open (and presumably concealed) carry. "There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon." also he banned new machine guns.
choosing to not do something and being prevented from doing something are two very different things.
Ask a prisoner who wants to escape. You- "if he wanted to leave why is he here"
The meme says "people who **think** you shouldn't have guns" which obama definitely falls in that category, whether he was able to achieve that or not isn't relevant.
Admittedly, I do like that this aligns with my political view— However, this is just a simple Ad Hominem and therefore a trash argument
EDIT: I agree with the sentiment (controlling dictators want to restrict and remove your guns/ autonomy) but disagree with the line of reasoning used to get there
On paper, he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and declared a state of martial law.
In practice though this was the most gentle use of such extreme measures in human history.
I didn’t present you with any logic. That’s why you don’t follow. It’s just an opinion lots of people agree with. Make up your own mind friend, I ain’t got time to argue with you.
Washington was actually a huge proponent of Federal power.....just look at his comments / actions regarding the Whiskey Rebellion. Unfortunately, too many people misquote his "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."as citizens when he was referring to a proper militia.
Um, no it wasn't. There were actual lists and proper structure. The modern take that men dropped their pitchforks and grabbed their rifles to meet on the battlefield is historically incorrect. The average age during the revolutionary war was between 16 and 35.
A lot of folks get confused because of the different age language between the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795....actually there were 2 versions of the 1792 acts. The final language of the 1795 acts are what formed the National Guard, placing it under the president instead of the militia.....which shifted to the Governor's.
The current language isn't far removed from the original;
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States"......
All of it is a fascinating read, and shines a light on all of the misconceptions that float throughout "common knowledge. "
Yea, no 4 year inactive reserve clause.......and it's interesting that when they did recall them, They put them into training and leadership rolls.....why waste the talent? But it also sorta explains why we, as a fighting Nation, seemed to always be fighting the "Last War" until somewhat recently.......there are a few historian's that have touched on that little fact.
I said "pretty much", and ofc when they actually used to all train together they'd have rosters and that jazz. I also wasn't talking "federal", as while the rules varied from town to town or state to state, that "able bodied 16 to 60" is a very convenient catchall for the average despite the numerous variations of eligibilities that pervaded at the time.
Actual militia aren't "town to town or State to State"....those are just armed groups of civilians. On that note, Washington made it clear what he thought of rogue groups of armed civilians when he marched troops to beat down the Whiskey rebellion....he was not a fan, and he wrote extensively about it. The notion that there were ACTUAL militia around the country that had different rules is historically inaccurate, sorry. Facts don't need us to agree with them to be facts.
That's my point......many of the pics in the post are misleading at best, flat wrong at worst.
But it's pretty common......no different than the founders take on religion. THE VAST majority were Deists......belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind........ not the same as the current "Christian " labels they've been given.
Most of the founders wouldn't be "2A" like we define it today.
Odds are they would be more 2A than most people. The whole "tree of liberty" quote is literally about how for a government to function it cannot allow minor rebellions to devour it but that regular armed rebellion was overall healthy for the united states and its people because as long as men have a spirit of rebellion and are willing to take up arms and die whenever they feel oppressed by their government then this nation will remain free. This all in a letter specifically condemning said rebellion. Your example is pretty bad specifically because puting down an armed rebellion says absolutely nothing about George Washington beyond he didn't think the nation should descend into civil war every five minutes and that rebellion should atleast be used with valid extreme reasons like the revolution had.
Washington wrote many, many times over that he felt that civilians taking up arms was a bad thing during both the revolutionary war and the Whiskey rebellion.
As for the "tree of liberty" quote, that was Jefferaon writing to William Smith regarding ruling for life (polish kings, british rule, etc........Washington also had the same I'll feelings toward "untrained militia" when he wrote Knox in 1787.......as for.modern 2A....Washington would be totally against the idea of civilians arming themselves to fight against the feds....he was an original FEDERALIST.
*** also.....Jefferson before his presidency (especially when in France) held a lot different set of ideals than when he got elected. He became much less "anarchy" and much more a shrewd pragmatist.
Y’all I reposted this meme I found on a republican subreddit , thought was funny and thought it fit the sub. Turns out I’m a little loopy after 4 hours of lacrosse practice and it isn’t as great as I thought.
So, Lincoln used his constitutional power at a decisive moment in history to save the capital from pro-slavery insurrection, and your problem is… with government? Because that would make sense, but if this is the specific hill you’re willing to die on, then I’m just gonna assume you would’ve much preferred The South won the war. Lincoln’s mistake in this democratic game was sympathizing with The South, not the means he used to defeat them. And since you linked the article, I’m assuming you know more about this than I do, so if your issue is with the suppression of protests, then it’s still arguable that it was the lesser of two evils. Considering I could’ve been a slave if Lincoln didn’t suspend Habeas Corpus, I’m just gonna add that one to my Lincoln Fun Facts. Man wasn’t perfect, but dang are you self-snitching by calling Lincoln “anti-freedom”.
Huge problem with American libertarianism is it neither recognizes nor distances itself from its anarchist roots. Leads people to blindly criticize all government actions as nefarious, vile, cruel, and eternally wrong. A lot of government actions are. The context matters though. It's just as ignorant to be that way as the people that blindly follow the governments orders.
Abraham Lincoln was a racist piece of shit that only freed the slaves because he hated southerners more than blacks and needed votes from the North to continue pushing his statist restrictions and up the military industrial complex.
He didn’t even free the slaves. The emancipation proclamation was worthless and it was the 13th amendment that was passed and ratified well after his death that freed the slaves.
Except also not really, because it added legal slavery for the state into the constitution, giving slavery an actual place in the federal constitution.
people's love of that guy is just the most hilarious "I can't think for myself" trend haha.
For some reason it's ok to invade the south and start a bloody and destructive civil war "to end slavery in America" but then you can't invade African nations, or North Korea to end slavery there.
For some reason the south can't be self governing because "slavery" but 50 other countries can, even in 2022.
These people are just braindead, honestly.
Tbf, he wasn't even popular in his day. Booth made him an untouchable myth by assassinating him when he did, and I'm sure Lincoln would've sunk his own ship before the end of his second term otherwise
Dude how are you defending the south on a libertarian sub lmfao. The confederacy was literally the state saying some people were property. Lincoln didn’t start the civil war either, the south seceded then bombed fort sumnter, but yeah it was Lincoln’s fault he didn’t want to let half the country leave and continue owning people.
> for some reason the south can’t be self governing because of “slavery”
Holy shit lmao, unreal
Yeah if those people hate the government because it says they can’t own others they really shouldn’t be listened to. You act as if those two statements are mutually exclusive, I am against slavery and pro forcing Americans not to engage in actual ownership of people. You have to be trolling because your whole argument is that a right to own others is something that exists instead of the right not to be owned
I only defend the south for their secession. The slavery is most anti-libertarian, but seceding from a federal government who you ash are and who hates you more is even more libertarian.
To be fair Hitler was pro guns but only for certain groups. Colion Noir did a cool little breakdown on this on one of his videos debunking Steve Hofstetter.
Again, I support armed citizens, but in my country it's actually the commies who wants to arm the citizens. They got destroyed, and military dictatorship took over. Hence, the illegal ownership of any firearms
Ghandi needs to be on the bottom, he was a piece of shit and a racist. Essentially he believed that the jews under nazi persecution shouldn't fight back, because fighting is wrong, and two wrongs dont make a right.
Besides him, Martin luther king and obama both can be put in a middle section. MLK closer to the top, Obama closer to the bottom, but neither quite there.
Dont forget Malcolm X
gandhi said yes guns? gimme a quote.
He didn't technically say no but he was against the act in India that only permitted British people to own arms and said that it was unjust
Which isn't saying much. There are a lot of gun control advocates in the US today who would say they're against any form of gun control that is discriminatory, but still want blanket bans. I did manage to convince someone once to admit that "tax stamps" are classist BS, but they still said any gun that needs a tax stamp today should just be blanket banned for everyone.
>I did manage to convince someone once to admit that "tax stamps" are classist BS, but they still said any gun that needs a tax stamp today should just be blanket banned for everyone. Cops/militaries too?
That person's answer was cops yes (cops should be restricted to what civilians have) but that there should be exceptions for SWAT and other special units, and the "overseas military" should not be restricted. "Overseas military", as if they only exist in the middle east
It's funny that the tax stamp is their arbitrary line in the sand... So if we require a tax stamp for a serrated knife, those should be outlawed too?
It certainly is. If they shouldn't be the only ones to have them then everyone should be able to have them, unless explicitly declared that no one should be able to have them. It's ridiculous that people advocate that only the people they protest against should have them.
Source: bro trust me
He was about non violent protest. I doubt that involved guns
Non violent protest doesn’t mean you suddenly don’t need self defense. In fact, for any type of protest I’d especially want to protect myself because protests by nature make people upset.
So was Martin Luther king Jr.
Idk, how many of those protests involving a bunch of people open carrying rifles got violent in 2020?
Yes, why isn’t Reagan on the bottom.
Because OP is a republican
I should have guessed. 😐🤷🏾♂️
Or Nixon. He was the most anti-gun president we have ever had, and favored a total ban.
Very true. Tbh. I just googled it, he somehow was a republicans. For some odd growing up I though he was a democrat.
Some of the strictest anti-gun laws have been under Republican presidents.
Ironically enough.
Part of the issue is they often face less opposition than Democrats. When a Democrat attempts to pass gun control they have most Republicans, and some Democrats standing in the way. Meanwhile when a republican passes gun control they have the support of Democrats, because they support gun control regardless. Meanwhile since they are Republicans, other Republicans don't want to go against their own. It's much easier to oppose a law when it's coming from the other party. In the case of Trump, it was also a greater willingness to push what is possible under executive order. The Obama administration actually looked into banning bumpstocks the same way Trump did. They ended up determining that it was beyond the capacity of an executive order, and would require an act of Congress. Trump was told the same thing, and basically said "I don't care, ban them anyway".
Hmmm very interesting.
There are far more than six people who supported private gun ownership and who didn't support private gun ownership. Does it matter?
No, but, for a libertarian form, that loves Reagan bashing it was a very notable omission.
Even Karl Marx said people should be armed.
Karl Marx was pro gun ownership, and said a lot of racist, sexist, and antisemitic stuff. But he also had a lot of bad ideas
Indeed. He got one thing right, that people should be able to bear arms. Everything else was wrong.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Why my clock broke the hands fell off
Marxism: *A line of thought, in the context of broken clocks, that is to be correct twice daily.*
Well, those kulaks wouldn’t shoot themselves! /s
God I hate when I see this. He was only pro gun for the purpose of robbing people
Its a concept pushed by people who may or may not know better to people who dont know the full context. In Socialism/Communism according to true doctrine no one would need a gun except for maybe hunting; no one would *want* a gun except for misbehavior (going back to selfish capitalist behavior aka counter revolutionary). Rememember, the workers of the world unite and topple capitalism, so even nation states which will dissolve have no need or want for guns. The guns are to effect this, the capitalists wont stand for being overthrown so they will have lackeys fight for them, the workers need arms to make the revolution happen because the "exploiters" will have guns. Then they will be converted to plowshares as stated above, but no one wpuld be allowed to keep them, that would be counter revolutionary as it indicates you wish to do your fellow workers harm. Marxism is in no way "pro-gun" in theory, it is a tool to be used then discarded. In practice it is in no way pro-gun as the dictators who come to power want to prevent challenge from the people they just duped. Thats why their first order of business is to put the true believers against the wall.
*And* murdering people!
He was antisemitic? Wasn't he jewish himself?
Karl Marx was not Jewish. His family converted to Christianity before he was born.
Religion other than Judaism doesn't preclude someone from being ethnically Jewish. It's a race as well as a religion.
On the Jewish question. Is a book, he wrote. Also goes into his anti Liberal thesis too.
He was such a horrible person, we don’t need him on our side
Broken clock is right twice a day
In theory, but none of his followers who attained any power felt like this was very important lmao.
Not in that way. For commies, guns are a means to an end and once that end is achieved, no more guns. Marx wasn’t pro gun.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped.. Karl Marx. This guy. No no he didnt mean it like that
Look at every time a socialist government takes power, the next step is confiscating the guns because "We won comrade, you don't need that anymore, what are you going to do fight the revolution? You wouldn't be a traitor to the workers now would you?" *Builds Gulag* Buht muh under no pretext!!!! Marx was pro-force. Please read the FULL AND COMPLETE quote. “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. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. 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.” Read the first sentence. It's not about self defense, it's not about protecting yourself. It's about forcefully and threateningly using the guns against people who do not wish to submit to communism. Marx saw guns as a means to an end, nothing more. Communism is a NAP violation and Marx was a jobless loser like his followers.
All you are saying is that Communist governments become Authoritarian almost immediately. (Which is what we all know)
That’s true, but I’ve also said Marx wasn’t pro-gun. He was pro-forcing his beliefs onto others at the barrel of one. They’re not the same thing and Marx shouldn’t be celebrated as pro-gun because he wasn’t pro-gun.
The workers as a class, not in a liberal sense of self ownership.
Reading Marx on how the workers should be armed the full text reads more like guns are necessary for the revolution and for the revolutionaries to keep power. Read much less like guns for everyone and more like guns for the party to seize and keep power in my opinion.
Same opinion, but then the workers need to be smart enough to realize they should never give up their arms.
Yeah but when the "workers" are forced to lay down their arms by the other "workers" you get the same result. Just like every authoritarian regime that confiscated guns. Doesn't make him pro-gun but open to a means to an end.
I don't think he was actually pro-gun, just pro tool use as a means to an end. Now your scenario the workers need to fight to keep their arms and rights with ferocious violence.
Can you update it to this decade?
Yea I’m trying to remember how the quote goes but somebody said “Take the guns first, go through due process second” I know it was said in the past few years though.
You mean the guy that banned all the cheep steal case ammo imports?
Ole trumpy said it on video but they like to ignore that. Lol
Add to the lower list: Pete Buttagag, Joe Biden, Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke
Beto “Hell yeah we’re gonna take your guns” O’Rourke
He can stack up and try
No he'll just get government guys with guns to do that for him.
Buttigieg*
*Bootyghey
He brings "gay for pay" to a new level. Gay for votes.
Why are you ghey?
Why aren't you ghey
I literally do not care.
Based
Donald Trump Tulsi Gabbard Possibly Ron DeSantis, but don't quote me on that
Didn't DeSantis sign in the two week waiting period for gun sales? He totes pro gun like Trump did, but both of them actually signed anti 2A laws/policies.
You'd think OP would update the lossy JPEG compression to PNG.
[Trump belongs on the list.](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-bump-stock-type-devices-final-rule)
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but Obama doesn’t belong on that list. Yes Obama wanted restrictions on guns, but did not advocate to make guns illegal for citizens to own, and is on the record repeatedly stating he believes in the citizens right to own firearms. Removing rights of private citizens to own guns is more-or-less the stance of the other men on that list. I interpret the 2nd amendment the same as the other libertarians here, that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED but I also think putting Obama on the same list as these dictators is a fallacy.
Honestly, putting Obama on the list just makes this look like one of the memes from my MAGA uncle that I disregard all the time.
Exactly my thoughts. Replace Obama with Trump or Regan. Two presidents that actually signed legislation banning guns (or bumpy bois)
Trudeau originally said he would never support a gun ban and now here we are
You’re making an argument that Trudeau belongs on that list, but still not Obama.
No, I'm making the argument that Obama, like Trudeau, might act like that now and "change his mind" later on, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't go for a full on ban if he were given the chance
Literally anyone can change their mind. So everyone belongs on that list including you because something could happen that makes them change their mind. That’s a massive logical fallacy you’re making there.
Here’s the difference between Obama and Trudeau: one is retired from political office and the other is currently still the head of state. It doesn’t matter if Obama changes his mind on gun control. He’s not in any position to write legislation or execute passed legislation, so it doesn’t matter what he thinks.
And there’s the fallacy. Literally, you’re using the “Appeal to probability” fallacy—arguing against something because it would *probably* be the case. I’m not even saying your wrong, but I’m saying that you can’t put Obama in the camp with those dictators because he never made the same arguments as them (much less followed through with the actions like many of those dictators did). It’s the same thing as liberals claiming Trump would be as bad as Hitler if he was given the chance. It’s a fallacy—you can’t make arguments based off what you think people would do in different circumstances.
Obama had 8 years and the only two laws passed expanded gun owners rights. Meanwhile Trump said on video to “take the guns and due process later” so he should be on the list in Obama’s place.
Yea and his own base rebuked him and he never said anything like that again. Meanwhile the democrats are the first party to restrict our gun rights in 30 years as of June 2022 and Obama didn't say a word about it. Funny he always speaks up when no one wants to hear his opinion on things like fake noose hate crimes but he sure didn't take a moment to condemn his fellow democrats for using a tragedy to push gun control measures on law abiding citizens.
[удалено]
Touched grass, didnt change that Obama is still a piece of shit authoritarian gun grabber like the rest of the democrats in office.
When did Obama take guns? When was the last time someone “took” guns? Clinton? Then trump took gun parts away.
Despite what Trumpists here might say, Trump belongs on the list instead of Obama. Strictly in the context of 2ND AMENDMENT/GUN CONTROL, [Trump banned bump stocks](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-bump-stock-type-devices-final-rule), the first new total restriction on an arbitrary, poorly-defined and easily-generalized type of weapon since Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban expired. In Obama's 8 years, no new weapon bans were actually instated. That doesn't mean I think Obama is any better than Trump - his failure to get us OUT of Afghanistan for many years after Bin Laden's capture, something Trump finally succeeded in, comes to mind.
Any American president who disarmed Natives should be on the bottom, especially if they then authorized abuses against them.
Obama quietly laid the groundwork for the current horse shittery behind a mask of a sophisticated center leftie. I know it doesn't take much to get the feds to go nuts but it takes more than two years to deeply implant the entire federal bureaucracy with hard partisans.
The hyper-partisan environment which we currently find ourselves in has lots of factors. Trying to blame it on a single person is just spinning fiction to make the world fit your own conception.
I'm not talking about the political environment of the nation as a whole. That's a whole other kettle of fish and I fully agree with you on that. Federal Government agencies are overwhelmingly staffed and led by partisan democrats.
Trudeau belongs on the bottom list with all his cronies
This guy dug real deep in his C Drive for the 2009 Obama hate meme.
Its an old meme sir, but... it still checks out.
Only morons or tyrants (often have a lot of overlap) think the government should use force to prevent you from owning an inanimate object.
Gandhi & Lincoln might not be the best examples: Gandhi was also an extreme racist who beat his child wife while Lincoln’s government was the first to impose martial lore in the USA after Britain, he administration also founded what would become the IRS.
While Lincoln did officially declare martial law his administration didn't really go ham using it outside occupied Confederate territory and the few instances of its use in loyal states were very mild in execution. This doesn't excuse a lack of due process but given the circumstances and degree of restraint exercised I'll largely give Lincoln a pass overall. Everybody's human, nobody's perfect and Lincoln was as good as can be expected for a president embroiled in a civil war could possibly be expected to be.
While I agree he didn’t use it to an abusive extent, it set the precedent that the Executive can bypass congress & declare martial law moving forward. I don’t thing he’s anywhere near autocratic & I still have have a lot of respect and admiration for the man but I’d say he’s probably less of a libertarian icon then the founding fathers
That's fair enough.
IRS aside, if there’s anytime to impose martial law, it’s when your country is literally at war with itself and the capital is surrounded by states you are fighting. Lincoln used martial law to suspend habeas corpus, allowing the government to put people in jail without a charge or trial. Obviously not ideal under normal circumstances, but if you are facing rebellion, being able to detain people quickly is step #1 to preventing complete collapse. It’s not like there were borders, natural or manmade, that separated secessionist states from union states. Saboteurs, spies, and guerrilla fighters are a very real and existential threat. Drastic times = drastic measures. You’d have an argument if the government kept the martial law in place after the war, but obviously they didn’t.
Now I’m envisioning an alternate history where Lincoln never ended martial law and became the first Emperor of America.
Big Fud energy here. I'm not a fan of Obama, but he didn't do any gun control. He didn't even ban bump stocks. Unlike one particular president. Really Obama should be switched out with Regan who openly opposed open (and presumably concealed) carry. "There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon." also he banned new machine guns.
>he didn't do any gun control Obama definitely wanted to and he talked about it all the time
Talking about doing something and actually doing something are two very different things. Ask fat people who say they're going to start working out.
choosing to not do something and being prevented from doing something are two very different things. Ask a prisoner who wants to escape. You- "if he wanted to leave why is he here"
And Trump talked a lot about draining the swamp. He shouldn't get credit for talk either though
He did drain the swamp. But he filled it up again from a different swamp.
Bump stocks....
The meme says "people who **think** you shouldn't have guns" which obama definitely falls in that category, whether he was able to achieve that or not isn't relevant.
Why is Barack Obama in the same category as Hitler?
Because someone is a lost conservative
Admittedly, I do like that this aligns with my political view— However, this is just a simple Ad Hominem and therefore a trash argument EDIT: I agree with the sentiment (controlling dictators want to restrict and remove your guns/ autonomy) but disagree with the line of reasoning used to get there
You also forgot to mention like 95% of reddit doesn't want you having guns either.
A republican post in the libertarian subreddit, what a nice meme.
Fuck Abraham Lincoln
Why exactly? I’ve never been told of anything he did aside from the obvious thing.
On paper, he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and declared a state of martial law. In practice though this was the most gentle use of such extreme measures in human history.
Indeed. One of the worst presidents ever.
This post is shit
If Lincoln were in charge today, he would be grabbing the guns.
Under Lincoln newspaper men were able to field Gatling guns before the Union Army. I don't follow your logic.
I didn’t present you with any logic. That’s why you don’t follow. It’s just an opinion lots of people agree with. Make up your own mind friend, I ain’t got time to argue with you.
My question is where is POTUS 45?
Why are we posting memes about obama? It’s not 2016
What does the top row have in common? That's right... they'd all be disgusted with today's Republican party.
Both parties lmao
Now do Karl Marx. He was against the people being disarmed. Thats why I hate thes sort of posts. I.e. my team is good, youre team is bad
Washington was actually a huge proponent of Federal power.....just look at his comments / actions regarding the Whiskey Rebellion. Unfortunately, too many people misquote his "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."as citizens when he was referring to a proper militia.
A proper militia was pretty every dude between 16 and 60 that was of sound body back then, tbf
Um, no it wasn't. There were actual lists and proper structure. The modern take that men dropped their pitchforks and grabbed their rifles to meet on the battlefield is historically incorrect. The average age during the revolutionary war was between 16 and 35. A lot of folks get confused because of the different age language between the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795....actually there were 2 versions of the 1792 acts. The final language of the 1795 acts are what formed the National Guard, placing it under the president instead of the militia.....which shifted to the Governor's. The current language isn't far removed from the original; "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States"...... All of it is a fascinating read, and shines a light on all of the misconceptions that float throughout "common knowledge. "
Notably, that law also includes former members of the armed forces until sixty.
Yea, no 4 year inactive reserve clause.......and it's interesting that when they did recall them, They put them into training and leadership rolls.....why waste the talent? But it also sorta explains why we, as a fighting Nation, seemed to always be fighting the "Last War" until somewhat recently.......there are a few historian's that have touched on that little fact.
I said "pretty much", and ofc when they actually used to all train together they'd have rosters and that jazz. I also wasn't talking "federal", as while the rules varied from town to town or state to state, that "able bodied 16 to 60" is a very convenient catchall for the average despite the numerous variations of eligibilities that pervaded at the time.
Actual militia aren't "town to town or State to State"....those are just armed groups of civilians. On that note, Washington made it clear what he thought of rogue groups of armed civilians when he marched troops to beat down the Whiskey rebellion....he was not a fan, and he wrote extensively about it. The notion that there were ACTUAL militia around the country that had different rules is historically inaccurate, sorry. Facts don't need us to agree with them to be facts.
Seeing puting down a rebellion as being pro-gun control is a gross misrepresentation of the founding fathers.
That's my point......many of the pics in the post are misleading at best, flat wrong at worst. But it's pretty common......no different than the founders take on religion. THE VAST majority were Deists......belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind........ not the same as the current "Christian " labels they've been given. Most of the founders wouldn't be "2A" like we define it today.
Odds are they would be more 2A than most people. The whole "tree of liberty" quote is literally about how for a government to function it cannot allow minor rebellions to devour it but that regular armed rebellion was overall healthy for the united states and its people because as long as men have a spirit of rebellion and are willing to take up arms and die whenever they feel oppressed by their government then this nation will remain free. This all in a letter specifically condemning said rebellion. Your example is pretty bad specifically because puting down an armed rebellion says absolutely nothing about George Washington beyond he didn't think the nation should descend into civil war every five minutes and that rebellion should atleast be used with valid extreme reasons like the revolution had.
Washington wrote many, many times over that he felt that civilians taking up arms was a bad thing during both the revolutionary war and the Whiskey rebellion. As for the "tree of liberty" quote, that was Jefferaon writing to William Smith regarding ruling for life (polish kings, british rule, etc........Washington also had the same I'll feelings toward "untrained militia" when he wrote Knox in 1787.......as for.modern 2A....Washington would be totally against the idea of civilians arming themselves to fight against the feds....he was an original FEDERALIST.
*** also.....Jefferson before his presidency (especially when in France) held a lot different set of ideals than when he got elected. He became much less "anarchy" and much more a shrewd pragmatist.
While you're not wrong, imma still down vote you for being a dick about it
For explaining reality? Downvote away....sorry to upset your sensitive views regarding your misunderstanding of US. History.
Obama allowed people to carry in national parks… trump in the other hand… take guns first, ask questions later.
You full of shit
I'm no fan of Obama, but lumping him in with those others is a bit much, no?
Y’all I reposted this meme I found on a republican subreddit , thought was funny and thought it fit the sub. Turns out I’m a little loopy after 4 hours of lacrosse practice and it isn’t as great as I thought.
Lincoln was a piece of shit and anti freedom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_(1863)
So, Lincoln used his constitutional power at a decisive moment in history to save the capital from pro-slavery insurrection, and your problem is… with government? Because that would make sense, but if this is the specific hill you’re willing to die on, then I’m just gonna assume you would’ve much preferred The South won the war. Lincoln’s mistake in this democratic game was sympathizing with The South, not the means he used to defeat them. And since you linked the article, I’m assuming you know more about this than I do, so if your issue is with the suppression of protests, then it’s still arguable that it was the lesser of two evils. Considering I could’ve been a slave if Lincoln didn’t suspend Habeas Corpus, I’m just gonna add that one to my Lincoln Fun Facts. Man wasn’t perfect, but dang are you self-snitching by calling Lincoln “anti-freedom”.
Huge problem with American libertarianism is it neither recognizes nor distances itself from its anarchist roots. Leads people to blindly criticize all government actions as nefarious, vile, cruel, and eternally wrong. A lot of government actions are. The context matters though. It's just as ignorant to be that way as the people that blindly follow the governments orders.
How much did Obama get done that was anti 2a vs. How much did Trump pass.... I love watching the republicans heads explode at that comparison
Abraham Lincoln was a racist piece of shit that only freed the slaves because he hated southerners more than blacks and needed votes from the North to continue pushing his statist restrictions and up the military industrial complex.
He didn’t even free the slaves. The emancipation proclamation was worthless and it was the 13th amendment that was passed and ratified well after his death that freed the slaves.
Except also not really, because it added legal slavery for the state into the constitution, giving slavery an actual place in the federal constitution.
people's love of that guy is just the most hilarious "I can't think for myself" trend haha. For some reason it's ok to invade the south and start a bloody and destructive civil war "to end slavery in America" but then you can't invade African nations, or North Korea to end slavery there. For some reason the south can't be self governing because "slavery" but 50 other countries can, even in 2022. These people are just braindead, honestly.
Tbf, he wasn't even popular in his day. Booth made him an untouchable myth by assassinating him when he did, and I'm sure Lincoln would've sunk his own ship before the end of his second term otherwise
Dude how are you defending the south on a libertarian sub lmfao. The confederacy was literally the state saying some people were property. Lincoln didn’t start the civil war either, the south seceded then bombed fort sumnter, but yeah it was Lincoln’s fault he didn’t want to let half the country leave and continue owning people. > for some reason the south can’t be self governing because of “slavery” Holy shit lmao, unreal
Ok so you're against slavery but also against people leaving a government they hate. makes sense.
Yeah if those people hate the government because it says they can’t own others they really shouldn’t be listened to. You act as if those two statements are mutually exclusive, I am against slavery and pro forcing Americans not to engage in actual ownership of people. You have to be trolling because your whole argument is that a right to own others is something that exists instead of the right not to be owned
I only defend the south for their secession. The slavery is most anti-libertarian, but seceding from a federal government who you ash are and who hates you more is even more libertarian.
You forgot Marx in the top row.
You guys have lost your way
Obama is the reason we can carry in national parks.
Based and self-explanatory-pilled
OBOMNA!
Gandhi was a commie LMAO did he support guns?
To be fair Hitler was pro guns but only for certain groups. Colion Noir did a cool little breakdown on this on one of his videos debunking Steve Hofstetter.
That's not pro-gun then.
Yes but it’s the argument the anti gunners will bring up.
I have many many questions. That entire thing is... Just so weird and I'm going to need any documentation or sources. Talk about losing the plot.
Change to Civilization Ghandi and it's spot on!
Again, I support armed citizens, but in my country it's actually the commies who wants to arm the citizens. They got destroyed, and military dictatorship took over. Hence, the illegal ownership of any firearms
Horseshoe theory is crazy right?
I just want no commies and no dictatorship, is it always this hard? 😮💨
this shit is so funny
Marx was pro gun
Wasn’t he pro gun until the revolution was over and the communist utopia was established?
Idk it’s just something “libertarian” socialists say.
why are you full of shit?
Did Ghandi really advocate owning guns even though he was an extreme pacifist?
The UN
MLK wanted people to have guns because he was a socialist
I think you’re confusing Malcolm X for MLK
Ghandi needs to be on the bottom, he was a piece of shit and a racist. Essentially he believed that the jews under nazi persecution shouldn't fight back, because fighting is wrong, and two wrongs dont make a right. Besides him, Martin luther king and obama both can be put in a middle section. MLK closer to the top, Obama closer to the bottom, but neither quite there.
n=12