posted to Socialist RA
Commenters: “but why are you posting about firearms though???”
Libs gonna lib
“Get bent” is kinda weak though lol.
I vote for “trans rights or else” for the white text
“Get out” to keep it simple and easy edit.
I take this as a metaphorical statement, not literally advocating gun violence.
I agree wholeheartedly that, speaking in metaphorical terms, it’s useless placing flowers in the rifles that are ready to fire again. There comes a point where these absolute bigoted wankstains need to be called out, and have a fire started under the pedestals upon which they stand so damn proudly.
Given the context of what community this is on, I kinda think it speaks to the right to self defense and the right to exist in a social climate where rabid, violent, right wing extremists want to eliminate trans people in every way possible.
And, just to throw this out there, it is not morally wrong to defend yourself against lethal threat or threat of significant bodily harm. It is also legal in every state in the US (check state and local laws though, as there are nuances).
And than we shoot?
Unironically disarm all cops and give the guns to trans people.
Can us non-trans autistic folks get some guns? Like youre already giving guns to half the autistoc community.
of course! don’t worry, there are plenty of these things to go around.
I’m confused is this saying that LGBTQ people should arm themselves to protect themselves or is it saying that guns have the right to exist?
It’s about the right to get bent
But “get bent” refers to sodomy, in a typically derogatory context. It’s like saying “this sucks dick” to mean, “this is bad” (read: people who suck dick = less than). It’s the same as people saying, “this is gay” to mean bad. So really, we should be phasing out the phrase “get bent.”
This reads to me as “I am not debating my right to exist [as a trans person or trans supporter]. I’m ready to defend myself and my allies if need be, to whatever extent is necessary. Back off or else.”
So it comes across as a call to be ready to fight back, which would mean that if you’re comfortable owning a gun or another weapon (or more comfortable owning a gun than not within the context of the current sociopolitical climate), it would be wise to have one on hand. I don’t take it as a literal call to arms, it’s more like an alternate, more direct/specific take on the Gadsden Flag. Not overtly hostile, but a clear warning that aggression will be responded to with an appropriate measure of self defense.
It can be both.
Yeah, the lower right half makes it ambiguous. Is that a response to the top text, or a continuation of the sentiment?
Just gonna put this right here:
Not denying that it can be dangerous to own a gun but when violent fascists have gained power in a country with extremely lax gun laws then I think I’ll take my chances of owning one.
Totally understand. This is more for the clowns in the comments. Hang in there!
I haven’t finished reading the study yet, but some thoughts so far:
- Those that believe they’re at greater risk of being shot (for example, if they live in a high-crime area) are more likely to want to possess a gun.
- Those that had a gun but had “no chance to resist” (basically, they were uninvolved and caught a stray bullet) had a 4.46x higher chance of being shot than those not in possession. This seems to indicate that the increase is almost entirely correlation, and not caused by possession. Stray bullets can’t tell if someone is in possession of a gun or not.
- Those that had a gun and had “at least some chance to resist” only had a 5.45x higher chance of being shot than those not in possession. This is only 1.22x higher than the “no chance to resist” group. Pretty impressive, considering that this includes scenarios where the attacker got the drop on the victim, as well as “mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument” where the fight might have been avoidable through deescalation.
- As far as I can tell so far, the control group isn’t anything like “unarmed people that got robbed”, it’s random people in Philadelphia that were interviewed about what they were doing at the time their counterpart in the experimental group got shot.
- Engaging in a gunfight with an assailant and being shot may be preferable to cooperating in the hopes of being left unharmed, depending on the situation. Particularly when the assailant is a violent bigot that wants to kill (and maybe torture) you anyway.
Lol.
The left: ban all guns!
Also the left: defend yourself with guns!
Make up your mind.
Edit: as someone who arrived here from Everything who is not familiar with your community, I didn’t know that you don’t consider yourself liberals. The trans community is typically pretty liberal in my experience, so that association further influenced my response. Anyways, carry on, and don’t mind me.
Libs want to ban guns, not leftists.
Don’t make me tap the “liberals aren’t leftists and both US parties are liberal” sign
“…we could remain armed and refuse to obey the new government, and we would be able, here and there, to carry out attempts at expropriation and organization of society along anarchist and communist lines. We could prevent the revolution from being halted at step one, and the people’s energies, roused by the insurrection, from being lulled back to sleep.” - The Anarchist’s Task, Errico Malatesta
“Let us continue [Bakunin’s] work, never forgetting that two things are necessary to be successful in a revolution, two things, as one of my comrades said in the trial at Lyon: an idea in the head, and a bullet in the rifle! The force of action guided by the force of Anarchist thought.” - Direct Struggle Against Capitalism, Pëtr Kropotkin
“Free people must be free to arm and defend themselves with the weapons they choose. While making all of society less violent, by changing the social conditions which breed various sorts of predation and abolishing political coercion, is the best way to stop aggressive acts, until then people should be able to have access to the means to defend themselves, including firearms.” - An Anarchist Case Against Gun Control, Joe Peacott
'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, Karl Marx
“By direct action the Anarcho-Syndicalists mean every method of immediate warfare by the workers against their economic and political oppressors. Among these the outstanding are: the strike, in all its gradations from the simple wage-struggle to the general strike; the boycott; sabotage in its countless forms; anti-militarist propaganda; and in particularly critical cases, such, for example, as that in Spain today, armed resistance of the people for the protection of life and liberty.” - Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, Rudolph Rocker
“Organised in grupos de afinidad, the anarchist urban guerrillas favoured clandestine forms of organisation, placing great store on the values of individual or small-group violence. The grupistas fulfilled a range of tasks, forming ‘defence squads’, which provided bodyguards for prominent activists, and organising armed collections for the unions in workplaces and on the streets…” - Anarchism and the City, Chris Ealham
“Anarchy is incessant, permanent revolt against all constituted order, war on the State and all its authorities, waged in every way and under every possible form: with the word and with every other outward sign, with acts of defiance and hostility, and above all with arms.” - Our Revolution, Carlo Cafiero
also see: “Ready for Revolution: The CNT Defense Committees in Barcelona 1933-38” which highlights FAI affinity groups doing weapons training. https://www.akpress.org/ready-for-revolution.html
and Socialist Rifle Association
why is the trans community always so violent?
Why is the straight, white, christian community trying to kill them?
Removed by mod
Hold this ban my guy. Eat shit.
read the Bible sweaty
You want a ban my guy?
you asked why and i told you why. stop being so defensive and maybe you might learn a thing or two.
If you try to kill others because a book tells you to then maybe there’s something psychologically wrong
I have read the bible, I was raised in Catholic private schools where extensive Bible study and daily mass were mandatory.
If you want to start invoking bible phrases, I will pound you into the dirt over your own bible ignorance.
Better for you to sit down, take the L, and not even try.
Sweaty? ROFL!
I’d guess after reading your comments, it’s probably got something to do with the existence of people like you.
Yes, worship violence and fire arms some more. That’s going to make the world a better place for sure!
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have their mere existence threatened by armed fascists on a daily basis.
Where do you live, I’m guessing US?
When you’re carrying a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Honestly, no idea why they haven’t been controlled like here in Australia
‘you get further with a nice word and a gun than you do with a nice word alone’
If a fascist marches, do you ask them to please don’t do that? Do you march against them?
You get shot with a nice word and a gun
That’s the entire point of the saying. You dont get shot with a nice word and a gun because you’re not unarmed. The reference to “nice word” in the second half is like saying, “you could try to wash dishes with good thoughts, but good thoughts and scrubbing with soap and water is more effective.”
No you definitely get shot when you try to be the shooter.
Hmm…
You do know there are places where there is actual conflict happening and there is actual attempted revolution, correct? You seem to be thinking about this from a strictly “upper class western” pov where people who’ve never shot a gun in their lives carry one around because they watched YouTube videos. That’s not what’s being discussed here.
Considering the current US anti trans trend, im pretty sure this is for a western audience.
I hope anyone that touches a firearm drops dead on the spot. I don’t need adults with the mindset of a 8 year old in this world. I’m not debating anyone defending fire arms.
@ackzsel @seahorse @Jaytreeman ah yes, marginalized people who are regularly threatened by violence, armed fascists, and the state being willing to use firearms to defend themselves and their right to exist are totally the ones with the mentality of an 8-year-old, not the person who thinks we should literally just roll over and let people beat us up and murder us and eliminate us from public life in order to preserve some perfect pacifist moral high ground because firearms are an ooo spooky evil shibboleth only “bad guys” touch and “all violence is bad.” Thinking all violence, even in self-defense, is bad regardless of the context is totally a mature and well thought through position and not an overly simplistic view of how morality works. Believing that using a specific implement of violence is bad simply because a group you don’t like likes that tool is totally adult thinking. Believing in pure pacifism in the face of genocidal evil as if that’s in any way practical or moral is totally a nuanced adult view of the world and not the most simplistic 5-year-old understanding of morality that you get from children’s cartoons.
@ackzsel @seahorse @Jaytreeman seriously, when the level of your thinking is “guns bad and anyone who uses them is evil” you don’t get to accuse other people of having a child-like view of the world lol
I like what you’re saying, so I don’t mind being tagged, but I thought it was obvious I’m on your side
@Jaytreeman @seahorse @ackzsel sorry yeah you got tagged cuz you’re in the thread is all, I’m on mastodon not kbin and that’s just how it does it 😅
No worries. Keep fighting the good fight!
The other side doesn’t have to debate.
The other side has guns.And some of them are insane enough to kill people based on skin color, gender identity / expression, and more.
With such dangerous people about, one sure is glad to have a gun.
Hope alone will get you nowhere but beneath an authoritarian’s boot, figuratively or literally. Please be pragmatic.
Question for you: would you rather all the guns be in the hands of the government? Because guns won’t disappear due to your wish. In countries all over the world, conflict is very real and not having guns would mean utter defeat for those fighting against fascists.
We get it, it would be a different world if guns were never invented. But they have been. And relinquishing that power to those that would see you not exist simply isn’t an option anymore.
Must be nice to never worry about defending yourself.
Self defense is an inherent right of every living thing.
I used to be a pacifist. I was robbed at gunpoint in my home in the middle of the night, And I told them to take anything they wanted, but they stabbed my girlfriend anyway.
I was no longer a pacifist. She was cooperating, she was quiet, none of us were armed, but one of those wannabe thuglets still put a knife into her arm.
I was unable to continue rationalizing pacifism if it meant the people around me got hurt. I took that kids eye out with my bare hand and tore the door off my stove ragdolling his friend.
Violence doesn’t solve many problems, but it’s one of the only things that can solve violence. I don’t regret using violence to protect the people I care about.
true i make up stories on the internet too
Being willing to defend yourself isn’t worship of violence or weapons.
Do you suggest people threatened with genocide defend themselves using …bitchslaps?
If I was willing to bitchslap a violent bigot would that be worshipping violence and hands? I don’t have to like the idea of having to defend myself or others to be willing to do it.
deleted by creator
Yes, worship violence and fire arms some more. That’s going to make the world a better place for sure!
Unironically yes.
