is Seattle the new fort Sumter?

[The Grand Nudger]

Membership of the SRA is predicated on the acceptance of particular points of unity:

We are working class and poor people dedicated to educating our class in the safe use of firearms for personal and community self-defense as well as recreation and subsistence hunting.
We are a multi-tendency association of Social democrats, Communists, and Anarchists united by class, for our class. We respect one another's political stances and differences, especially when we disagree.
We are dedicated to Liberation and Freedom of ALL people and therefore oppose all forms of oppression and exploitation.
We are party to our local communities and as such we volunteer in various ways to further the connections between leftist political radicals and the unorganized communities in which we live. We help feed, house and protect other working class and marginalized folks.
We stand against the disarmament of the working class.
We are dedicated to arming the working class, both physically and mentally.

---

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms. In order to achieve our mission, we encourage new participants in the shooting sports and provide firearms safety and shooting instruction programs; as well as providing a forum for civil discourse on these issues.

---

Redneck Revolt was founded in 2016 as an anti-racist, anti-fascist community defense formation. The history of the term redneck is long and complex. One of the earliest recorded uses of the term comes from the 1890’s, and refers to rednecks as “poorer inhabitants of the rural districts…men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin burned red by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks”.

​

In 1921, the term became synonymous with armed insurrection against the state, as members of the United Mine Workers of America tied red bandanas around their necks during the Battle of Blair Mountain, a two week long armed multi-racial labor uprising in the coalfields of West Virginia.

​

Today, the term redneck has taken on a demeaning connotation, primarily among upper class urban liberals who have gone out of their way to dehumanize working class and poor people. Terms like “white trash” and "hillbilly" have come to signify the view among these same upper class liberals of poor rural folks.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Here's some people who like assault weapon bans and don't confuse politicians with gun owners 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/12/...un-rights/

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/...-anarchism

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019...ng-up-arms

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/akwv4...n-virginia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_...ssociation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Gun_Club

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not exactly hard to find a dem or a leftist with a gun. I've always thought that the right wing was going to be horribly surprised when they finally pushed too far, and learned what was so obvious to anyone but themselves.

Course, we know what happens when the right wing figures out that people they don't like actually do have guns. All in on gun control.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Or there this gem 

[Aegon]

Leftists aren't anti-gun. Centrist liberals are. This has been a public service announcement.

Somehow Americans have been brainwashed into thinking anybody left of Ronald Reagan is a communist. How stupid and unfortunate.

Ronald Reagan was a failed Democrat. He is the yardstick for flip flopping and nothing else.

Show me one lefty who voted against Clinton's "assault weapon" bill. Or any other anti gun legislation.....

There was only one actual leftist in Congress when Clinton passed that bill. His name was Bernie Sanders. And he voted against it.

Democrats, overall, are neoliberals and, in many respects, not much different than conservatives.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ronald Reagan was a failed Democrat. He is the yardstick for flip flopping and nothing else.

Show me one lefty who voted against Clinton's "assault weapon" bill. Or any other anti gun legislation.....

There was only one actual leftist in Congress when Clinton passed that bill. His name was Bernie Sanders. And he voted against it.

Democrats, overall, are neoliberals and, in many respects, not much different than conservatives.

Not as though it matters as it's not politicians that decided leftist opinion on guns . The mere existence of pro gun left wing groups does that .

[The Grand Nudger]

Before it became law in 1993, the Brady bill underwent many transformations. Sanders, then Vermont’s sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, voted against the bill in its entirety five times:
1. In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period. The bill passed in the House.  
2. The Senate then voted to decrease the waiting period to five days, and the bill returned to the House. In November 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Although it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes for the new version.
3. After some back and forth, a bill resurfaced that reinstated the five-day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version twice in the same day. 
4. Sanders voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.
5. The final compromise version of the Brady bill —  an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system — was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...l-five-ti/

---

Honestly, I wondered why OLB would even try to float the claim. I'm a stratospheric leftist in his view...and he knows that I shoot and strongly support 2nd and 9th amendment rights.

[Pat Mustard]

So you are a deist... Please elaborate on what u believe and your journey up to here if u like cos im interested

I believe that an infinite mind exists and that that infinite mind should get whatever it wants and does get whatever it wants and it's morally justified because classical utilitarian is true, that infinite mind is a 'utility monster' and I bite the bullet on that thought experiment.

---

Nah, he's just pretending (or stupid).  His god is way too interventionist.

I don't follow a religion and I wouldn't say that I believe that God intervenes. That's why I consider myself to be a deist. To me God 'intervening' is just the universe playing with itself. It's somewhat pantheistic and I wouldn't call it incompatible with deism.

After all, there is a sense of 'deism' that just means belief in a deity. And that's the key point. I believe in a deity. But I'm also without that extra stuff like following a religion or having a God separate to the universe that intervenes in it, etc.

If you don't believe that god intervenes why do you constantly insist that he does? Look, face facts here, your posts here make it abundantly obvious that you're a variety of protestant christian and I would guess of the fundagelical persuasion. No amount of denial will change facts in evidence.

[onlinebiker]

Ronald Reagan was a failed Democrat. He is the yardstick for flip flopping and nothing else.

Show me one lefty who voted against Clinton's "assault weapon" bill. Or any other anti gun legislation.....

There was only one actual leftist in Congress when Clinton passed that bill. His name was Bernie Sanders. And he voted against it.

Democrats, overall, are neoliberals and, in many respects, not much different than conservatives.

Sanders is a DINO.

He joined the dems out of political expediency.

[The Grand Nudger]

How did you came to believe that guns and gun rights were the sole possession of the right? Who told you that?

---

If you don't believe that god intervenes why do you constantly insist that he does?  Look, face facts here, your posts here make it abundantly obvious that you're a variety of protestant christian and I would guess of the fundagelical persuasion.  No amount of denial will change facts in evidence.

It's very nearly inevitable that any person who believes in god or would argue for a god is going to do so with concepts and terms common to majority beliefs.  They form the basis of god concepts in people's heads - and even when a person decides that they don't fit in with that majority, the damage has already been done, and the resources available have still been shaped by those beliefs.  This isn't true of god believers, uniquely, either.  Say the word god to an atheist, and watch them immediately default to the abrahamic, and make arguments against an abrahamic god.  

That our new friend began with the idea of an interventionist god who possesses absolute warrant and a masculine identity is obvious and unremarkable.  Still, it's clear that he's put more thought into it than a person who waives a magic book at us.  What we see is more likely the product of being on some journey or path to more accurately describing his beliefs, having started off from a majority conceit, than any active attempt to deceive.  The particular item in question has been explained.  He wrongly supposed that the intervention clause referred to things like finding car keys, curing cancer, writing magic books, and so forth.  A god "playing with itself" escaped as a quirk of what he thought about a defining term.  The same is true in the case of objective moral value.  The notion being that a god objectively wanted what it wants, making something conceptually objective and tautologically true.   Just not objective in the sense relevant to moral value.