Are progressives consistent regarding civilian firearm ownership?

[aociswundumho]

Consider this:




I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:



They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

It only makes good logical sense for every mouth breathing idiot and every tired middle aged housewife to walk around with a .50 cal strapped on.

Ya know....just in case of "invasion".

Maybe also driving tanks to the grocery store would be good too, just in case. Think of the FrEeDuMbZ$™.

ffs what in the he!1 is wrong with people.

 

[tacomancer]

Progressives might do well to own firearms to defend against fascists or other types of authoritarians at home or abroad.

 

[CLAX1911]

It only makes good logical sense for every mouth breathing idiot and every tired middle aged housewife to walk around with a .50 cal strapped on.

Ya know....just in case of "invasion".

Maybe also driving tanks to the grocery store would be good too, just in case. Think of the FrEeDuMbZ$™.

ffs what in the he!1 is wrong with people.

The contention was no civilian needs a firearm. And here we have them praising civilians getting firearms if they don't need them why do they need them

 

[CLAX1911]

Progressives might do well to own firearms to defend against fascists or other types of authoritarians at home or abroad.

Chances are they'll foolishly disarm themselves and thus any revolution they try to have will be squashed.

I'm glad they're inconsistent we don't need to try failed policies again here.

 

[noonereal]

Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.

really stupid post

that is the long and short of it

 

[tacomancer]

Chances are they'll foolishly disarm themselves and thus any revolution they try to have will be squashed.

I'm glad they're inconsistent we don't need to try failed policies again here.

Who is “they” in your post?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The contention was no civilian needs a firearm. And here we have them praising civilians getting firearms if they don't need them why do they need them

well....it is a WAR so I dont really know of anyone thats ever said that you shouldn't use firearms against your enemy in a war if necessary.

Even on a military base the firearms are locked up and carrying them is restricted because well YOU DONT WANT EVERY IDIOT WALKING AROUND WITH A GUN ALL THE TIME.

I have no idea how any person doesnt understand this.

Obviously the Ukraine government didnt have every idiot walking around with a gun all the time because they know how freaking ST00PID such a policy would be from a public safety standpoint, but now that there is a war some of them will get firearms because they are needed for the WAR. Gee. You get it? Its not rocket science.

 

[j brown's body]

In the second case, aren't they being issued by the state?

 

[CLAX1911]

Who is “they” in your post?

So called "progressives" I guess the title is supposed to be ironic.

 

[Antiwar]

It's alarming how gung ho most liberals and progressives (the very few here at DP) seem to be about escalating the risk of war with Russia. I've seen very little (if any) discussion of anything besides "Whose side are you on?"

 

[Lursa]

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

Really? As a party platform? Source that.

I've told this story before, believe it or dont.

When I worked at the Gates Foundation, before it was all consolidated onto the new campus near the Space Needle, we used to take shuttles between different buildings.

Was in a shuttle going to a meeting, there was a driver and 4 other people, including me. Somebody started talking about the new Springfield XD 9mm he'd just bought. Another, a woman, and he started discussing the merits of their 9mms. The driver and other person didnt comment.

So, out of the 5 random people in the van, at least 3 of us owned and supported the ownership of firearms. The driver was not likely an American citizen.

 

[Rich2018]

Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.

No you don't need an AR-15

If the country is invaded, the government will provide rifles, not an ad-hoc collection of shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in every caliber imaginable.

 

[TurtleDude]

No you don't need an AR-15

If the country is invaded, the government will provide rifles, not an ad-hoc collection of shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in every caliber imaginable.

people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armed

 

[uptower]

Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.

I see a distinct difference in circumstances. America is not being invaded by a foreign power for starters.

On Ukraine, I'm not sure it is the wisest decision even under these circumstances. Fighting back may be noble, but lightly armed civilians will be no real match for trained Russian infantry and paratroopers. If this contributes to Ukraine holding out long enough for Russia to get tired and pull back, it may turn out to be helpful, but that is very unlikely. It is more likely that half of those civilians will be killed or captured and the other half will eventually abandon their weapons and run, with very few casualties inflicted on the Russians by comparison.

Given that Kyiv is already surrounded the smarter move might be a capitulation to spare the population needless slaughter. I'm not comfortable with that outcome but to me it seems the lesser of two evils.

 

[Lursa]

I see a distinct difference in circumstances. America is not being invaded by a foreign power for starters.

On Ukraine, I'm not sure it is the wisest decision even under these circumstances. Fighting back may be noble, but lightly armed civilians will be no real match for trained Russian infantry and paratroopers. If this contributes to Ukraine holding out long enough for Russia to get tired and pull back, it may turn out to be helpful, but that is very unlikely. It is more likely that half of those civilians will be killed or captured and the other half will eventually abandon their weapons and run, with very few casualties inflicted on the Russians by comparison.

Given that Kyiv is already surrounded the smarter move might be a capitulation to spare the population needless slaughter.

What if they dont want to be Russians? It's a matter of freedom, isnt it? Many people believe that's worth fighting for.

 

[Rich2018]

people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armed

No, people who think like you do, are exactly why civilians should be allowed to have gun (at least not the majority of guns available today).

People don't want to live in your tyrannical utopia, with gun owners massing in our cities and parading their guns, intimidating the residents.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armed

Why sure.

If a person doesnt think the way you think, thats why we all walk around with our Mass Murder Machines strapped on....am I right Turtle? AMIRITE? In case a "9mm colonoscopy" is indicated?

You're a walking advertisement for why people in the USA should never own anything more deadly than a Crayola crayon my friend.

BAN. THEM. ALL.

(crime will fall)

 

[Rucker61]

No you don't need an AR-15

If the country is invaded, the government will provide rifles, not an ad-hoc collection of shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in every caliber imaginable.

The government doesn't own enough service rifles to arm more than a tiny percentage of the population.

 

[Rucker61]

Why sure.

If a person doesnt think the way you think, thats why we all walk around with our Mass Murder Machines strapped on....am I right Turtle? AMIRITE? In case a "9mm colonoscopy" is indicated?

You're a walking advertisement for why people in the USA should never own anything more deadly than a Crayola crayon my friend.

BAN. THEM. ALL.

(crime will fall)

If only any actual politicians were aligned with you. You should get all Democrats to run on a "ban them all" platform.

 

[Rich2018]

The government doesn't own enough service rifles to arm more than a tiny percentage of the population.

What figures do you have on the size of the US small arms arsenal ?

 

[Rucker61]

What figures do you have on the size of the US small arms arsenal ?

"According to a 2018 estimate published by the Small Arms Survey, the U.S. military possesses some 4.5 million firearms"

The U.S. Military Doesn't Even Track How Many Weapons It Loses, And It Has Lost Thousands

A scathing report details how over 2,000 weapons have gone missing from military arsenals in the last decade alone and the data is far from complete.

www.thedrive.com

With enough time, someone could look at every service rifle contract that's let by the government in the past twenty years.

 

[Rich2018]

"According to a 2018 estimate published by the Small Arms Survey, the U.S. military possesses some 4.5 million firearms"

The U.S. Military Doesn't Even Track How Many Weapons It Loses, And It Has Lost Thousands

A scathing report details how over 2,000 weapons have gone missing from military arsenals in the last decade alone and the data is far from complete.

www.thedrive.com

With enough time, someone could look at every service rifle contract that's let by the government in the past twenty years.

4.5 million is quite a lot, that's a bit more than a tiny percentage of the population.

 

[Rucker61]

4.5 million is quite a lot, that's a bit more than a tiny percentage of the population.

4.5M/325M = 1.3%.

 

[Rich2018]

4.5M/325M = 1.3%.

What about if you just took the population of military age (and sound of mind & body), less the ones unwilling to fight
For a country bordered by Canadians, Mexicans and fish, 4.5 millions guns is way, way enough.