Me too. Thanks.
What do you mean when you say ‘pro gun?’ Do you mean you are in favor of guns being legal with absolutely no regulation whatsoever or do you mean that you are in favor of guns being legal but highly regulated?
It’s really not an either/or situation like some people think it is.
And are they pro-gun where it’s on the side or do they talk about being all supportive while prioritizing it over healthcare and actually well supported and well researched economic policy? I think guns are neat and used to have my license but I’d never put them ahead of literally any issue. Progun politicians don’t build better societies or respect people’s basic human rights.
Kinda sick of the “I care about human rights up until they affect my ability to own a firearm” group. They’re just tiresome.
I’m in Texas right now, and tbh I feel like Democrats would be able to do a lot more good here if they let go of gun control for now and focused on actually being electable in Texas so they can work on the multitudes of other issues there are to fix. You could even probably reduce shootings by fixing social issues, but you have to be elected first. If they did well long enough to prove some more liberal ideas work, people may trust them enough for gun control to happen one day.
Bruh, after Beto lost to Greg Fucking Pissbaby Asshole Fuckface Abbott, I started to think the Dems here are doing it on purpose. Beto got decently close, and the only thing Republicans could play against him was the “Hell yeah I’m taking your guns!” Clip over and over. If they didn’t have that clip of him getting emotional (in response to a hometown shooting), then he would have won.
I really am wondering why we don’t have a decent pro-2A Dem candidate, and the only thing I can think is that Texas Dems don’t want to win.
The backbone of the Democrats as a party is the reliable fundraising from the liberal-conservative dems. The corpo Dems like Biden and Harris. They allow the progressives to say the promises and then withhold those promises. Those corporate pandering Dems are also the ones who scream loudest about guns being evil instead of finding understanding, like so many other issues.
Those corporate Dems are also likely to collab with Conservatives and then say “I know they have only been acting in bad faith for a decade but maybe THIS time things will be different.” And no one is surprised or learns anything. Then repeat.
Progress doesn’t happen with corporations involved. Progress happens when decision are made and enforced upon corporations.
I’m with OG OP, liberal with firearms. Raised in Texas, veteran, and came to my senses regarding the politics I was raised in. I both (a) like shooting and (b) feel the need to have home protection. I think they should be regulated.
With that, I don’t understand your comment at all.
being all supportive while prioritizing it over healthcare and actually well supported and well researched economic policy
I will be honest with you. This makes no sense. One is economic while the other is fanaticism. You are comparing apples to oranges. Let me flip your closing statement on you:
Kinda sick of the “I care about human rights up until they affect my ability to take away firearms” group.
Because, again, this proposed stalemate is idealists vs fanatics drawing lines in the sand. You can’t just blame one side. The fact there is no movement is the entire point of polarization in politics.
It makes plenty of sense: There are scores of people who will vote for the absolute scum of the earth if it means they can keep their firearms. Losing even the slightest grip on their firearms is the dealbreaker and not the myriad of human rights abuses and other heinous shit conservative parties get up to.
You can separate the groups out all you want but it doesn’t matter once that vote is cast, and pro-gun politicians come with all the extra baggage. Your vote doesn’t come with a note saying “guns only, please don’t violate minorities’ rights/destroy the economy to enrich the least deserving people imaginable”. Your vote just says “yes” and they take that as far as they can go. They don’t give a shit about you or your opinion after you helped put them in power.
You know what will make you safer? Voting for parties that will create policy that helps reduce poverty. Unlike gun ownership that’s actually a well-documented way to make everyone safer.
I’d describe myself as fairly liberal. I’m from Vermont and I am pretty bummed that neither Howard Dean nor Bernie Sanders got to be president. I’ve voted D in every presidential and congressional election for the last twenty years.
A couple elections ago I was doing non-partisan voter registration, just standing out in front of a big box store asking people to register to vote. It felt great because I got the feeling that I was directly helping, and even if I was registering some people who would go on to vote R, I actually believe that the more voters there are, the healthier the democracy.
I asked one young guy to register and he asked me “Do you believe in the right to keep and bear arms?”
And I thought about how the marjority of gun deaths in any given year are suicides and how we have an absolutely unacceptable number of mass shootings in this country, and how by all that is reasonable that we ought to be able to do something about it.
And then I thought about my uncles who hunt white tail deer to help control the population, and my friend who is a self-employed gem cutter and who has been robbed and who now owns a pistol for self defense.
And in all honestly, I said “Yes,” though on the inside I thought “…but probably not in the exact same way that you do,” and that young guy registered to vote.
And honestly, I consider that a win.
Yes is probably the best answer you can give someone like that because they see it as only having two absolute answers. To say yes with conditions would be heard as a no after years of brainwashing.
I support the spirit of the second amendment, but also think it was written badly, or at least very restrictive to the time period it originated in and not adaptable to a changing society. It’s not a surprise that it remains hotly debated and disagreed on its meaning though, since even the first amendment that is much clearer on its intent is now also debated by some to suit their own purposes and not for the greater public good.
Removed by mod
I want them to repeal the NFA, along with many of the other laws designed to disarm the poor, and people of color. And in general getting rid of a lot of the laws that do virtually nothing to affect criminals.
Should there be any laws at all regarding guns and who can have them? Should five-year-olds be allowed to have guns? Should dangerously psychotic people who are regularly institutionalized have guns?
Do you want many gun regulations, some gun regulations or no gun regulations? Because people who want any of those things can and do call themselves “pro-gun.”
Why you and others seem to think “pro-gun is what I believe and not anything else” is beyond me.
If you are over the age of 18 and not mentally adjudicated you should be allowed to purchase guns. If you’re under 18 and “gifted” a gun then just like the child, it’s the parents prerogative to make sure it’s safe. If we trust you to be out of prison then you should be allowed all of your rights back as a citizen (none of this you got a felony you’re never allowed to vote garbage). Outside of that I want very few other restrictions.
What if OP thinks differently? What if they think you shouldn’t have a gun if you’re mentally ill but also believe that 12-year-olds should be allowed to purchase guns?
Does that mean they are not pro-gun or does that mean “pro-gun” is too broad a term?
Removed by mod
Same on all fronts.
In my state you can just walk into a store at 21 and buy a handgun then concealed carry it. You don’t have to prove proficiency, know you to service or maintain it, or even prove you know basic gun safety rules. All you do is bring money and ID, then wait for the waiting period to expire. It is bonkers.
Removed by mod
I want sensible gun laws, but I also want gun laws to make sense.
That means, removing all restrictions on items like suppressors, AR15s, SBRs, etc. But allowing only people that can show they are competent to own them.
Agreed. Especially about suppressors. It’s a safety devise. It will save your ears. Countries like Sweden and Norway even get that aspect, suppressors are encouraged to keep the peace with neighbors and are not regulated like firearms even. Anyone can own one as soon as they can own a gun.
I was shocked at the suppressor cost and process having recently gone through it. I got a suppressor for my .22, I primarily use it when I’m out walking my small dog. I can fire the .22 and it isn’t loud (I was not expecting it to be movie gun quiet but it is) so it is ear protection for both of us, he doesn’t startle, and my neighbors are far enough apart they would never hear it. So next time coyotes see him as food instead of challenge my unarmed willingness to defend my dog I’ll be more prepared.
It’s an expensive, long, and involved process that disadvantages folks with less resources than myself which bothered me.
200 bucks Ain’t bad for the stamp honestly. It’s never been inflation adjusted. But yeah the whole process is a massive waste of time.
Yeah, I guess it’s relative. It didn’t bother me paying for the stamp but I’ve been at points in my life where I had to make sure I could get enough gas to make it to work. Granted a firearm and suppressor wouldn’t be on my radar in those conditions but my mind has a tendency to go that direction whenever I’m exercising what I consider a freedom. In another conversation I’m complaining about $3,500 so far into ortho treatment for one of my sons, with insurance. Not because it put me out but how many families and kids aren’t getting effective care because they’re in a less fortunate place? Sorry, got off topic.
I feel similarly to OP, so ill say imo regullations are fine like Brady Bill or Assault rifle bans, but I dont believe in disarming the proletariat.
Marx said under no circumstances should the proles give up their guns, and I tend to agree.
I feel similarly to OP
I think you’re totally missing my point because my point was that OP hasn’t explained how they felt. “Pro-gun” is virtually meaningless.
I believe guns should be able to abort as many babies as they want to. But I don’t believe in Marijuana. Like, I don’t believe pot exists. It’s a conspiracy theory to make people think a plant could make you lazy or creative. Think about it.
Whenever someone tells me they don’t believe in vaccines, this is exactly how I respond. “Like, you don’t believe they exist? They’re not real?”
Guns aren’t real. Anytime anyone fires a “gun” they are casting magic missile as a cantrip.
"Alakablam!"
He means we should be allowed to use and enjoy guns. Legally.
So without any regulations whatsoever? Anyone can have a gun from age 0 to 100 no matter how psychotic there might be?
Otherwise, I think there needs to be more specification on what “pro-gun” means.
that’s still basically meaningless, you can use guns legally in most countries, even the most restrictive ones.
Marx also wrote extensively on “the Jewish question”, the man should not, nor would he have wanted, to be taken as an orthodoxy of leftist doctrine.
I believe the proletariat can well be armed without anything of the sort of shameful nakedness which governs US gun ownership and responsibility, gun ownership of the proletariat is well possible in many countries that have far more sensible laws regarding firearms than the US.
Marx routinely expected too much from people. The proles do nothing with their guns except execute each other while their government gets away with horrific things and the human race hurtles towards extinction.
It’s time to accept that guns are no better at solving social problems than they are at solving plumbing issues and tech complaints.
Removed by mod
My friends and I joke that the inner-city schools in our city don’t have shootings because the children are armed.
I like guns too. I shot them at a range and I’m pretty good. It’s like a video game where you make you’re breathing right and all that jazz.
If someone asked me if I wanted to fire guns but also children were to die in schools due to unfettered gun access thanks to those rules. I’d say, thanks but no thanks.
No but you don’t understand – fixing the “children die in schools” part would be inconvenient for gun owners. They’d have to do things like “wait longer for a gun” or “prove they know how to handle and store firearms” and ultimately, isn’t that a bigger tragedy than the murder of someone else’s kids?
Yup. If you’re “pro-gun” in the same sense as republicans then you’re pro-death-of-children-and-other-innocent-people
Pfffft just make it a law that keeping your weapons accessible for children equals death by firing squad. Your child is talented with lockpicks? Sucks to be you.
You can have one without the other - where I live the bar for getting a gun and the regulations around them are so high that essentially all guns used in crime are imported illegally from abroad.
Republicans aren’t pro-gun. They’re pro-republicans-with-guns. Maybe pro-straight-white-christians-with-guns.
PSA: modern gun control laws enacted by Republicans to keep guns away from Blacks
I love this dumb as fuck talking point. I know your goal is to suggest “if you support gun control then you’re racist” but you’ve done so little critical thinking about it that you’ve forgotten that it’s the pro-gun community that supports keeping the current, racist laws and the gun control advocates who want to change them.
I don’t know anyone pro gun that wants to keep the current dog shit feel good laws,
Whatever the “people you know” think, it doesn’t change the fact that the current laws were written by pro-gun groups and significant changes to them have been blocked by pro-gun groups. They’ve been in control of those laws for 20 years and they’ve delivered on absolutely none of the things they promised.
But don’t worry, it’s extremely on brand for “responsible gun owners” to deny they’re in any way responsible for guns.
deleted by creator
Most liberals, or most American liberals?
I wish this were true, but it’s not.
I mean, you brought it on yourself. If you live in the U.S owning a gun should be controversial. Ya’ll have proven incapable of using them responsibly.
Here’s the real problem. Guns are basically dangerous tools, and should be treated as such. Instead, they have a cult of personality. I’ve got no problem with people owning knives and hammers, but if some dude has a bunch of pro-knife, and pro-hammer stickers on his car, joins the knife and hammer Association of America, regularly shows up to angrily protest restrictions on where you can carry knives and hammers, walks around with a concealed knife and hammer at the mall because a box or nail could be around any corner… I might start to think that nut job should not be allowed to have a knife or a hammer.
Did you write this? It’s a perfect analogy.
I did physically type it out. I doubt the idea is original, I’m sure I’ve heard similar sentiments elsewhere, but at this time I cannot attribute it to a particular source.
if some dude has a bunch of pro-knife, and pro-hammer stickers on his car, joins the knife and hammer Association of America, regularly shows up to angrily protest restrictions on where you can carry knives and hammers, walks around with a concealed knife and hammer at the mall because a box or nail could be around any corner
That sounds like a really cool person compared to a pro-gun nutter honestly. I’d think that guy is probably an expert satirist
Guns are basically dangerous tools
Tools for what job, again?
The problem with the “guns are tools” categorization is that the only job they’re for is killing
people, or threatening to do so. Unless you’re talking shooting at the range, in which case that’s really more of a toy than a tool.The reasons those protests don’t happen for tools is because they generally serve some other primary function which is useful, and that they’re not nearly as likely to be used accidentally.
Tools for what job, again?
Intimidation and posturing, mostly, which is why they’re attractive to macho fools. Doesn’t mean they’re not useful for that job, though
Uses for a firearm that don’t involve killing people.
Hunting, defense from predators, fire starting, signaling, paper weight, preventing your checked bags from getting lost or tampered…
Never had any of my hunter friends (and there’s a lot of them) hunt with a handgun. Is that even legal?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting
TL;Dr yes, the enthusiasts say it takes more skill, which is true, so fair enough, though I’d argue it’s more likely to just make you miss a killshot and lead to unnecessary suffering.
Just get closer with a rifle if that’s your thing.
Fair enough re: hunting.
You really ran out of steam after defense from predators though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_gun
https://youtu.be/KfqtYfaILHw?si=j7x4TyHmk6kMj5cd
There is a good video of Les Stroud showing how to start a fire with a gun, having trouble finding it.
Those were 6 uses off the top of my head.
If you really want to stretch uses, you can use a gun as a hammer, you can use it to pinch your finger, and in dire situations it can be a dowry.
I got my boy scout badge when I used a gun to start the camping fire. True story.
You think our gun problem is bad?
Wait till you see our cruise missile and killer drone problem.
Removed by mod
100% this - if we had the gun violence Switzerland saw (who has a comparable number of firearms per person as the US) I would be pro gun too.
Instead we’ve got a lethal cocktail of incompetence, entitlement and mental illness where gun owners and firearms industry simps see dead children as the ‘price of freedom’.
It’s fucked.
deleted by creator
I’m not an american and guns are not legal where i live. And i’m sorry but most people in the world are way to daft and angry and should NOT be allowed to be anywhere near a gun.
And no, just because someone with a gun would want to hurt me but then i would have a gun too, is not a valid response. I’m not gonna survive a shootout. I’m not john wick.
I’m not sure you’re correct. If you’re from a European country, chances are you have very good gun laws, and a lot of people in your country own guns. The difference is, you also a have working healthcare system that helps people with psychological problems.
I live in Sweden. Most people would assume there are no guns here, but I can tell you that’s wrong.
I train with them a lot, so if and when I need to, I can safely use them.
Why would anybody assume there were no guns in Sweden? If they were mentally challenged?
Just saying, the guy that wrote that guns aren’t legal in their country.
I am a bit curious where you live. Most places with decent gun control doesn’t outright ban guns, you just have to earn the privilege to own one, and you can’t treat them like toys.
Skill issue.
and should NOT be allowed to be anywhere near a gun.
The only problem with that concept is that it assumes there’s a class of people that know better and are entitled to rule us, but in actuality, political office attracts the worst of us. Why should the worst subset of humans control whether the everyone else is allowed self-defense?
The real problem, is people being stupid enough to believe owning guns is going to protect them from a fascist government. (Hint they won’t)
The only hope is voting against fascists NOW. Once they get control, that gun in your closet ain’t going to save you.
And yet the only BLM protests during the summer that didn’t get blasted with beanbags and pepperballs were the ones where armed protesters stood in front of police. It’s almost like fascists do not relish the thought of taking on armed citizenry.
The real problem, is people being stupid enough to believe owning guns is going to protect them from a fascist government. (Hint they won’t)
The only hope is voting against fascists NOW. Once they get control, that gun in your closet ain’t going to save you.
I have a kind of problem with rhetoric like this, because it implies that shooting and killing fascists is broadly an ineffective tactic, which I do not believe to be the case
Removed by mod
Shooting and killing fascists generally is not effective as a spontaneous demonstration of opposition.
I mean do we have a whole lot of like, examples of this happening as a case of action? I really can’t think of any, I dunno if we’d be able to ascertain it’s efficacy without that.
Removed by mod
The other points are well taken, I wasn’t really thinking so much along those lines. Dunno so much what lines I was thinking along honestly. Probably armed resistance leading up to a fascist government, including armed protest sort of thing, which doesn’t really involve shooting people so much as it does just kinda standing around with a gun so other people don’t get shot most of the time, I think.
Do you have a problem with gravity? I mean it’s going to be the same thing… Especially since most of the gun nuts that believe “they could do something” are going to be cheering the fascist government on while it goes after lbqt, immigrants, non Christians, libtards… And by the time they realize something’s wrong there ain’t going to be jack shit to do about it. (See Nazi Germany in the late 30’s when the population started realizing this shit might not be cool) History repeats…
People overwhelmingly agree that (broadly speaking about the US here) the government isn’t working for us, hasn’t been for a long time, and is infringing on our rights constantly.
So where are all those gun people with their guns given all this government tyranny going on? What are they doing?
And besides, if any gun owner thinks that they wouldn’t be absolutely steamrolled by the military, they’re lying to themselves.
Removed by mod
It’s not just defense against government tyranny. I’m a trans person, I’d like to not feel helpless when attacked and the cops are on the attacker’s side. If I’m gonna die or end up incarcerated, I’m gonna do the community a good one and remove a threat on my way out.
So where are all those gun people with their guns given all this government tyranny going on? What are they doing?
Most people on both sides of the gun debate are the victims of propaganda ensuring most guns are in the hands of those controlling the propaganda.
And besides, if any gun owner thinks that they wouldn’t be absolutely steamrolled by the military, they’re lying to themselves.
Full out war against the state isn’t the only way guns can be useful for self-defense against tyranny. I don’t want my rights taken away because your imagine is small. I agree, a few people w/ AKs are no match against the military.
If I’m gonna die or end up incarcerated, I’m gonna do the community a good one and remove a threat on my way out.
I get that you’re in a social group that is more at risk of attack, and I really wish it wasn’t that way. However, the kind of mindset you’re espousing here is the same justification people use to shoot minorities, or shoot children for walking into their lawns, or to shoot people turning around in their driveways. Too often, people are jumpy, racist, and not mentally equipped to handle guns. There are other things that can be used to defend yourself.
Full out war against the state isn’t the only way guns can be useful for self-defense against tyranny.
Please tell me what other way there is. When fighting the government, there’s no middle ground between a small group attacking targets and all-out war. And all-out war is not the way anyone wants things to go.
There isn’t another way, like almost ALL gun owners they are deluding themselves… Guns aren’t even good for self defense, for the average person. They are like 5 times more likely to kill themselves with it, or accidentally shoot/kill an innocent…
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
A sword is nowhere near as dangerous as a gun, Evan a pistol. A pistol can kill from many feet away, a sword you need to be close. Just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean it should be banned, but when you get to a certain level of danger, such as guns, where you could kill 10 people in a second, then they need to be banned. Even pistols are way to dangerous. Also, swords are highly regulated in some states.
Removed by mod
Then again, an assault rifle can fire roughly ten rounds a second, and you’d have great difficulty stabbing ten people every second with a sword, there is a difference in dangerousness
Removed by mod
I’m not an american and guns are not legal where i live.
What about your police? What about your military? Do they fight with swords and bows and stuff? Actually that sounds pretty cool where do you live I wanna move
Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
- Karl Marx
You don’t have to go particularly far.
Just stop having a hard-on for the cops and suddenly guns regain a lot of their appeal
Sounded good on paper but those workers kept their guns and still gave the government and capitalists everything they wanted without a single shot fired.
All you’re doing is posting a picture of Marx with an example of him being wrong.
Oligarchs discovered that you can achieve more with propaganda. And cheaper.
The rebellious youth got utterly subverted, for example.
(Yes yes, rage on about your gender and haircolor. We’ll just keep running the world and squeezing the underclass)
We could also achieve more without guns but unfortunately some people are content using guns as magic talismans instead.
Thanks, Santa. Very cool.
He does miss from time to time
The only part he missed from this quote was in the context that followed, where he then said to surrender your guns after the revolution, because the proletariat would be armed through the People’s Military (paraphrased, obviously)
Removed by mod
It’s called being Liberal.
No it’s called being a leftist. Liberals are all that but they suck corporate cock, too.
Empowering Corporations restricts the rights and freedoms of individual peoples, so no. Also, in the USA at least, I’ve never met a self-described liberal who supports deregulation or opposes taxation of corporations.
It’s literally the foundation of neoliberalism, my guy.
If you want to draw a line between neoliberalism and liberals, fine, but when you start asking “liberals” for their stances on the distinguishing beliefs not a whole lot of them support going back to the New Deal or even Kennedy era type beliefs on the role of government.
Yeah, I’m telling you that they don’t exist for decades now. Modern day neoliberals call themselves Libertarians. In the 1900s there were self-identified neoliberals who copied the moniker used to describe 1800s thinkers. Nowadays it’s just an insult that tankies use to justify their both-sides bullshit.
With a quick search on multiple search engines I cannot find any modern groups who self-identify as Liberal and also as Neoliberal Laissez-Faire Capitalists. Because deregulation generally opposes liberalism as it stands in today’s politics.
Lol, okay
More or less. The idea of “life, liberty and private property” from og liberalism didn’t specifically mean a right to be alive or have one’s needs met it was more about individually choosing what style of life and career you want. Likewise the ideology of having your personal property always protected as sacrosanct from the government mediation has been pretty good for corporate interest.
That whole “pursuit of Happiness” thing was just Jefferson riffing on John Locke but the sentiment was basically the same. Liberal was hot branding back in the day to mean “generally permissive” but it’s been a hot minute and people have really started to peel back the label.
Free markets come before free people, because collecting rent is the way you get capital growth in a private economy.
Ah, yes, I forgot no political traditions other than liberalism want people to have rights.
Literally the bare definition of the word, lmfao.
For most of the 19th century and most of the 20th one, liberals were divided at best and opposed at worst when it came to positive rights (this is, rights tied to positive freedoms that the state must ensure you have, as opposed to not preventing you from reaching them, such as getting access to social housing even if you’re bankrupt); while left-wing ideologies (save for leninists) were promoting both political and social rights.
Even if you want to refer to contemporary liberals in the current year 2024 (and forget what liberals were doing in 2007), the leaders of political liberalism in the US aren’t keen in creating real public housing options (while the cost of housing skyrockets) or public healthcare options (while medicare eats away the government’s budget (without offering full coverage for everything to everyone) because it’s paying a premium, since it depends on private prices). In Europe, liberals are the ones who promote market economy over social rights, with their only saving grace being that they aren’t as batshit crazy as plenty of parties to their right. If you want to find political camps that defend both political and social rights, you have to look at socialdemocrats and socialists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Present some examples, I’ve never met self-identified liberals who oppose public healthcare or housing. Literally all of the public healthcare and housing options available in the USA were from progressive reform from what the media often refers to as “liberals”. Where are these supposed “Negative Liberty Liberals” that you people keep ranting about? That Stanford paper you brought up uses an example from 70 years ago, when Liberal was a moniker chosen by Laissez-Faire Market and Anti-Tax proponents who today would align with what is referred to as Libertarian.
That Stanford paper you brought up uses an example from 70 years ago,
The Standford paper explains the development of the historical debate of the issue.
when Liberal was a moniker chosen by Laissez-Faire Market and Anti-Tax proponents who today would align with what is referred to as Libertarian.
This framing is proof that you don’t understand where liberalism comes from. What were liberals defending in 1800, in 1850, in 1900, in 1950?
As for the examples you ask for:
Trudeau Liberals vote to allow for-profit health care system, NDP blasts flip-flop
(Article in Spanish) The origins of the healthcare collapse: the cuts of CiU and the tri-party ; Note: Catalan politics have long consisted a competition between liberal, socialdemocratic and left-wing parties, where the liberal ones have always incentivized private companies over public services, with the support of minoritarian Conservative parties.
In Germany, founders of private hospital companies are bankrolling the pro-business party FDP: FDP is the liberal party in Germany (with conservative parties to their right and socialdemocratic, left-leaning and green parties to their left). At the bottom of the article:
There is little doubt that the positions of the FDP on healthcare could be shared by the businessmen who built their fortune on private for-profit clinics. In its electoral platform, the party says: “We reject unequal treatment of private, public and non-profit hospitals operators just as strongly as we reject a planning sovereignty of the health insurance funds for health care structures”. That means that the FDP thinks that private hospitals should, for example, get the same amount of public investment than public and non-profit hospitals.
Which is ultimately a form of corrupting the basis of a public healthcare system, making people think they will receive worse care if they won’t pay for private services and pushing the public system towards its collapse.
Present some examples, I’ve never met self-identified liberals who oppose public healthcare or housing
Yeah, no shit? The average voter in the US doesn’t understand the difference between liberalism, socialdemocracy and socialism, so they’ll call themselves liberals even if they don’t understand the nuances of the term, while the average Democratic politician understands that they shouldn’t express opposition to public policies that poll well with voters, even if they certainly don’t intend to promote them. Because they barely have any politicians competing against them from their left, they aren’t exposed not defending an actual public option.
Your ass in here making me study Canadian Politics all of a sudden, but fine I’m game. Two things:
-
The Liberal Party of Canada is the oldest party of Canada founded in 1867, their name by now has absolutely zero bearing on the definition of the words. That said, Trudeau is more unpopular with Canadians with each passing day, clearly not aligned with his constituents. The conservative proposal by Doug Jones was discussed by Liberal Party members in September as something they oppose.
-
I literally cannot find that vote that NDP talks about in the current session of the 44th Parliament of Canada, not saying I don’t believe you, but I cannot actually find out more about it because none of the articles actually mention the name of the Bill. I did, however, find information about the Pharmacare Act C-64 which will potentially make medications for Diabetes as well as contraceptives free for all citizens and funded by the public entity. So, I guess you have the “fake” liberals to thank for it.
-
Social democrats are a type of liberal, but otherwise nice breakdown.
Removed by mod
I’m pro-do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want-as-long-as-it-doesnt-harm-or-negatively-affect-anyone-else
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I’m so far left that I got my guns back 🙂
The only sticking point is the guns.
I joined up with liberalgunowners on that other site for a while, thinking I might find kindred souls that were pro-shooting sports, but understood that the way we handled gun ownership in this country had some problems.
Nope.
They were just as devoid of nuance and reason when it came to gun ownership as the conservatives. They figured slapping a rainbow or a “no step on snek” patch on their molle tacticool gear was good enough, but thoughts and prayers if a gay nightclub got shot up.
So yeah, I think guns are fun and have a place in hunting and other sports. But not like what we’ve got now.
Yeah I’m a gun enthusiast. I really like the laws the way they are now as they relate to me. So I get it. But how many mass shootings do we need before we admit there’s a problem right now? Maybe far in the future we can consider relaxing some of the regulations again. But right now, something about the current social situation is basically creating domestic terrorists. We need to start locking things down until it stops.
Personally, I’m going to need at least 10,000 kindergarteners gun down in their class room before I’ll consider changing our sacred god given gun laws.
Jesus wouldn’t want it any other way, as specified in Arms 3:16-108 in the Bible.
Removed by mod
Oh it’s piss easy to get a Gun in Canada… You just have drive down to the States.
Seriously though around 70 percent of guns used in criminal activities up here are traced back to sources in the States and were never legally imported, purchased or even stolen from homes inside Canada. When people point at us and say “Gun control doesn’t work see!?” it’s in part because gun trash bleeds over boarders.
I have a sense that you know all this, but, just wanted to chime in- the system in Canada where you have to take a course and pass a screening is costly & a pain in the ass. Bottom line, legally, it’s neither fast nor easy to get a firearm in Canada, and on top of that, the RCMP can deny any application that they see fit. But ultimately, I think the existing licensing system is a reasonable management of risks, and overall a good thing.
Unfortunately, gun control here is a wedge issue, and political points are easily scored by banning / confiscating guns from legal owners, who, as you mention, were never the problem in the first place. Actually fixing the gun crime issue here would be difficult, costly, and an optics minefield.
IMO, the penalties for being found with an illegal firearm or using a firearm to commit a crime should be much more severe. Surely people of all political stripes could get behind that? But, no. We’re in a situation where, on the left, any policy that doesn’t include a sweeping ban is criticized as unacceptable and weak. It sucks, because it means that the actual problem affecting citizens goes unsolved, and nobody seems to care.
There’s a comedian that pointed out this is why conservative groups garner so much support.
“Do you oppose abortion?” “No.” “Do you hate the gays?” “No.” “Do you think illegal immigrants should be shot?” “Yeah.” “Well, COME ON DOWN!”
Meanwhile, liberal groups after asking about 18 issues: “Are you vegan?” “No.” “Well, I BET you voted for TRUMP!!”
I miss when we could find common ground in politics.
Meanwhile, liberal groups after asking about 18 issues: “Are you vegan?” “No.” “Well, I BET you voted for TRUMP!!”
No shortage of carnivore liberals.
But I’ll never understand why declining to eat meat upsets people so much.
I don’t give a fuck if you don’t eat meat up until you start giving me shit for eating meat.
The argument is always for the greater good and from a position of superiority. That’s just authoritarianism from a different angle.
up until you start giving me shit
I’ve seen a conga line of Joe Rogan heads insisting there is an underground anti-meat campaign to target and harass carnivores, nationally.
However, I was eating bbq down in Texas just this weekend, completely unmolested.
The argument is always for the greater good and from a position of superiority.
Sure. Because we produce (and then waste) enormous amounts of meat. And the production of meat consumes an enormous amount of arable land and potable water. And we absolutely would be much better off - from a climate change perspective - if we weren’t growing almonds to feed to cows to feed the choicest bits of to people.
Vegans have us all dead to rights, logically and ecologically.
But they’re a tiny minority working against the capitalist drive, and also they’re soy and gay.
Mostly they’re the whipping kids of an industry that does unfathomable cruelty and waste and then feels the need to complain about how they’re the victims.
That’s just authoritarianism
Go look up the time Oprah Winfrey was forced to apologize to the Texas Cattle Ranchers Association because she mentioned a burger gave her food poisoning.
Right wing objections are different topic. I was speaking as a liberal/leftist and their feelings towards vegans.
Veganism has its own propaganda. The claims that it is better are always cherry picked to prove the point. I am not interested in arguing with what is essentially a religious movement.
Your mention of Oprah apologizing isn’t authoritarianism. It’s capitalism. The force was monetary.
Veganism will happily pass laws to enforce their belief that meat eating is evil.
The meat industry will happily pass laws to protect their profits.
These are not the same at all.
Veganism has its own propaganda. The claims that it is better are always cherry picked to prove the point. I am not interested in arguing with what is essentially a religious movement.
Right, so here’s where the conversation really breaks down. There’s some really basic math that goes into why - up until very recently in human history and a very agriculturally rich area like the territory over the Ogallala Aquifer - you couldn’t get a pound of rib eye for $5. Raw material consumption to produce a pound of beef is orders of magnitude above production of wheat or corn or rice.
That’s not an article of religious dogma or a cherry picked factoid. That’s a hard truth anyone in the cattle industry can tell you. You’re not driving hundreds of thousands of head of cattle through Southern France or Ukraine’s black earth or the central desert of Australia. The industry only works because of an artifact of geography that is the central plains. And we get to produce these enormous surpluses for a limited time, as we cannibalize the territory with an invasive disease-spreader replacement to the native species.
How quickly we move through our available surplus is predicated on how aggressively we farm cattle. And thanks to our capitalist growth model, we’re going through it at a breakneck pace. All the moreso because of state subsidies fueled by kickbacks and corrupt business practices.
Your mention of Oprah apologizing isn’t authoritarianism. It’s capitalism. The force was monetary.
It wasn’t just monetary. The terms of the settlement required Oprah to apologize on air. What’s more, there is always an implied threat of violence behind a monetary penalty. Try not paying a fine or a debt and see what happens next. Repo men routinely pack heat.
The meat industry will happily pass laws to protect their profits.
Which is also authoritarian.
K.
shrug
i think most liberals hate vegans but still applies
My carnivore friends are massively more evangelical than my vegan friends. Just my experience I guess.
It’s an edgelord thing, it transcends ideology
I’m pro using torts to make everyone in the chain of a gun tragedy pay for their externalities. Didn’t secure your gun and got it negligently stolen and someone was killed? That’ll be bankruptcy. Marketed something you knew would kill someone unlawfully? Good luck staying in business friend.
It’d be interesting if folks had to pay for the real cost of gun ownership.
Don’t stop at money. Where are all the gun owners offering to mop up the blood after Ulvade?
In fact, fuck it. There’s people out there who want to kill children. There are pro-gun people with children. They can offer their own children up to these fucking psychopaths, rather than gambling that it’ll be other people’s kids.
Removed by mod
Non profit of course.
Removed by mod
