Read Liberal contradictions explained by Liberals here

It's also ironic how the party of anti-white support one of the whitest countries in Europe.

There is no "party of anti-white"

Don't be coy. You understand the unspoken reference of the comment - caucasian blaming and shaming for all the ills and disparities of society which is voiced, largely, by supporters of democrat ideologies.

In fact no communist or fascist in history has supported free speech or right to bear arms for its citizens. That’s how you can tell the commies and fascists from Americans who have fought and defeated both before and will again.

Doesn’t change the fact that no fascist or commie I. History ever supported the rights Americans are granted in the first and second amendment to the US Constitution.if you believe I. Those two you aren’t a commie or a fascist. You are an American.

Lolwut

Wanting things like background checks, 5 day wait periods, and mandatory safe storage are not unreasonable requests. There are ways in which you can keep your guns without having to deal with massacres every minute.

Are we doing that for the Ukrainians we're sending ASSAULT RIFLES (😮) to?

Address why you're okay with sending a foreign nation guns to maintain their freedo but not ok with people in your own country having them for exactly the same reason.

Are you currently at war with a hostile foreign power? No? Then shut up.

Don't be rude.

Who would send Americans guns if we needed them to defend our freedom?

Are they going to do background checks and demand return of the guns (assault rifles) when their conflict resolves?

My brother in christ, there are people in this country who need their freedoms defended right now who agree that these are good measures to have. If you're a responsible gun owner and live in one of the many states where anti-abortion and anti-trans bills are being passed, you should be out there showing your solidarity.

The people in this country who need guns the least somehow think they're entitled to them the most, and that's why we have so many mass shootings.

That doesn't answer the Ukrainian question.

If you don't have an answer to that, just say you haven't considered the contradiction and haven't formed an opinion on it yet.

We are all aware that you and like minded others are against people owning guns.

Why are you not against sending Ukrainians guns since you see what can be done when just anybody can have one?

After their conflict is resolved they will still possess assault rifles. Why do you think they won't starting hooting up schools, Russian Orthodox churches, etc.?

Also, you didn't say who would send Americans guns if we needed them to defend our freedom. Even though the liberal consensus is we shouldn't fight because we would just lose.

So I ask again, who do you think would send us weapons?

I’m afraid criminals don’t follow gun laws all that does is make it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend himself vs thos criminals

And besides we already go through background checks

I'm not necessarily against Americans having guns but there's definitely a problem here that seems like it might be getting worse.

There is an fbi chart that will tell you how many people were injured and how many were killed at each mass shooting.

I believe they say mass shooting because they don't consider it a mass killing unless at least, I can't remember, either 3 or 4 people are killed.

Not that it's something to cheer about but relatively few people are killed as a result of mass shootings for the most part.

All I can say to the people who insist being armed isn't the answer is - neither hiding nor running and screaming has proven effective forms of defense.

The shooters are damaged goods. They didn't get a gun and figure out something to do with it, they thought of killing others and then thought of a way to do it, at some point deciding on using a gun as the tool.

If mass shootings and mass killings are both increasing disproportionately to the rate of population increase idk if that distinction really matters.

My point is that it seems to be getting worse. You can name just about any type of public place and there's a good chance there has been a shooting at one if not a mass shooting or mass killing... church, movie theater, dentist, cemetery, gay nightclub, ice cream shop, preschool, Wal-Mart, and so on...

And sure, they're crazy and a gun is a tool.... But a gun isn't exactly a hammer. A child can somewhat easily kill adults with a gun.

Opioids kill more people than are shot with guns and they're almost impossible to get.

How do you suppose vast numbers of people are getting the drug in sufficient quantities to overdose and die?

Tbh I have considerably less sympathy for drug addicts overdosing on fentanyl, heroin, and whatever other opioids than for gunshot victims. They chose to inject it or otherwise put it into their body and it's not exactly a secret that death is a possibility every time you do it.

As far as the "how" (and assuming you mean fentanyl) , my basic understanding is that China etc sells the precursor chemicals to various cartels in Mexico where they cook/manufacture it. Then Americans smuggle it into America through legal points of entry along the border, where they might have an agent or multiple agents in the cartel's pocket ... who are paid to look the other way on certain vehicles and focus on catching other ones (rival cartels or people not associated ).

In a nutshell - it is obtained illegally?

Sure. So why have laws?

No, not why have laws.

Laws exist to deter the average person from doing effed up stuff.

If doing effed up stuff wasn't a trait of human nature we wouldn't need laws.

My point being that planning to murder people demonstrates a lack of regard for the law.

Laws become meaningless.

Take away guns, they will get them illegally.

Remove all guns from existence then they will use the hammer.

But that leaves me having to use my hammer for defense instead of being able to defend myself before I am in arms reach.

Less than ideal situation for me.

"Laws exist to deter the average person from doing effed up stuff."

Ok maybe I'm wrong but it seems like guns are far easier for the "average person to do effed up stuff" than getting involved in the manufacture and distribution of fentanyl.

Again I'm not necessarily against Americans owning guns, I just think there is a problem. Trying to equate our situation here with the warzone in Ukraine is not exactly legit but it IS getting a little cowboy / wild west out here.

Not comparing guns vs fentanyl, simply stating that people obtaining illegal products happens daily in large volumes.

Laws are meaningless to someone intent in breaking the law

The law exists to punish acts, not prevent them.

Similarly, the police do not prevent crime, they react to crime after it occurs.

Oh, is this some "The Second Amendment is to protect us from da Gubbamint! nonsense?

Can you find a time in US History when a militia successfully resisted the United States?

Actually, let's extend it back to the Articles of Confederation and not just limit it to the era of the Constitution.

Is there an example of a militia ever successfully resisting the US?

LIBERAL CONTRADICTION EXPLANATION

The contradiction is not changed by your question.

I cannot think of a single incident that a societal issue was resolved by armed conflict between citizens and the government in modern times.

But there have been times people put up a fight for a legitimate cause, much like standing up to a bully.

The mine wars of West Virginia comes to mind.

Armed conflict with US forces during the mine wars, for example, did not succeed directly by the exchange of gun fire but demonstrated the resolve of the miners to unionize (a WOMAN was a pro union LEADER in the early 1900's !!!), safe working conditions, fair pay, fair treatment, standing up against powerful corporations that used hired henchmen, law enforcement to murder and harass workers with impunity.

Workers suffered more than one massacre that included their women and children at the hands of coal operators who eventually called in the US Army to wage war on workers, once again massacred.

But eventually the armed resistance led to the realization of their goals.

What do you think the outcome would have been if they had not had their guns? That of the serfs of old Britain?

The mine wars cover all the liberal talking points. I believe the government at the time was even conservative led 😮 !

By all rights you should be championing the working class fighting for their piece of the capitalist pie.

I am in no way recommending picking a fight with Uncle Sam but you have the absolute right to defend yourself against tyranny....even if you ain't Ukrainian, eh.

Let me establish some bona fides. I was a union steward (I worked for a telecom who's logo looks like the Death Star). I was part of the contract negotiation team for my region. I've stood on picket lines.

So...I'm very pro union.

Your example of the conflicts in West Virginia are pretty common for not just mining but that era of the labor movement. Read up about the Ludlow massacre in Colorado. It happened at the same time. With the same results. It was a massacre.

The pattern goes like this: workers get sick of the terrible working conditions and crap pay. They unionize and attempt to negotiate with the company. The company says f**k you. The union goes on strike. The company brings in strike breakers.

These are specific companies like the Pinkertons who specialize in violence. They try to break the strike using clubs and fists to beat the strikers into submission.

The strikers fight back.

The company petitions the government for help with "these violent thugs." The government sends in troops.

Then someone supplies the strikers with guns.

It doesn't matter if the strikers shoot first or the government does. It ends the same way.

The workers died. Their families died.

The press covers the company and governments actions, and public opinion changes. The public then pressures the government and company to deal with the union fairly.

You don't need to die with a gun in your hand to successfully negotiate with a company. There are far more examples of successful labor negotiations (including strikes) that don't involve guns than there are ones with guns.

You just need to threaten the capitalists revenue flow and have the public side with you.

Even in your own example, which you acknowledge, is the guns don't result in a change. The US Government still put down the militia. People died. But once the public found out how the miners were being treated, things changed.

What resulted in a successful labor dispute was the change in public opinion. That "realization of goals" you talk about.

Because once guns are on the scene, someone is going to die.

No militia has successfully resisted the US Army. They've all been smashed. People died.

This idea that you have guns to defend yourself against the government is a myth. A fallacy.

And if you think, "oh, today will be different!!" You have only to look at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the militia that seized it.

They got smashed and someone still died.

The labor conflict was merely part of the example that there have been times people have defended themselves against their own government and guns were the catalyst to change.

I been a union brother. I know a thing or two about labor disputes, strikes, picket lines, scabs, and fat cat union reps fraternizing with company reps on my dues. If it ain't one pickpocket it's another.

Also, ain't never been a time hillbillies ain't had guns. No one supplied them - they used their own.

But nevermind all that -

Using your reply, explain:

Why do you believe Ukraine would not be "smashed" and "people die" when they got guns ?

Do they not just need to change public opinion ?

Why do you think today will be any different?

Can you point to the part where I explained anything?

I asked 3 questions.

Can you point to the part where those questions are actually statements?

Also, while you're there, can you answer those questions?

Oh, is this some "The Second Amendment is to protect us from da Gubbamint! nonsense?

I get it.

It's hard having to confront a deeply held belief.

Go and read about the historical context of the Amendment. James Madison hated the idea of a standing professional army that answered to a centralized federal government. He liked the militia system in a decentralized government. Like the one that existed under the Articles of Confederation.

Madison argues in the federalist papers that the states should be responsible for organizing militias to repel invasion forces, and the government shouldn't have a standing professional army.

Despite his own experiences showing that militias don't work. (there's a reason we no longer use the Articles of Confederation as a governing document.)

Madison was tasked with writing the 2nd Amendment as a compromise to get him and his supporters to sign on. That way the country would have the standing army Washington wanted and the militia defense system Madison wanted.

Your own example about the armed miners shows that it never works.

The 2nd Amendment was a compromise on national defense and not a "safety measure against a tyrannical government."

It was the catalyst of change.

The mine wars example was not to illustrate success. It was used to highlight a time that the people felt compelled to defend themselves and their freedoms against perceived tyranny on part of the government.

Are you saying that armed civilians have never been successful at defeating their own tyrannical government?

Yes, afghan militias successfully resisted. Vietnamese insurgent militias also eventually successfully resisted.

The Viet Cong was not a militia. It was a guerilla and regular army supported by the NVA.

You should do some reading about the conflict rather than depending on hazy memories of watching Tour of Duty episodes.

And are you claiming the Taliban was a militia?

What was the Taliban fighter's proper designation?

Until we overthrew it, a government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan_(1996%E2%80%932001)

Of what country?

Also, how can a fighter be designated a government? Please explain.

"Government" or not, the Taliban were running Afghanistan before we removed them from power and they're running it now. Maybe they'll get the opium production back down. Somewhat interesting that the Taliban had banned it right before we showed up.

Invading Afghanistan led to opioid epidemic?

A war on terrorists results in withdrawal and the terrorists resume governing Afghanistan as though nothing happened?

China enters competition by producing knock off heroin - cheap, dollar store fentanyl?

Fentanyl is assembled in Mexico from Chinese components?

US government is allowing masses of illegal immigrants to cross the border knowing many are carrying fentanyl into the country for distribution and use?

China and Russia form coalition to challenge the US dollar?

NATO proxy war in Ukraine?

China said long ago they could conquer the USA without firing a single bullet.

Covid, fentanyl, Petro yen, TikTok....

Did I just outline a conspiracy?

Where did I put my tin foil hat?

No, it's actually true. The Taliban was effective in suppressing opium production. Brutal, sure. Probably in the war crimes area, yeah. But they were good at suppressing that illegal trade.

you can read about it here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47861444

I am 100% positive you are correct regarding the Taliban and opium.

"Invading Afghanistan led to opioid epidemic?"

Prescription pills like oxycodone and oxycontin led to the opioid epidemic... I just think this is interesting timing.

When we invaded Afghanistan, who do you think was running it?

Like, who was in charge?

It was the Taliban.

The Taliban is a common use name for a political movement made up of several groups inside of Afghanistan. It's literally a political party like The Republicans in the US, Les Républicains in France, or The Torys in the UK.

So, a Taliban fighter is a soldier in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan army.

Taliban militia, or Taliban guerillas, or Taliban rebels, or Taliban insurgents, or, or, or, are scattered all over the world. I dispute none of what you have just said. Yet, guerillas and militia (not state national guard) are the same thing for all intents and purposes. That is the opinion I hold.

You should stop pretending your an authority on anything. Especially considering how often you are wrong. The VC were organized as regional cadres or militias they were not a standing army as the South Vietnamese army was allied with the US. They were insurgents or guerillas as you say and they are traditionally organized as militias by whatever name you choose.

Same with the Taliban, they are organized as citizen soldiers or tribal groupings or colloquially “militia”.

Well said. It always amazes me when 1st Amendment hating leftists begin lecturing conservatives on the realities of warfare and guerrilla operations. It's also always rather . . . sad.

I asked this person for the official designation of Taliban fighters.

1 - let's see if I get an answer or just more of the "shut up" or "get your head out of your ass" comments. "Tour of duty episodes" - is that even a thing?

2 - if I do get an answer, let's see what it is

3- guerilla fighters and non governmental militia are the same thing.

1) I just gave you one.
2) Tour of Duty was the TV series version of Platoon.
3) You have one. The Taliban was the short-hand name for the Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan. The government until we overthrew it.
4) no they aren't. Just because you don't understand the difference between guerilla war and a militia doesn't mean there is a difference.

Because by your definition, the US Special Forces is a militia. Because their primary mission is... guerilla warfare. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/specialty-careers/special-ops/special-forces.html

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

HISTORICAL
(in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.

guer·ril·la
/ɡəˈrilə/
noun
noun: guerilla
a member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces.

Similar:
freedom fighter
underground fighter
irregular soldier
irregular
resistance fighter
member of the resistance
partisan
rebel
radical
revolutionary
revolutionist
terrorist
referring to actions or activities performed in an impromptu way, often without authorization.
adjective: guerrilla

Are there militias comprised of civilian fighters? Yes.
Do some militias engage in guerilla warfare? Yes.

Are there armies comprised of professional soldiers? Yes.
Do some armies engage in guerilla warfare? Also, yes.

Guerilla warfare has been used by both conscript and professional armies for centuries.

There have been, there currently are, and there will be professional soldiers who are trained in and conduct guerilla warfare.

Just because you didn't know or understand that doesn't mean it isn't real.

And there are guerilla fighters engaged in guerilla warfare.

If I said Sandinista guerrillas am I saying "Sandinista warfares" or am I saying "Sandinista fighters"?

You're arguing semantics.

Just because you don't know or understand that doesn't mean it isn't true. 😄

Let's start by defining a militia:

Dictionary.com offers a very concise definition: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

A simple google search for Militia gives this: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

Both agree that a militia is a civilian force separate and distinct from a professional army.

How do we define army?

A google search: the branch of a nation's armed services that conducts military operations on land.

Dictionary.com: the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.

Both agree that an army is the military arm of a government that focuses on land warfare.

Professionals who are equipped and trained by a body representing itself as a government.

While we're on dictionary.com, what does it say about the Viet Cong?
a Communist-led army and guerrilla force in South Vietnam that fought its government and was supported by North Vietnam.

They define them as an army? Why would they choose that instead of militia?

Let's go find out more: cross referencing across sources like BBC, the Museum of the United States Army, and other sources....

Viet Cong was a derisive term applied to militias in the 40s during the uprising against the French.

Well, that's interesting. Being referred to as a militia. Seems like a wrap, right? The dictionary AND whistlelock are wrong.

I wonder what happens if we keep reading?

Oh, in 1950, after the treaties are signed and North Vietnam and South Vietnam become official countries. But what about those militias? Well,they become the National Liberation Front.

A professional army trained and equipped by North Vietnam to overthrow the US backed South Vietnam government. They had guerilla and 'regular' units.

They weren't a bunch of civilians with guns. They were professional soldiers.

When did the US enter the Vietnam conflict? 1965.

By the time we enter the conflict, the Viet Cong was a professional army under the direction of North Vietnam (an actual country). A few years after our entry, they are the military of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG).

You can train a militia and call it an army, but the VC were insurgents as opposed the the South Vietnamese army who were the official army of South Vietnam. The fact North Vietnam had regular forces and trained the VC means nothing more than that. They supported and trained the South Vietnamese insurgents who were militias comprised of the citizens in revolt.

I get that it's hard to let go of what popular culture says about the Vietnam war.

I understand that.

But the truth is that the Viet Cong was a trained army with decades of direct experience fighting guerilla and regular combat.

A bunch of farmers with guns didn't conduct the Tet Offensive.

They may not fit into your concept of what a trained army looks and acts like, but they were a trained army none the less.

I will agree that militia can be trained and called an army. Their origin and status is a militia. Be it an army of militia, it was armed citizens of their state in insurgency fighting against traditional enlisted state armies. Some militia are better trained than others depending on their combat experience. The point is it fits with comparatively lightly armed militia defeating traditional armies without ever winning a single battle yet winning the war.