Lefty/k/

this gun is better

Attached: 9.jpg (852x480, 16.24K)

Yo, my peeps.
Disagree with you on the hunting rifle part. It's better to get one you can convert to auto through some simple machining. So semi-auto and a common caliber like 223 308 9mm (maybe 22lr, but for survivalist senarios probably).

Attached: kim bros.jpg (1800x1200, 320.81K)

Implemented extremely restrictive gun laws. Only armed his most die hard and trusted followers, while the average Chang peasant could not bear arms.
Has extremely restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile Hitler massively loosened gun laws for the vast majority of German citizens from the highly restrictive ones passed by socdems (who are still considered on the leftist axis by virtually every political scientist).

Yeah we want guns in the hands of the proletariat, we only support loose gun laws under capitalism because it benefits the working class

I wanna hear more about these drones and tactics and shit sounds cool af

Albania adopted a Swiss style militia system where everybody had a rifle in their home.

Albania is the model of gun "control" that every Socialist party and country should follow.
Free guns, free healthcare, and free college. We should call for these things. The liberals will have nothing if we take gun rights away from them and make it our own policy. We must steal their only source of power - the promise of personal security.

Attached: hoxha gun.jpg (1968x1965, 184.62K)

There is a literal BOARD for this subject
>>>/leftyk/

Shame by far and large leftist regimes don't do the same.

Do you have a link to Albanian laws?
The left actively supports gun laws there: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Swiss_gun_control_initiative#Initiative

Moral of the story? Never trust a leftist to safeguard your rights. In pretty much every nation, you'll find that the pro-gun side is on the right because the right to bear arms is a NEGATIVE liberty which has been by far and large in the domain of the right, while positive "liberty" has been on the left. Even in very anti-gun nations like the UK, the only party for unbanning handguns and semi autos is UKIP.

bump

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (250x229, 65.95K)

Any suggestions for comrades in no guns countries?

SocDem's are not leftist by any objective metric. They are considered "leftist" by liberal "political scientists" because to them socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more it does stuff, the more socialist it is. By the metric liberals label SocDems "left-wing", Hitler is left-wing.

What?
rupe-india.org/59/han.html
Given we don't have any translated Communist Albanian law books, I can't give you the exact law. However, I first hand accounts and video Albanians training at a local gun range in their village. Note Albania has always historically had lax gun laws due to feuds, and it would make no sense in their particular situation (even if you believe they were ebil gun-grabbing commies) to go to every village and take the guns.
archive.org/details/AlbaniaDefiant/page/n1
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_z48do7NQ
Literally none of these are communist, with most being SocDem. If these are "left", Hitler is literally left.
Negative "liberties" don't exist, all "liberties" are positive liberties because in reality all "rights" are only provided to the extent the ruling body allows. Negative liberties are made up idealistic nonsense, as are any form of "natural right". All things function on the basis of power and violence and allowable application of such, and the idea of negative liberties ever existing anywhere is made up liberal garbage.
A joke even among right-wing parties

That's what the MSM says and it's bullshit. Take a look at history and you'll see that most gun control laws are introduced by right wing parties. In the USA, Ronald Reagan introduced more gun control laws than anyone else.

The Nazis intridoced gun control. In Australia, the right wing party introduced gun control.

There is no history of left wing parties introducing gun control.

Attached: 1C0EA20D-3249-4C73-AF28-CE15FFC2C69A.png (370x388, 153.37K)

His argument against this earlier here is that because Hitler lossened gun laws on the majority populace (at least those that supported him) and not undesirables and political enemies, he technically unrestricted the gun laws in Germany.
Eh, let's be honest in discussion here. Communist parties have introduced "gun control" measures, but generally against their political enemies (as literally every ideology and state in war has) and in situations dealing with capitalist countries financing largely unidentifiable terror cells within their countries that forced action. Note that most situations like this were responses to.

He'll probably try to point out again like he did in threads before that at least Hitler targeted only the minorities, but this is comparing a situation of (usually) easily identifiable minority groups to countries where no such "luxury" was afforded to them. His political enemy point also defends the USSR ironically enough.

Gun laws and regulation is not the same thing as banning.
Canada has gun control and nearly the same amount of guns per capita as the USA, but far lower gun deaths because they're not trigger-happy idiots who think "guns'rfun' and treat a weapon as a toy like you burgers do. You sound like that retard from the Sailor Moon thread last year who got BTFO on this "muh leftists taking guns" shit.

...

Yup and the, look at the NRA now

Well majority of the NRA are right wingers.
That's why SRA exists.

Yes they are. You're an armchair leftist on an imageboard arguing otherwise. While socdems are not for the complete abolishment of capitalism, they are considered center-left on the axis.
Pro-tip: modern day "liberals" have almost nothing in common with classical liberals. These people hold very left wing views on social issues.

snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

No, the average Chinese peasant could not own guns. Militia duty in which arms are kept in an armory is not the same as private gun ownership.

Again, your link says nothing about Albania's actual gun laws. Wiki says this:

Let's give you Albania for this argument though. You've literally provided one example. This is classic NAXALT where you ignore a trend and focus on an outlier.

Communism isn't the only leftist ideology for fucks sake. Your argument is equivalent to me stating that the only real right wing parties are ones that explictly advocate for fascism. This is lunacy. Once again, center-left parties are on the leftist axis but are closer to the center than other leftist ideologies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics

Lmao. The conditions for positive """""""liberty""""""" are impossible.

Free will does not exist. Brain studies have already proven that you reach a decision subconsciously seconds before you consciously make it. It's reached the point where scientists can predict certain choices you'll take before you are aware of them.

This is impossible. Part of being human is being limited by internal constraints, you will never be "free" of internal constraints.

So you end up with two impossible criteria. At best this leads to a massive coddled nanny state, and at worst it leads to absolute tyranny. Positive "liberty" is unironic shit like "freedom from discrimination" by banning certain speech and arresting people over tweets. If that's what freedom entails to you, fuck that shit. I'm glad America focusses far more on negative liberty than Europe whose primary focus has been on positive. You could argue that this leads to a more dangerous society in the US, yet at the end of the day not a single developed nation has the degree of negative liberty the US has. One of that includes the freedom to bear arms (except some states.)

As Helvetius said; it's not a lack of freedom not to swim like a whale or fly like an eagle. To give an extreme scenario, I'd rather take my chances in Somalia than North Korea any fucking day.

Doesn't matter. The progun party in Germany is the AfD, FPO in Austria, FN in France, SVP in Switzerland, Conservatives in Canada, Salvini's party in Italy, etc.

See a trend? Or are you going to pull an outlier again?

Nobody gives a fuck about fudd DURR hunting shit faggot. You're limited to five rounds in Canada, and handguns and certain semi autos are registered requiring permission every time you want to take one to the range.

Even then, gun laws just became stricter in Canada recently. If we had a Canadian mentality towards guns here we would have next to no rights at all.

Learn to gunsmith? These Phillipinos can make a semi auto pistol from scrap metal in about a week.

philippineinquirer.blogspot.com/2012/07/philippine-gunmakers-take-aim-to-big.html?m=1

m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOndtUcRXdU

Attached: 2012-07-29T035056Z_1_CDEE86S0AP600_RTROPTP_2_PHILIPPINES-GUNS.JPG (450x300, 29.87K)

Google Plus Facebook Twitter Pinterest YouTube Email OTGN
Off The Grid News
Privacy | Financial | Current Events | Self Defense | Miscellaneous | Letters To Editor | About Off The Grid News | Off The Grid Videos | Weekly Radio Show
The Most Reliable Semi-Automatic Rifle You Can Buy?

Written by: Zach Dunn Self Defense 15 CommentsPrint This Article Print This Article
Image source: wikimedia

Image source: wikimedia

I remember the day I first saw her. There I was in a large crowd amongst merchants peddling me the latest and greatest inventions and innovations, and that’s when I saw her. She was rather plain, almost homely in appearance, but I had fallen head over heels. And I left that day with her in my arms. Truth be told, I had arrived at the gun show in pursuit of a Colt AR-15, and left with my Ugly Duckling. A Romanian parts kit built AK-47.

Since that day, almost 10 years ago, I have never stopped using the AK platform rifle. I have fired thousands upon thousands of rounds, purposely tortured rifles, and compared them to just about everything else on the market. There is no other long arm I would ever want to carry during the apocalypse.

After thousands of rounds, none of my AK platform rifles have suffered a failure to feed, jam or even a misfire. That just doesn’t happen with an AR-15. Yes, accuracy is in the hands of an AR platform firearm, but reliability goes to the AK. To be honest, accuracy is not bad at all. It is not nearly the “Communist Blunderbuss” that many shooters crack it up to be. I can easily achieve 1-3 inch groups at 100 yards, and 3-4 inches at 200 yards. Perfectly able to bring down deer-sized game.

offthegridnews.com/self-defense/the-most-reliable-semi-automatic-rifle-you-can-buy/

No they aren't. They're petty liberals at best and centrists objectively.
Yep because classical liberals like Adam Smith were against shit like Landlords.
that's still your brain making a decision, subconscious or not. Your subconscious is not a separate identity from you.
That's because people don't exist in a bubble. It's why people in the USA can be radically different if you compare, say, California residents to Maine residents.

Nice of you to actually do little research yourself past posting the same snopes article we've used before. IF you actually bothered to research the SAPA of 1957 you'd learn that prior to that Act there existed no comprehensive criminal justice code and therefore no way to control and properly punish crime. The reason weapons were collected was because of the freshly removed presence of the Chinese Nationalists who still had supported in China and who were not averse to violent acts of subterfuge and underminement. The USA did the same thing after the Revolutionary war was over to make sure there wasn't any cracks in the unity of the nation, with the repression of things like the Shays and Whiskey rebellions. These acts technically violated rights but were adopted precisely because without that the British would have easily just waited and attacked the split states, just like they tried in 1812.
The entire point is that while they may call themselves leftists their 'leftism' isn't actually particularly leftist.
One that you nit-picked to 'disprove'
Because, besides hunting rifles and shot-guns there is no point in owning separate weapons for war when they'll be handed out. And personal weapons, even an AK aren't going to do shit against an actual military force. The average team of marines would do circles around any group of civilian gun enthusiasts. A IIIA Kevlar vest is doing jackshit against a military M4A4 round from 200m, let alone a machine gun. So then what's the issue? Albania and the Warsaw Pact nations allowed hunting rifles and shotguns and other such weapons for personal purchase, and all people were trained to handle even AKs as schoolkids. 2 years military service also taught them how the military functioned and definitely a basic idea of military power and ability. Thus they are far more prepared than an american civilian who shoots deer and targets at a range. Just owning guns that are military level because you want to is a childish and feels level argument. A man doesn't need an automatic assault rifle to defend themselves from burglars or go hunting. And that same assault rifle isn't worth jack against an organized military force so the whole "arming people to overthrow guvment" also fails. The only way that would work is with a voluntary peoples militia, and that already makes it no longer wholly a personal ownership of a gun since its for a higher service.

Don't remember seeing that but lets just roll with that. The Canadians seem to not have the school shootings the USA does, so maybe this whole gun free-for all isn't a good idea?

Yep and considering crime rates, it works.
Guns shouldn't be a right and aren't rights in most countries, right-wing or left-wing.
LOL

Right parties being selective with their "gun rights" is a trend.
I will never be allowed to legally own a gun under a fascist riech.

Attached: 78a9028725a6669cae88d2cab3281f2c1c2413691df258c54382db27df285210 (1).jpg (628x405, 82.74K)

Full auto is useless unless it is belt fed I believe. Veteran anons feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Why would you want full auto with

60 -100 round p mags + some machining to the trigger group

A lot of that is untrue. The five round limit only applies to centrefire semi-autos, there is no limit for manual actions. Even for semi-autos there are various loopholes that allow you to have more depending on what gun you have, and the magazines themselves are usually pinned with a single rivet that can be filed off in a matter of minutes. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns are generally non-restricted, meaning they aren’t registered, can be bought with a standard gun liscence (which are shall issue if you pass a safety course) and you can transport and carry them pretty much anywhere. The only regulation is that if they’re in a vehicle they can’t be in plain sight (ie throw a blanket over them).
Not really. They passed bill C-71 which just compels gun stores to record the names, addresses, and PAL numbers of people when they buy a gun, which almost all of them were doing anyway. Iirc it doesn’t even compel them to share that info with the police in case of an investigation. Still not good, but it doesn’t really make it any harder to get a gun.

t. Leaf that owns 9 guns (4 are semi autos).

Am in the same situation. Was thinking about getting into Air guns for marksmanship, Any recommendations, or is this a gay idea?

Attached: this-pleases-stirner.png (312x232, 54.9K)

Doing some reading about d-60s and it sounds like they are generally reliavke I guess. Exspensive as fuck though. You can get 6 pmag 40s for the same price you can get one d-60.

You planning on getting some russian gear in the future to go to that ak?

Not him but can you post the Albanian text or a screenshot or a link to the laws? Also any more information would be very helpful.

Lmao. Their stance on lgbtwtfbbq, minority rights, feminism, etc is very left wing. They have NOTHING in common with classical liberals who are for individual rights and a free market. They're socdems, again an ideology which still falls on the leftist axis. Keep armchairing.

That doesn't mean I consciously chose that decision independent of any constraints. It's like asking why I didn't use "elephant" in a sentence. "Free will" is an illusion, nothing more. You'll see countless neurologists saying the same thing.

When I said those scientists can predict choices you'll make, I don't mean due to cultural norms. I meant that they can literally observe brain activity that happens seconds before you make certain decisions and make a near-perfect prediction on what action you will undertake next.

Holy fuck. You went from Mao being "pro-gun" to admitting he grabbed guns but it was okay because ebil Chinese nationalists were lurking about!

Ask yourself: Did Hitler not deal with swarms of leftists lurking about underground during Nazi Germany? So why did he LOOSEN gun laws for the vast majority of Germans? He only grabbed the guns of the Jews and Commies, while the vast majority saw laxer laws.

Why didn't Mao do the same? Or the USSR? Or Cuba and North Korea. When leftists impose gun laws it targets the vast majority of the populace while only a small amount of people are exempted.

The founding fathers as you mentioned did not grab guns from the majority of the populace due to fears of a rebellion. Even the US during the cold war in which there were many socialists lurking about on the nation didn't do the same. The worst that happened was the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA, which imposed substantial restrictions on the 2A but again, left the vast majority of arms unregulated for the great majority of citizens.

Did you miss "Centre-left politics or center-left politics (American English), also referred to as moderate-left politics, are political views that lean to the left-wing on the left–right political spectrum, but closer to the centre than other left-wing politics."

Don't you guys bring up Vietnam all the time? How about the taliban and other islamists in Afghanistan?

It's fucking great I have multiple leftists defending gun control itt. I'm screencapping all of this and posting it on Zig Forums next time I ever hear somebody bringing up the Marx quote which refers to arms for a revolutionary purpose, much like what Lenin espoused before he gun grabbed after the revolution.

Attached: 1421834822865.jpg (400x400, 31.53K)

So most guns? Lmao

They are all objectively liberals and using social views to distinguish political alignment in garbage. By this metric, if the Fascists said they were ok with gays then they would be "left-wing", and people like Gorky would be "right-wing".
Snopes is a liberal site and this has no source. From everywhere I've read, the 1957 Act seems to deal with the arrest of reactionary elements and the proper punishments for related crimes, not gun control.
Check your sources, or more importantly the lack of such.
Yes it is. Fascism is right-wing because its "authoritarian" capitalist, facsim by it's self doesn't define the right. Only communist "reformists" could be held as center left (as in, they want communism but only through gradual electoral reform).
I'm iffy on the concept of free will, but this doesn't disprove free-will. This is just starting your brain already came to it's decision before hand.
If you define positive rights as being free from all internal constraints, then you would be right. However we aren't talking about all constraints, we are talking about certain critical constraints. Positive rights do not even require the idea of being free from internal constraints, that's something that was tacked on later if you read Wikipedia your copying from and was considered a possibility.
You're completely missing the point. Everything is provided as a guarantee of what you may do. You are being allowed to own firearms. You are being allowed to speak freely to an extent. And you are being allowed to act in your "free-will" in regards to these things. Anyone attempting to stop you from doing these things will (assumably) be prosecuted by the state. External restraint will always exist, because all societies function on external restraint in one way or another. To even enforce said "rights" and prevent external restraint requires external restraint.
Opposite tbh

Not the same user dumbass, there are multiple anons in this thread

R8 my loadout.

Attached: victorinox-hunter-olive.jpg (1024x800, 52.45K)

Read a book

Attached: ff6929e84a89ac76a7e5b23af1ee6c0a28ab27b7(2).png (1259x506, 153.4K)

I wish they were actual liberals, because then they'd be for individual freedom like guns. These people are essentially socdems, in Europe liberal parties refer to classical liberal and libertarian ones because the term wasn't raped.

Do you have a link to the act? I see no reason why Snopes would lie about Mao grabbing guns.
It's actually sourced, but I already said I'd give you Albania. Again, this is an outlier. Literally one example. See pic related.
Nowhere is the definition for the right wing being "pro-capitalist". Again this is you armchairing and coming up with your own definitions when a clear consensus already exists. Socdem is considered a center-left ideology, not a right wing one. The huge focus on socjus and a highly regulated economy is why it is.
So how is it "free will" in any meaningful sense? The closest would be equating it to the fact that you were not externally impeded from exercising the action. This however would fall under negative liberty.
You're right. The primary definition is "the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will" we've already established that free will is a bullshit concept so "positive liberty" does not exist. Furthermore I'm guessing that those "constraints" are shit like raycism, patriarchy, etc, etc? As I've said before, I literally give no shit about "freedom from discrimination" if that entails a ban on certain speech and arresting people for tweets. That "freedom" can go fuck itself and I'm glad the US does not have it and focusses on negative liberty. Again, look up a society that places an emphasis on positive "liberty" and you will always end up with either a massive nanny state, or a totalitarian state.

This is a US term and nothing more. Liberalism in Europe refers to classical liberal parties. What is referred to as "social liberals" in the US would be classified as socdem in Europe. Again this goes back to this board not considering socdems "leftist." I honestly don't give a shit because thos debate has been hashed out by academics and the consensus is that they are center-left aka moderate left, etc.

Attached: naxalt2.png (640x480, 37.12K)

Hitler didn't actually have swarms of leftists running around. He eliminated the "left-wing" of his party early on, detained or executed any major leftist elements, stripped weapons from any "unreliable" minorities, and had consolidated power rapidly enough that there was no civil war between within the populace. He also had the benefit of recieving wide foreign support in the years preceding and no intervention early on. Note that this differs largely from communist countries who received major outside foreign pressure early on and generally went through bloody and debilitating civil wars before seizing power, and even then afterwords said elements remained and received major support from the West. Germany got off extremely easy from the West compared to nearly every communist country in existence.
You had one and he's a frequent, calm the fuck down. Can I now use singular anons from Zig Forums now as an argument?

Also you forgot to mention the US. What about all the leftist orgs and people there?

The majority of the left during the cold war in the US was divided and a huge part of it was against the USSR, with it being a mix of Trotskyists (no consequence), Anarchists (unorganized), and maoists (majority suppressed by suppressing the black liberation movements). There was no real risk of civil war or insertion by the USSR, and attacks that occured were generally small bombings and such. Regardless, those who were considered a threat were removed and leaders were executed or silenced as quickly as they began.

Liberal parties in Europe do exactly the things you complain about. "Libertarians" generally don't exist and are an American invention.
From what I could find
Page 126 of the Right to a Criminal Appeal in the People's Republic of China
The source is a literal no link to an unamed times article
Garbage, just because you've subconsciously come to a conclusion does not negate free will. Look up compatibilism some time.
You're literally inserting your own strawman here. For us the constraint is capitalism, that is all. We do whatever is necessary to acheive our goals to replace it.
Russians unironically had more "freedom" and security in the USSR then they do now. And nearly everyone who lived in through the transition acknowledges that.
No, in Europe both the US's parties would be considered a varient of liberal. The Democrats don't even come close to SocDem, and to compare them to actual SocDem parties like Labour is laughable. Learn your politics.
Liberal academics who definition of left and right is schizophrenic or just straight up opportunist.

Looking to get an AR15?
absolute top:
Minimal:

Looking to get an ak?
DO NOT BUY AMERICAN MADE AK
NO CENTURY
NO WAFFEN WERKS
NO IO
NO DDI
NO PSA

Attached: karl ak104.jpg (1000x664, 106.49K)

Except it isn't. Actual left-wingers reject their gender/race bullshit id-pol as well as the idpol of the right-wing.
"Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary… It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."– Adam Smith
cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx
Understanding socio-economic theory and its application IRL is armchairing now. That makes Mises and the other trash you worship armchairers even more so than us.

Go back to reddit salty whiner

No it isn't your subconscious is still a part of you and while it can be influenced it is still yours regardless. You're just taking some research (unfinished BTW since we still lack a full understanding of consciousness and subconsciousness and their borders), and then slapping on a claim that it somehow disproves Free Will.
In what situations? How many variables, what kind of pressure? The research you refer to is in very controlled environments and is incomparable to real life. to give an analogy; you can do all the military simulations you like but it will never be the same as an actual combat experience.
There are different posters here you idiot. I just entered this thread when I gave that reply. Also I never confirmed your claim that all guns were confiscated, only that ownership was highly regulated and communal due to the situation, something comparable to what the US government did post-Revolutionary war but I never see people say Washington was anti-gun.
And we've finally reached full circle. Did you even read your own Snopes article? You do realize that arms ownership was loosened for only certain people, namely supporters of the Nazi regime. The Nazis outright confiscated all weapons from Jews and as for communists, they didn't have to worry about that because of Night of Long Knives and the burning of the Reichstag which they used to arrest and incarcerate/execute any and all open leftists, leaving few to continue and most of them far too limited and terrorized to even think of conducting open opposition, let alone armed resistance.
Vast majority? LOL. You do realize that military level arms were not sold in German stores and they outright background checked you if you weren't a nazi party member, exactly the thing you've been bitching about.
Except they did. To expand on one of my examples, the Whiskey Rebellion: ashington disbanded their militia (their right to organize), deemed it treasonous, and branded them all rebels, but later pardoned them all once they weren't deemed to be a threat anymore. It's worth noting the protestors were acting dangerously and violent overall. Tarring and feathering tax collectors, and breaking the goods owned by those who paid the tax.

The American revolution was to establish a government for the people of the American colonies rather than have their taxes go towards issues that didn't concern them. It wasn't an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted or revolt on a whim against anything they disliked, a government still needed to be supported and maintained to help it's people in the end. Taxes are just a necessary part of living under a structured and civilized form of society. But when those taxes that are made to help you aren't going towards you and your region, then they could be considered unfair as they were during the revolution.

Are you fucking kidding me?
Two words m8; McCarthy Trials

They set up perjury traps. They made oaths of loyalty compulsory for large swaths of the population, who swore they did not support overthrowing the States by force or violence. Then they prosecuted them for perjury if they had partied with members of the CPUSA on the theory that the CPUSA advocated overthrowing the States by force or violence. Everybody knew that was true so they didn’t have to prove it by finding a single instance where the CPUSA had ever mentioned such a thing. It was not, of course, part of its platform or its rhetoric. Thousands of people were imprisoned or went into exile. During the Cold War you'd get a visit from the FBI just for talking about soviet stuff in less than a negative light, a man who bought and restored an old imported Soviet car from a dealer got interrogated. Red Scares meant that any pro-leftist sentiment got a mob after you and people refusing business.

The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

This goes on and on, point is the USA didn't have to take guns when all its gun-owning population was stuck in the Red Scares.

Yep and that changed when leftist groups like black rights activists and anti-war protestors took up arms in response to the USA sicking SWAT and military force against them, sanctioning the FBI and CIA to conduct assassinations of key figures and creating the drug war, forming ghettos and the modern condition we have today.

Did you miss the part where the other user pointed out how IRL that doesn't practically apply? Succ-dems will back fascists the moment socialism or any actual leftist ideology gains influence. Their entire platform is essentially "we're against fascism and communism we're the good middle-ground".
Yes and that was a different situation, tell me how many jungles you can find in Texas? Or how many areas of the USA have no government presence and are in the hands of a non-national entity. Your equivalency is as false as they come. Moreover the Vietnamese recieved roughly 1 billion dollars of Chinese and Soviet aid, and they recieved weapons other than guns; SAMs being some of the most important. Vietnams initial struggle began against the Colonial French and was interrupted by WW-2 and Japan. The French had been forced to flee Indochina and that left Vietnam in control of most of the area post-WW2.
Moreover the Vietnamese were fighting foreign invaders, they were almost unanimously for the communist movement, which is why the USA diplomatically blocked their elections and placed horrendous dictators in power.
They were outright created, trained, funded and given weapons by the CIA, along with the Saudi Billionare and ally Osama Bin Laden, and the Soviet losses in Afghanistan aren't even 1/10 of what the USA lost in Vietnam, despite both wars lasting almost the same amount of time and Afghanistan being made up of way more land (not to mention Pakistan's Air Force and the CIA openly providing assistance.

Your staggering lack of knowledge is amazing.

Selectively of course because that's how propaganda works. *Snip-snip*, Goebbels applauds you.
Except he didn't you dumb motherfucker.

What's your opinion on dpms?

Lenin, Marx and all other socialists argue for arming of the proletariat for class-struggle. There is no 'gunsies for funsies' shit here. Guns are not a toy, and frankly the lackadaisical attitude burgers have for guns is not shared by most people in the world, regardless of political affiliation. Guns are not a right but a privilege, and a person must prove that they are responsible enough to own and wield one. Registering a weapon is not the same thing as banning or otherwise suppressing them, and even restrictions are not so simmple as "we're ufreid uv gun-owners'. That's just your trigger-happy paranoia.

Funny you should mention that

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1261x276, 134.62K)

Except it’s litetally unenforceable and incredibly easy to bypass. For practical purposes it doesn’t exist.

Completely wrong. They generally refer to classical liberals in Europe, not socdems larping as liberals.
Adam Smith was not against private property. Did he recoginize that it's a strong contributor to inequality? Yes, but he's much closer to a Georgist than a Marxist which seeks to eschew any private property. That paragraph is what you'd find in Henry George's Progress and Poverty. I can see him supporting a high land value tax, but he does not seek to abolish private property rights as opposed to Marx.

The left wing in the US was still numerous with many organizations. Why didn't the US gun grab like the USSR?
In virtually every Marxist society guns are grabbed. Even if I give you Analbania, you have literally one example. Keep DINDUing your ideology though.

Dude, leftism is BUILT upon idpol. Be it feminism, muh minority rights, lgbt rights, etc, etc. All of those fall under the left wing spectrum. All the modern day commie and socialist parties in any developed nation supports those movements. You don't get to define what a "true" leftist is. Fuck off you disingenuous shit.
It is a given that studies have been conducted where brain activity is monitored and prior to making a decision, certain parts of the brain light up seconds before you conciously make that decision and you can currently give a very good prediction of what the decision will entail.
Are you seriously arguing as to how this is applicable to the real world? Are you saying that the brain only functions this way during tests and not day to day life? Yes we currently cannot measure how it'd function as you go about your life because we currently don't have effective means to do so. Maybe in the future neurologists will invent portable devices that can measure brain activity and have participants in the test go about their regular lives. However I'd strongly wager I'd be proven correct, not you.

We literally have multiple neurologists stating that out conception of what free will entails is fundamentally wrong. Is my subconscious part of me? Sure. Can I actively dictate the decisions that it will reach that occur seconds before I'm actually aware and undertake said decision? No. Let me know if you actually find a way because you'd probably get a Nobel Prize for solving that.
Factually wrong. Hitler massively deregulated arms for the vast majority of Germans. He literally made it so that you could acquire as many rifles and shotguns you wanted without a license.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

There you have it. Now let me ask you a question: why doesn't Castro deregulate long guns in Cuba and allow any citizen not actively prohibited from owning them? Is it because of glow in the dark CIA agents? I thought the vast majority of Cubans supported the regime? What happened comrade?
I'm sorry, did Washington go around confiscating the arms from the majority of US citizens because some of them rebelled? Nope. Absolutely no equivalent at all.
I already acknowledged thos. The fundamental difference is that the US did not confiscate the guns of the majority to stop the black panthers. Even when gun grabs happen, it's much less in severity than marxist regimes in most cases. That's a fact.

Dude virtually every academic acknowledges them being on the center left of the axis. I don't give a fuck about your personal definition because nowhere is it stated that leftist views automatically equate to abolishing capitalism completely. Did you forget about Lenin's NEP?
Except Putin LITERALLY said he'd support secessionists in the US. So in a civil war you'd very much likely have Russia supporting rebels. Then you can probably add China as well who at the very least will seek to undermine US hegemony in any way possible.
Then you need to deal with defecting military, supplies taken from national guard armories, and such. Did you also forget the rocky mountain terrain and thick forests? Not everywhere is it plains like in the Midwest or wherever else. All in all you're going to be dealing with a very bad situation that will very much likely end up with a couple of states balkanizing (and ending up under russian influence).
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/20b.htm
So what did Lenin do after the revolution? He confiscated all the arms owned by peasants and imposed draconian gun laws.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Nigger, I don't give a fuck about Europe and the rest of the world. They have no gun rights. Fucks sake gun laws in Europe were cucked even harder recently because of Islamists shooting up Paris with smuggled AKs that came from Eastern Europe, and thus legal owners were screwed over.
If the US was more to the left like European nations then we'd have no gun rights, and we'd also have unironic shit like "hate speech" laws. Screw that noise. Registration literally leads to confiscation. It's useless at solving crime and Canada got rid of their LGR because of that.
tl;dr this entire board:
Lmao, absolutely pathetic. I see no need to reply further because the same arguments will be repeated ad infinitum. I will leave you with one thing though:
Pull up a country and almost always any support for gun rights is going to come from right wing nationalist parties. Be it Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, etc. That's a fact.

Projection, heard all of it before and we've already refuted all of it before.

Imagine being this cucked by ideology.
your schizo posting indicates that you shouldnt be around guns or children

Attached: 1b58a4b05143d4d99c9ef425bc750985d39a1cc18234e0c620e3b5f58e250138.jpg (255x255, 29.07K)

These kind of restrictions are pretty normal during wartime. You know this was at the peak of civil war, and the reds were short on ammunition and firearms as well.

Their ar10 I’ve heard is decent but I would go looking for them.
If you’re looking for a barebones ar PSA is a good bet; honestly I would save up for a BCM ar. They are quality and come with a cold hammer forged chrome lined barrel which will get you a higher round count before you need to replace it and it will be corrosion resistant.

Your entire argument rests on guilt by association. Even if historically communists haven’t been the best defenders of gun rights, almost everybody here affirms their essential importance to a socialist society. Pointing out what other leftists have done in the past is irrelevant to this discussion, since we regard those actions as gross mistakes.

No it isn't, the USA has few genuine left wing orgs and all of them are rife with CIA assets and infiltrators.
Because criminals with guns means higher crime meaning more funding for police and more profit. Because most non-criminal weapons ownership was limited to those who were freverently afraid of communism. Because the USA eliminated political dissidents who mattered.
No it isn't, liberalism is.
Womens rights and minority rights under socialism are not treated as separate identities but as a part of class-struggle, unlike in the West. Western feminists have opposed socialist feminism precisely because it doesn't go out of its way to make it idpol.
So women having rights is wrong? Huh, do tell.
Sure, but Lenin and Marx do and they inherently reject idpol. Try reading what you're critisizing.
You're ignoring my points and repeating yourself. It doesn't matter what part of the brain lights up, how are you going to see that IRL? How are you going to predict something with the variables real life presents rather than in controlled studies?
Yes, because you're attempting to argue that this research "disproves Free Will"
Even the research you refer to is not conclusive or precise with neuroscientists arguing over this. Again we lack knoweldge even in controlled experiments. In a study of IRL situations this becomes even less clear. Do you even science?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Free_will_as_illusion
Sure, whatever floats your insecure boat.
Perhaps but he was certainly against unregulated free markets and those that clearly had the advantage under them. He repeatedly points out throughout his book that large amounts of private property lead to nothing but oppression of the poor and states that those who are richer essentially sacrifice more to make up for it to the poor

"[Landlords] are the only one of the three [social classes] whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind which is necessary in order to foresee and understand the consequences of any public regulation."

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to public expense not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion."

He outright has quotes like pic related that are essentially the socialist maxim of "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"
Because that level of dialectical materialist analysis hadn't been reached. Regardless Adam Smith would have rejected the ideas of other 'classical liberals' like Mises because they clash directly with him.
What are you even trying to say at this point?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1018x720, 702.35K)

So why should we care about your whining about "muh guns?" American Exceptionalism is your own delusion.

See the take in

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (718x869, 93.67K)

Did you even read your own marxist article?
Moreover your wiki article is debunked shit.
the wiki claim on gun control in the Soviet Union has messed up sourcing, talking about gun control beginning in 1929 yet sourcing decrees from 1918 and 1920 (When the USSR was not even in existence yet). The soviet poster, "Citizens! Hand in your arms!” During the reign of revolutionary terror in the Civil War of 1918–1921 was a war-time measure due to the critical lack of weapons available to the Red Army in the middle of a war. It is no different to US WW-2 posters encouraging people hand in their metal, paper and silk to the US army.

Moreover after the Revolution and Civil War ended gun laws and ownership was reintroduced.

Personal ownership of shotguns and smoothbore guns with less than 6mm caliber were declared legal starting from 1926. “Policemen were responsible for gun control,” writes Katherine Bliss Eaton in Daily Life in the Soviet Union (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004,: "Private citizens and institutions could own hunting weapons if they had police permission and registered their guns at the local station house. The militia could confiscate weapons and ammunition from people who showed signs of dangerously irresponsible behavior." Sounds reasonable to me. Punishment for not observing these were first surprisingly liberal. Before 1935, non-compliants risked prison terms of less than one year, or fines. A 5-year prison term was introduced in the run-up to the Yezhovschina of 1937, unless more serious charges were brought in.
Just as a side note I want to use Vasiliy Zaitsev as an example of hunting weapons and their legality. Zaitsev grew up hunting regularly, owning his first rifle, a Berdan, at the age of 12. Zaitsev was born in 1915, so he owned the rifle in 1927. Zaitsev only joined the Communist party in 1943, 16 years later, yet continued to own several rifles and guns prior to this. This example debunks the idea that non-party members couldn't own guns.

Make bombs.

Name me one "socialist" gun that's more aesthetic than this beauty.

Attached: FN_P90_Tactical_Rotators_2-1800x900.jpg (1800x900, 173.59K)

AKM

Gun cane out after the fall of the ussr. So not really going to find a lot of "socialist" polymer bullpups for comarison.

Ak 74u
Dragunov

Attached: i-1377.jpg (1600x1066 145.09 KB, 571.42K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
LOL

...

wow, what a beautiful, uhhh, um,,, kitchen implement?

Is a hi point a good gun for a low price?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (815x544, 280.28K)

youtube.com/watch?v=wpZdUgBzh7Y

Get an M&P Shield

I'm
Anwsered the question myself.

C O P E

Attached: QBZ_95_PLA.png (799x324, 133.61K)

I mean it is considered part of the 1st world technically.

Attached: 3.jpg6f7f3439-1e15-4052-89e6-b54fa4fed9f3Original.jpg (800x800, 40.25K)

Can't YOU translate them or at least provide un translated excerpts to translate?

>gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Anyone have more info on Cuban gun laws?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x642, 603.28K)

So sad that gun rights advocacy is pretty much enterely co-opted by the right and that your average American thinks that leftists want to get rid of their guns because "communism = the government doing stuff"

Attached: istockphoto-182904069-1024x1024.jpg (1024x681, 143.31K)

whats the gun laws like in China, DPRK?

Is it a viable plan for leftist groups to enlist in their nations imperial military, only to drop out of boot camp (leaders could do OCS even if they have a college degree) on the last day so you get military training that is not only free, but they pay you to do it?

Of course I understand military training is mostly making you put up with bullshit, but maybe the discipline that that fosters is incredibly useful.

Either way I dont see a lot of people wanting to do this, so it's more of a fun idea that a serious plan

This west point kid did it, one would just have to be able to deal with the consequences of bailing out or having your intentions be known by higher ups.

You can always just find someone on the far-left who's served in the military to train you or a few guys.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (660x371, 458.47K)

Attached: JPEG_20190725_161227.jpg (2448x3264, 1.46M)

Cool, what chapter?

Things /lefty/cucks can’t do:
1. Meme
2. Use a gun
3. Pretend to not be from reddit.