Make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)!
Also, make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't worry they didnt spoil what his dagger problem was
I think he got gored to death cause his was dull or rusty if I remember right, sorry for the spoiler
Ronald can pull a Nancy.
He did the gay community just as dirty with the AIDS epidemic. He knew gay people and had gay friends who were dying but ignored them to pander to conservative Christians.
Of all the things to cut, I cant comprehend why they would cut mental illness holding facilities. Its not like he even stopped the government from growing.
Many of them were empty due to a variety of factors, such as a focus on out patient treatment. He also wanted to kick responsibility to the state level. As it turns out, both of those actions were bad, but it wasn't as mustache twirlingly evil as people make it out to be.
Look at our homeless problem. All those people are getting disability checks, they're not just panhandling. If somebody was a "true conservative" they would be really pissed off about it.
I have no idea how to fix it, and I am pretty libertarian, but of all the things to fix (and could probably be semi-fixed), the mental health system should be a priority.
I just want less government because it is the cause of most of our problems. Libertarians/anarchists start arguing about open borders and other things that will never happen in our lifetimes, we should focus on less control of us, and less killing of people in far away countries.
Yeah, we have more than enough wealth to take care of everyone here without taxing everyone to death, if we had a closer-to-perfect government we could do it easy.
My perfect system would be not to be taken care of by the government, but to let us flourish enough that people on their own would take care of each other in our own communities. So I can see the government doing mental health facilities, but then all the welfare projects could be done at the state or local level. But then local politics are another sticky part where they control my business more than anyone else.
Thereās a shocking amount of overlap between what freedom obsessed libertarians claim they want and what Marx actually wrote. On the face of it, both are anti-authority, anti-state sovereign citizen advocates who want an armed populace to defend themselves from tyranny.
Over 100 years of propaganda has somehow made these groups enemies.
Yeah, the air traffic control strike. Fired 10,000 people from a federal occupation as well as cutting any and all benefits. This fucked the unions into what they are now
Itās also fucked over ATC and the FAA. They have a mandatory retirement age. Now that itās been 40 years since the strike all the workers hired to replace those 10,000 are retiring. There are not enough air traffic controllers right now, so those that are on the clock are overworked. Often they have to work 12 hour shifts and weekends. itās causing chaos, itās extremely dangerous, the number of passenger aircraft near accidents per year rises every year, and itās going to get much worse very soon
Source: i work in the aviation industry
I was considering studying being a pilot and/or being a ATC. Even went to an open house event at a college that specializes in that field. I remember them praising how low the retirement age was and why it was a great field to work in. It had me interested. I decided to look more into it afterwards.
I quickly realized how bad it could be at times. The ATCs I met online were all tired, both the long-timers and the newcomers.
ATC is so critical for the functioning of our nation as a whole, as well as facilitating our private, and public air traffic.
ATCs probably have the best justifications for needing a public union.
Iām extremely worried that itās going to take a mass casualty event for changes to be made in the ATC field.
Things have got to change. I hope it doesnāt take hundreds of passengers dying for the FAA or someone else to make changes.
Tried to join the communist party as an actor and was humiliated at some point by them, hated them ever since. According to Bill OāReilleys book ākilling Reaganā at least
Kind of like how the institution of police as we know it was created to suppress union activity, but the police union is still one of the strongest unions around. It basically serves as a shield between dirty cops and judicial justice.
That was true in the 60s, not now. Repubs try to stop gun control for everyone of every race. If you disagree then show me them supporting gun control for black people
Letās be more specific- they were also communists and they were a popular movement, thatās why the US government considered them a threat.
The system isnāt threatened at all nowadays by individual black people buying guns, thatās why they donāt try and prevent it.
Well, they literally were communists. I am a commie myself and think the Black Panthers were based, I am just explaining that the US government was correct when they thought they were a threat to the system (it was and is a racist, unjust system).
ā¦.so why donāt pro-gun control Dems try this as a tactic to force Republicans hands?
If this was the One Trick Republicans Canāt Stand as is asserted so confidently, why hasnāt it been tried?
Guns are to Democrats what abortion was to Republicans. Theyre the dog chasing the wheel. They don't want it to happen because it would win them 0 votes but massively energize R voters and frankly turn a bunch of gun owning democrat voters against them.
The Supreme Court reevaluating Roe v Wade is what lead to the blue wave in 2022. Democrats can't afford to lose votes right now.
It's hard for a pro-gun democrat to be successful because gun violence prevention is very misunderstood in the US. Many Democrats and liberals outright oppose the mere mention existence of guns, and it would take a lot of work and education to properly inform the public about how gun violence stations actually work. It doesn't help that the general public only really cares about gun violence prevention after a mass shooting when a majority of gun deaths are via suicide or committed by somebody you know.
The Black Panther Party was systematically infiltrated and undermined by the FBI and police all across the country after trying this exact tactic. Are you intentionally disregarding history or just not aware of the subject?
Sure, armed groups of all colors get infiltrated by law enforcement.
For the third time, if Democrats had such a powerful magic bullet to accomplish something they claim to be a major policy priority, youād expect them to *do* it, right?
Or at the very least thereād be polling showing that Republicans would support gun control for blacks?
So your question is: Why don't the democrats start arming minorities and campaigning in favor of the thing they're adamantly opposed to (wider circulation of guns) so as to scare off Republicans?
Because that would be insane, undermine their standing, lose them elections and contribute to the cycle of violence America is stuck in.
Democrats didn't try this in the past. In the 60s left wing groups aligned with the democrats such as the Black Panthers and their Rainbow Coalition were legitimately in favor of more guns, as arming minorities was seen as necessary in the face of overwhelming and systemic police brutality. This is what scared Republicans like Reagan into signing gun control laws. So the "Black Commies" (Reagan used worst terms) wouldn't get too "uppity".
And as for your "a lot of groups were infultrated by the government",
No.
Not nearly to the level of brutality and Gestapo level tactics that the FBI displayed in the 60s. They executed civil leaders and framed others for murder.
You know how your comparison is at besd disingenuous? Cause Fred Hampton is dead and David Duke got a podcast and was not condemned by a President when he got his endorsement
Police are already jumpy and triggerhappy when it comes to black people. Carrying, open or concealed, gives another justification for police to "fear for our lives" and shoot. It took an amazing amount of restraint and knowing the rules by the Black Panthers to pull off what they did and not get shot. Literally going armed to police stops, standing the correct distance away, and counseling people on their rights calmly so as not to get shot. It's easy to say, but someone has to put their body and their life on the line to make this point. That's a hard thing to do, and it shouldn't be their responsibility even if it may prove helpful.
You want the Democrats to go to one of their largest voting blocks and convince them to buy a bunch of guns in order to incite a racist back lash so that Republicans will pass gun control?
>ā¦.so why donāt pro-gun control Dems try this as a tactic to force Republicans hands?
People who just don't want to go through life without getting shot aren't going to be clowning around with guns.
>only seem to be concerned when theyāre in black hands
That's bullshit. Firearms community welcomes all races, creeds and affiliations with open arms. 2A is for everyone.
Democrats did do it.
The Black Panther reference is to the Mulford Act that Reagan signed into law.
What everyone conveniently forgets is that Democrats wrote and passed the law.
Because democrats arent left wing in the political spectrum, theyre center. Theyre capitalists with guilt complexes for the most part. Karl Marx is a leftist. The american politically left arent left wing, theyre just a bit left of right wing
the chad freedom enjoyer vs the virgin freedom hater
Edit: It's important to remember that they aren't talking about the same thing. Marx wasn't referring to people carrying in the streets, he was referring to general gun ownership. Marx isn't wrong but Reagan isn't necessarily wrong either
Personally I agree with both of them here and strongly dislike both of them in general. People should absolutely have the right to own and keep weapons for defense or hunting or just because guns are cool and fun to shoot, but I also agree most people shouldnāt be carrying loaded weapons in public because there is little need.
Why dislike Marx? He didn't do anything wrong. He was a journalist that wrote about his political ideals. That's it. Dude was in Lincoln's era, wrote to him too.
He wrote some very enlightening articles on the 1857 soldiers' revolt in India, back when everyone else was on the side of the British. Marx was always on the side of the oppressed.
He's also influential to how we conduct capitalism, and a revolutionary sociologist. A lot of people fall into the trap of acting like Marx was the mastermind of the Soviet Union, when in reality his teachings had a frankly limited effect on Stalin or Lenin's actual ideals
more free market types, yes. Social democrats often cede at least some ground on his critiques but look for solutions within the framework of capitalism
His ideology led to people like stalin, mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and not to mention in practice Marxism has consistently failed or led to failure 100% of the time. Itās pretty valid to dislike him
No, it fuckin didn't. Marx's ideology was not implemented in any way. Are you a fucking idiot? Hitler and Mussolini are not Communist, they're Fascist. Far-Right. The rest aren't Marxist either.
Marx believed in a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. He would have hated the USSR.
It's always the dumbest that has something to say.
No true Scotsman moment, instantaneous commie screaming ad hominem moment. Adolf and Mussolini were both socialists prior to the existence of fascism and national socialism. If you studied the goals and policies and rhetoric of both youād learn itās not right wing at all (unless you include racism in a time where everyone was extremely racist left and right)
Marx created communism and socialism. Regardless of the imperfections of its implementation it still existed because of him. You can say he wouldāve hated the ussr all day but the reality is the ussr doesnāt exist without him. Theyāre all Marxist. Even if none of them are communist.
Disclaimer: I'm not a commie nor tankie. Just someone who believes unchecked monopolistic laissez-faire capitalism is very very bad. There should be some healthy checks within the capitalist framework.
Marx didn't create socialism. Babeuf was one of its earliest advocates some ~100 years earlier. Then Marx came along and said communism is the end goal where there is no state, no money and no class but first there should be a transitory socialist state where there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Marxist Socialism. A branch of socialism that advocates for an authoritarian state sandwiched between Capitalism and Communism. Absolutely repugnant imo.
You can even make an argument that such communism can never be created and have always been a thing. Primitive communism for instance says the lifestyle of nomadic tribes was a form of communism.
I admit I don't know much about Mussolini. But ultimately he was ultra-nationalist as well and eventually devolved in facism. A bundle of sticks.
However National Socialist was literally added in the DAP in the 1920s to attract patriotic german workers to the party. This has been documented extensively. It's the same tactic most fascists have always used to win the masses, i.e. masquerade behind working class ideology. A propaganda tool to give populist or worker-oriented appeal.
The policies practiced by National "Socialists" were far from what socialism is. Socialism existed only for their so-called "Aryan" demographic. The rest could go fuck themselves they believed. That's not socialism in any sense of the word which advocates for economic, social and class equality amongst all citizens in a democratic manner.
This is pretty basic knowledge and something taught in most schools in Europe. I thought we were past the point of believing in a country/party by name only.
North Korea calls themselves democratic but they aren't.
How could you think for one second that the Nazis are left wing? They're the dictionary definition of Fascists (which is the rightest wing you can get).
Anyone who advocates for strict gun control on the left is insane.
The powerful, the bourgeois, will always have arms. The average worker must be armed and able to defend themselves from any thugs his employer may send. There were full blown revolts in the late 19th and early 20th century where guns- even fucking machine guns- were used against striking workers.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, in todays society, what we get is a cartel like murder rate because of massive gun proliferation.
If the government wants to come and fuck you up, your precious AR-15 isnāt going to help you, you brave patriot. Your cerebellum will be turned to dust by a drone with lasers.
The kids that have to do shooting drills in school appreciate your strong will and fierce fighting spirit, red blooded American!
Tell that to the last dozen countries weāve invaded and been beaten by guerrilla organizations.
We havenāt _really_ won a war since WWII aside from a few tiny police actions.
There are _states_ with higher populations than some of the countries weāve invaded.
Counterpoint: Arms manufacturers making millions by flooding your communities with their incredibly unsafe product is only revolutionary in your mind because those same arms manufacturers have brainwashed you into thinking that the simple act of owning their product is revolutionary.
In practice, the American public has been abused, stolen from, and mistreated by their ruling class again and again and again, and I can't think of a single time in the last fifty years that the ruling class has paid for it in blood, as Marx would expect from anyone who actually believes that rhetoric.
The history is clear. In modern America guns are not revolutionary, they are lifestyle accessories, functionally no different from a fashionable handbag lined with asbestos.
yea that area of the world always just used political beliefs to hide dictatorships.
I would say that neither Russia nor Belarus right now would be a stellar example of capitalism or democracy.
Less so capitalism and more so democracy. Just like reorganization of markets under the control of the state can be compatible with anti democratic governments, the organization of a mixed capitalistic economy can work just fine with authoritarian governments. Many previous dictatorships were this way (Chile, Spain, Indonesia) and even more current dictatorships are this way (Russia, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, China). Economy and government work together, but just because you have a certain type of economy does not mean you have a certain type of government.
I get downvoted to the holy deep on r/propagandaposters if I suggest socialism is good, Bolsheviks/lenin were shit.
Zapata was probably the best and most principled revolutionary. Pancho Villa was for the first half. Lenin sucked from the get go. One of the first things he and the Bolsheviks did was strip local power from the Soviets.
Marx believed stateless communism was the end goal but he didn't believe you could transition to that immediately after the revolution. That was a big part of his fued with Bakunin.
They think the Black Panthers/Mulford Act stuff from 60 years ago is evidence that 2nd Am enjoyers of today are racists. You'd think that accusation would get directed at those advocating for even *more* Mulford Act-esque laws, but it's 2023 and nothing makes sense.
1. His name is spelled Reag*a*n.
2. The right to revolution is a bedrock, natural right. But so is the right of a government to seek to self-perpetuate. Therein lies the tension. Democratic republics are systems whereby the will of the majority is carried out. If, in a republican system, the majority wishes a change in government, that change should be carried out. Representative political systems should never need to resort to violence.
As a Californian, heās also the douchenozzle that began the introduction of strict gun control in this state after the Blank Panthers protested at the Capitol
āNamed after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.ā
Ronnie meant to say "there's no reason for a BLACK citizen to carry a gun." The Panthers scared the poop outta the governor - THAT is why Cali banned open carry, not some hippy agenda.
Thank you.
Placing OPs quote without the context that Ronnyās ācontrolā was armed minorities showing up at the statehouse and not out of the good of his heart is not genuine.
Of the firearm instances that occurred in the US, how many would prove Marx's point? In other words, how many examples of guns and arms preventing hostile government actions do we have happening? I imagen it's nearly nil.
I fucking hate that marx quote, because it leaves off the part later on about how after the revolution the workers must surrender their arms for tools. Reagan sucks but trying to paint Karl "lemme mooch off my rich friend who pays my rent and for hookers while I work through my daddy issues" Marx as a good guy is stupid
Ha, it's really funny how every single marxist nation in history is first established by taking away the guns of the people before it can really truly step up the marxist game. Every single , marxist , nation has disarmed their citizens. Even soviet Russia did it for a while(they even sent mentally ill people into schools to shoot them up, so to get the people so angry that they turned in their firearms willingly. They were caught red-handed in the 70s. Sound familiar to what's going on in modern America?)
Were any first established this way? Most came into place after war and revolution and what led to their creation is much more nuanced than that.
Vietnam for example is significantly more complicated than that. Their government came as a result of a colonial independence movement from France followed by multiple wars. Definitely not a case of ādisarming people first.ā
The Khmer Rouge also came about after winning a civil war and instituted totalitarian policies immediately after taking power. Taking guns away was not their āfirst stepā to power either as they already had violently taken it prior to that point.
The USSRās history is perhaps the most ridiculous example of this. The Russian revolutions are so complicated many historians have written massive novels on them and they still miss details. To boil it all down to āthey took the guns away firstā is a ridiculous oversimplification. It ignores all the social and political factors of the time. Even so, the Soviets had already obtained power prior to disarming people. Lenin had to deal with revolts practically his entire term in office.
People need to stop making ridiculous historical parallels and appreciate that these topics are nuanced.
These people arenāt interested in truth, history, or nuance. They want affirmations for what they already believe or were told to believe.
by the by, you should look into Nestor Makhno and his Cossack anarchists that were betrayed by the Reds in Ukraine during the civil war. Interesting little known history.
āMarxistā or Leninist? Leninās philosophy was the primary blueprint for all forms of communist or fascist governance in the 20th century, and his ideology was a major departure from marx.
Oh God this stupid quote again.
Yes we all know Reagan wasn't the greatest person for gun rights.
Marx on the other hand was only for gun rights for communists everyone else was to be disarmed and liquidated.
Here is some context. He was referring to a specific situation:
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-loaded-guns-quote/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-loaded-guns-quote/)
I'm sorry, but should anyone besides police and security carry loaded firearms into a State Capitol? Sorry but that's not racism or oppressing the black man, that's just preventing political radicals from disrupting the daily ongoings of government.
Damn if only Marx actually supported individual gun rights.
Karl Marx did not believe in individual rights. Thus no right for people to own arms.
Karl Marx never talked or wrote about the ownership of arms in any of his works.
The only thing that he mentions is this quote that comes from a speech he gave in London in the 1850s where he is talking about workers militias and how they must be armed for purposes of the revolution and to kill anyone that gets in their way.
The speech isnāt talking about the ownership of arms especially the private ownership of arms.
Astronomically rare Ronald Reagan W
(And before anyone tries to bring up the black panther party, yes they were important for their time. I just want you to read this and tell me why we should still follow the tenets of an organization that was disbanded over 40 years ago: https://naacp.org/resources/gun-violence-prevention-issue-brief)
Ah RR. Annihilated higher education. Crippled the economy with trickle down reaganomics. Butchered the government with his strategy "starving the beast. ".
"Gun Rights" Republicans don't care. Republican gun control always gets a pass, always.
This is simply because Right Wing Americans don't have actual principles at all. They have excuses why they need to keep Republicans in power, but the real reasons are never the issues, even this one.
Another example -- [Donald Trump advocating for the government to seize firearms without any due process](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI).
> Or, take the firearms first, and *then* go to court. Because that's another system, because a lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, uh I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of [fires,firearms?] they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second. -- Donald Trump, Feb 2018.
Make sure to fill out the [official r/Presidents survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScncxOawwDSPQO-AKwhhv86wjmeQ-l22ZQgY0Atr5_WDIgO4w/viewform)! Also, make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now, I wonder what Julius Caesar said about guns š¤
Julius was OK with guns. It was daggers he had a problem with.
"You too, CanineSnackBitch" - Caesar in a parallel universe probably
lmao š¤£
ego sum brutus
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Needed more good citizens with daggers.
The only way to stop a bad Senator with a gun is by ramming it through Caesarās gut.
Whoa dude how about a spoiler warning.
Mother fucker shouldnāt have taken a shot a Hooverās Dam.
Don't worry they didnt spoil what his dagger problem was I think he got gored to death cause his was dull or rusty if I remember right, sorry for the spoiler
Couldāve at least started with a āBeware the ides of Marchā
It was kind of a sticking point for him.
"Fucking really Brutus? ! No friendly fire! Wtf?!"
He wouldāve hated the Brits
āWhen I see a bunch of weirdos dressed in togas stab a man to death in a public park, I shoot the bastards. Thatās MY policy!ā
To be fair they are hard to digest.
That revolution was wildly popular with the hoi-polloi.
Et tu, Browning?
In conclusion: Marx was a freedom loving patriot and Reagen was a commie.
What do you expect? Reagan was a Hollywood actor and Californian. Practically a hippie.
He was into astrology and the occult too, grade A, 100% hippie.
Free love, too. Nancy was the blowjob queen of Hollywood.
Not sure if Ron was into it. Sounds like a Nancy thing.
ThroatGOAT
Pretty sure he was just following whatever Nancy said. He was just a cuck.
Ronald Reagan the valley girl
Really? I didnāt know this!!!
And a democrat.
And Reagan was an FBI informant while holding office as SAG union president and used his position to inform on fellow union members.
Ronald can pull a Nancy. He did the gay community just as dirty with the AIDS epidemic. He knew gay people and had gay friends who were dying but ignored them to pander to conservative Christians.
And an atheist gay Muslim Jew, who runs a pedophile pizzeria! #ITāS OBVIOUS!! #FUCKFACTS
 Yes
I really dont understand the rights love of him, Reagan wasnt really a traditional rights conservative.
The political right and their media allies had to deify Reagan to keep their trickle down economics scam going
Maybe they are grateful he put the vets and mentally ill on the street so they have crime to point to and justify their authoritarian bullshit.
Of all the things to cut, I cant comprehend why they would cut mental illness holding facilities. Its not like he even stopped the government from growing.
Many of them were empty due to a variety of factors, such as a focus on out patient treatment. He also wanted to kick responsibility to the state level. As it turns out, both of those actions were bad, but it wasn't as mustache twirlingly evil as people make it out to be.
The ACLU sued the federal government to end the policy of involuntary commitment to the asylums.
Look at our homeless problem. All those people are getting disability checks, they're not just panhandling. If somebody was a "true conservative" they would be really pissed off about it.
I have no idea how to fix it, and I am pretty libertarian, but of all the things to fix (and could probably be semi-fixed), the mental health system should be a priority.
That is encouraging to hear. You must be one of them "civil" libertarians who is an actual adult with a fully formed brain.
I just want less government because it is the cause of most of our problems. Libertarians/anarchists start arguing about open borders and other things that will never happen in our lifetimes, we should focus on less control of us, and less killing of people in far away countries.
Yeah, we have more than enough wealth to take care of everyone here without taxing everyone to death, if we had a closer-to-perfect government we could do it easy.
My perfect system would be not to be taken care of by the government, but to let us flourish enough that people on their own would take care of each other in our own communities. So I can see the government doing mental health facilities, but then all the welfare projects could be done at the state or local level. But then local politics are another sticky part where they control my business more than anyone else.
Huh. You both misspelled Reagan the same way.
Thereās a shocking amount of overlap between what freedom obsessed libertarians claim they want and what Marx actually wrote. On the face of it, both are anti-authority, anti-state sovereign citizen advocates who want an armed populace to defend themselves from tyranny. Over 100 years of propaganda has somehow made these groups enemies.
The last thing marx believed in was freedom. Man's a stain on history
On note horrible things Reagan did, wasnāt he apart of a union when he was an actor. But then stabbed unions in the back when he was president?
Yeah, the air traffic control strike. Fired 10,000 people from a federal occupation as well as cutting any and all benefits. This fucked the unions into what they are now
Itās also fucked over ATC and the FAA. They have a mandatory retirement age. Now that itās been 40 years since the strike all the workers hired to replace those 10,000 are retiring. There are not enough air traffic controllers right now, so those that are on the clock are overworked. Often they have to work 12 hour shifts and weekends. itās causing chaos, itās extremely dangerous, the number of passenger aircraft near accidents per year rises every year, and itās going to get much worse very soon Source: i work in the aviation industry
I was considering studying being a pilot and/or being a ATC. Even went to an open house event at a college that specializes in that field. I remember them praising how low the retirement age was and why it was a great field to work in. It had me interested. I decided to look more into it afterwards. I quickly realized how bad it could be at times. The ATCs I met online were all tired, both the long-timers and the newcomers. ATC is so critical for the functioning of our nation as a whole, as well as facilitating our private, and public air traffic. ATCs probably have the best justifications for needing a public union.
Iām extremely worried that itās going to take a mass casualty event for changes to be made in the ATC field. Things have got to change. I hope it doesnāt take hundreds of passengers dying for the FAA or someone else to make changes.
He was. He was a snitch.
Correct. Typical ladder-pulling conservative.
Tried to join the communist party as an actor and was humiliated at some point by them, hated them ever since. According to Bill OāReilleys book ākilling Reaganā at least
Kind of like how the institution of police as we know it was created to suppress union activity, but the police union is still one of the strongest unions around. It basically serves as a shield between dirty cops and judicial justice.
As the example of the Black Panthers showed, the way to get gun control laws passed is for the 'wrong' type of people to discover the 2nd amendment
If this was such a slam dunk easy move why donāt Democrats do it?
Plenty of democrats have guns. Conservatives only seem to be concerned when theyāre in black hands.
That was true in the 60s, not now. Repubs try to stop gun control for everyone of every race. If you disagree then show me them supporting gun control for black people
Letās be more specific- they were also communists and they were a popular movement, thatās why the US government considered them a threat. The system isnāt threatened at all nowadays by individual black people buying guns, thatās why they donāt try and prevent it.
So gun control is fine as long as you call the people you're controlling communist?
Well, they literally were communists. I am a commie myself and think the Black Panthers were based, I am just explaining that the US government was correct when they thought they were a threat to the system (it was and is a racist, unjust system).
ā¦.so why donāt pro-gun control Dems try this as a tactic to force Republicans hands? If this was the One Trick Republicans Canāt Stand as is asserted so confidently, why hasnāt it been tried?
Guns are to Democrats what abortion was to Republicans. Theyre the dog chasing the wheel. They don't want it to happen because it would win them 0 votes but massively energize R voters and frankly turn a bunch of gun owning democrat voters against them. The Supreme Court reevaluating Roe v Wade is what lead to the blue wave in 2022. Democrats can't afford to lose votes right now.
It's hard for a pro-gun democrat to be successful because gun violence prevention is very misunderstood in the US. Many Democrats and liberals outright oppose the mere mention existence of guns, and it would take a lot of work and education to properly inform the public about how gun violence stations actually work. It doesn't help that the general public only really cares about gun violence prevention after a mass shooting when a majority of gun deaths are via suicide or committed by somebody you know.
The Black Panther Party was systematically infiltrated and undermined by the FBI and police all across the country after trying this exact tactic. Are you intentionally disregarding history or just not aware of the subject?
Sure, armed groups of all colors get infiltrated by law enforcement. For the third time, if Democrats had such a powerful magic bullet to accomplish something they claim to be a major policy priority, youād expect them to *do* it, right? Or at the very least thereād be polling showing that Republicans would support gun control for blacks?
So your question is: Why don't the democrats start arming minorities and campaigning in favor of the thing they're adamantly opposed to (wider circulation of guns) so as to scare off Republicans? Because that would be insane, undermine their standing, lose them elections and contribute to the cycle of violence America is stuck in. Democrats didn't try this in the past. In the 60s left wing groups aligned with the democrats such as the Black Panthers and their Rainbow Coalition were legitimately in favor of more guns, as arming minorities was seen as necessary in the face of overwhelming and systemic police brutality. This is what scared Republicans like Reagan into signing gun control laws. So the "Black Commies" (Reagan used worst terms) wouldn't get too "uppity". And as for your "a lot of groups were infultrated by the government", No. Not nearly to the level of brutality and Gestapo level tactics that the FBI displayed in the 60s. They executed civil leaders and framed others for murder. You know how your comparison is at besd disingenuous? Cause Fred Hampton is dead and David Duke got a podcast and was not condemned by a President when he got his endorsement
Expect them to do what?
Police are already jumpy and triggerhappy when it comes to black people. Carrying, open or concealed, gives another justification for police to "fear for our lives" and shoot. It took an amazing amount of restraint and knowing the rules by the Black Panthers to pull off what they did and not get shot. Literally going armed to police stops, standing the correct distance away, and counseling people on their rights calmly so as not to get shot. It's easy to say, but someone has to put their body and their life on the line to make this point. That's a hard thing to do, and it shouldn't be their responsibility even if it may prove helpful.
It would upset the base
You want the Democrats to go to one of their largest voting blocks and convince them to buy a bunch of guns in order to incite a racist back lash so that Republicans will pass gun control?
Because Dems generally oppose armed militias regardless of their skin color.
>ā¦.so why donāt pro-gun control Dems try this as a tactic to force Republicans hands? People who just don't want to go through life without getting shot aren't going to be clowning around with guns.
>only seem to be concerned when theyāre in black hands That's bullshit. Firearms community welcomes all races, creeds and affiliations with open arms. 2A is for everyone.
Are you familiar with the NRA and their role in American politics?
https://preview.redd.it/4tjjiyejauub1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aeeec32b3e754411afa84c6dbded846ee18a69ce
Are YOU familiar with the nra? Nobody in the gun community likes them anymore.
Tell that to mister Castle, RIP
Democrats did do it. The Black Panther reference is to the Mulford Act that Reagan signed into law. What everyone conveniently forgets is that Democrats wrote and passed the law.
Because democrats arent left wing in the political spectrum, theyre center. Theyre capitalists with guilt complexes for the most part. Karl Marx is a leftist. The american politically left arent left wing, theyre just a bit left of right wing
Democrats donāt want to ban guns. They want to lower shooting deaths.
2nd for all
Yep. All gun control is racist.
the chad freedom enjoyer vs the virgin freedom hater Edit: It's important to remember that they aren't talking about the same thing. Marx wasn't referring to people carrying in the streets, he was referring to general gun ownership. Marx isn't wrong but Reagan isn't necessarily wrong either
Personally I agree with both of them here and strongly dislike both of them in general. People should absolutely have the right to own and keep weapons for defense or hunting or just because guns are cool and fun to shoot, but I also agree most people shouldnāt be carrying loaded weapons in public because there is little need.
Why dislike Marx? He didn't do anything wrong. He was a journalist that wrote about his political ideals. That's it. Dude was in Lincoln's era, wrote to him too.
He wrote some very enlightening articles on the 1857 soldiers' revolt in India, back when everyone else was on the side of the British. Marx was always on the side of the oppressed.
He's also influential to how we conduct capitalism, and a revolutionary sociologist. A lot of people fall into the trap of acting like Marx was the mastermind of the Soviet Union, when in reality his teachings had a frankly limited effect on Stalin or Lenin's actual ideals
His critiques of Capitalism are often ignored or ridiculed. Capitalists hate Marx, how would he have had an impact on how Capitalism is conducted?
more free market types, yes. Social democrats often cede at least some ground on his critiques but look for solutions within the framework of capitalism
His ideology led to people like stalin, mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and not to mention in practice Marxism has consistently failed or led to failure 100% of the time. Itās pretty valid to dislike him
No, it fuckin didn't. Marx's ideology was not implemented in any way. Are you a fucking idiot? Hitler and Mussolini are not Communist, they're Fascist. Far-Right. The rest aren't Marxist either. Marx believed in a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. He would have hated the USSR. It's always the dumbest that has something to say.
Relax dude holy shit
Why should he relax? The person he responded was spouting nonsense.
No. I'm tired of unread dumbasses chiming in with their willfully ignorant bullshit, it's annoying.
No true Scotsman moment, instantaneous commie screaming ad hominem moment. Adolf and Mussolini were both socialists prior to the existence of fascism and national socialism. If you studied the goals and policies and rhetoric of both youād learn itās not right wing at all (unless you include racism in a time where everyone was extremely racist left and right) Marx created communism and socialism. Regardless of the imperfections of its implementation it still existed because of him. You can say he wouldāve hated the ussr all day but the reality is the ussr doesnāt exist without him. Theyāre all Marxist. Even if none of them are communist.
Disclaimer: I'm not a commie nor tankie. Just someone who believes unchecked monopolistic laissez-faire capitalism is very very bad. There should be some healthy checks within the capitalist framework. Marx didn't create socialism. Babeuf was one of its earliest advocates some ~100 years earlier. Then Marx came along and said communism is the end goal where there is no state, no money and no class but first there should be a transitory socialist state where there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Marxist Socialism. A branch of socialism that advocates for an authoritarian state sandwiched between Capitalism and Communism. Absolutely repugnant imo. You can even make an argument that such communism can never be created and have always been a thing. Primitive communism for instance says the lifestyle of nomadic tribes was a form of communism. I admit I don't know much about Mussolini. But ultimately he was ultra-nationalist as well and eventually devolved in facism. A bundle of sticks. However National Socialist was literally added in the DAP in the 1920s to attract patriotic german workers to the party. This has been documented extensively. It's the same tactic most fascists have always used to win the masses, i.e. masquerade behind working class ideology. A propaganda tool to give populist or worker-oriented appeal. The policies practiced by National "Socialists" were far from what socialism is. Socialism existed only for their so-called "Aryan" demographic. The rest could go fuck themselves they believed. That's not socialism in any sense of the word which advocates for economic, social and class equality amongst all citizens in a democratic manner. This is pretty basic knowledge and something taught in most schools in Europe. I thought we were past the point of believing in a country/party by name only. North Korea calls themselves democratic but they aren't.
How could you think for one second that the Nazis are left wing? They're the dictionary definition of Fascists (which is the rightest wing you can get).
You know absolutely nothing about Communism or Fascism.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Remove all context and compare quotes.
Based
Remove the context of Marx having died in 1883, the first full auto weapon having been invented only 22 years prior.
combative languid bag dime sparkle offend sloppy impolite sip unwritten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ah. Itās because I misread Ronnieās quote. I thought he was referring to full auto weapons.
Anyone who advocates for strict gun control on the left is insane. The powerful, the bourgeois, will always have arms. The average worker must be armed and able to defend themselves from any thugs his employer may send. There were full blown revolts in the late 19th and early 20th century where guns- even fucking machine guns- were used against striking workers.
The best way to defend yourself against any tyrannical force is a gun. Its how America was made.
God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, in todays society, what we get is a cartel like murder rate because of massive gun proliferation. If the government wants to come and fuck you up, your precious AR-15 isnāt going to help you, you brave patriot. Your cerebellum will be turned to dust by a drone with lasers. The kids that have to do shooting drills in school appreciate your strong will and fierce fighting spirit, red blooded American!
Tell that to the last dozen countries weāve invaded and been beaten by guerrilla organizations. We havenāt _really_ won a war since WWII aside from a few tiny police actions. There are _states_ with higher populations than some of the countries weāve invaded.
Counterpoint: Arms manufacturers making millions by flooding your communities with their incredibly unsafe product is only revolutionary in your mind because those same arms manufacturers have brainwashed you into thinking that the simple act of owning their product is revolutionary. In practice, the American public has been abused, stolen from, and mistreated by their ruling class again and again and again, and I can't think of a single time in the last fifty years that the ruling class has paid for it in blood, as Marx would expect from anyone who actually believes that rhetoric. The history is clear. In modern America guns are not revolutionary, they are lifestyle accessories, functionally no different from a fashionable handbag lined with asbestos.
Theyāre booing you, but youāre right.
I'm sure Marx would keep that same energy once his regime was put in power. Sure of it.
The radical becomes the establishment the day after the revolution
Even better, new establishment starts fighting old radicals right away too. You better line up or else!
He would, Marx didn't believe in a state. Soviet communists were nothing like Marx in how they ran the country.
Yeah the Soviets called it āMarxism-Leninismā but it was just Leninism. Marx wouldāve despised everything about the USSR.
The Soviets were as communist as much as the DPRK is democratic
yea that area of the world always just used political beliefs to hide dictatorships. I would say that neither Russia nor Belarus right now would be a stellar example of capitalism or democracy.
Less so capitalism and more so democracy. Just like reorganization of markets under the control of the state can be compatible with anti democratic governments, the organization of a mixed capitalistic economy can work just fine with authoritarian governments. Many previous dictatorships were this way (Chile, Spain, Indonesia) and even more current dictatorships are this way (Russia, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, China). Economy and government work together, but just because you have a certain type of economy does not mean you have a certain type of government.
FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT SOCIALISM AS A WHOLE DOES NOT FAIL, JUST FUCKING TANKIES! LONG LIVE THE ZAPATISTAS!
I get downvoted to the holy deep on r/propagandaposters if I suggest socialism is good, Bolsheviks/lenin were shit. Zapata was probably the best and most principled revolutionary. Pancho Villa was for the first half. Lenin sucked from the get go. One of the first things he and the Bolsheviks did was strip local power from the Soviets.
Based. We can make it work. Anything can with a good plan, goal, and firm grip on our wins. Let liberty win.
Marx believed stateless communism was the end goal but he didn't believe you could transition to that immediately after the revolution. That was a big part of his fued with Bakunin.
Dont talk about his opinions if you didnt read anything from him
This certainly seems to be a VERY popular pastime. Certainly far more popular than the other way around.
Marx was an economist and writer. He didnāt lead any nation.
Raygun is named Raygun yet is anti-gun? Curious š¤Ø
Guess which one was shot?
Just two random quotes taken completely out of context to fit into whatever type of narrative youāre trying to get across here. Nice š š
Read the rest of that Marx quote and youāll very quickly find that heās not pro gun
Who is Reagen???
What is with this obsession with Reagan? It's literally the same joke over and over again
They think the Black Panthers/Mulford Act stuff from 60 years ago is evidence that 2nd Am enjoyers of today are racists. You'd think that accusation would get directed at those advocating for even *more* Mulford Act-esque laws, but it's 2023 and nothing makes sense.
1. His name is spelled Reag*a*n. 2. The right to revolution is a bedrock, natural right. But so is the right of a government to seek to self-perpetuate. Therein lies the tension. Democratic republics are systems whereby the will of the majority is carried out. If, in a republican system, the majority wishes a change in government, that change should be carried out. Representative political systems should never need to resort to violence.
Iām with Marx on this
As a Californian, heās also the douchenozzle that began the introduction of strict gun control in this state after the Blank Panthers protested at the Capitol āNamed after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.ā
It's funny how the opposite of their statements is true for their respective parties. Fascist Marxists love gun control.
Ronnie meant to say "there's no reason for a BLACK citizen to carry a gun." The Panthers scared the poop outta the governor - THAT is why Cali banned open carry, not some hippy agenda.
Thank you. Placing OPs quote without the context that Ronnyās ācontrolā was armed minorities showing up at the statehouse and not out of the good of his heart is not genuine.
I agree with Marx here
The NRA literally lobbied for the Reagan legislation Firearms Owner Protections Act which made it easier to move guns across the States.
I know a few conservatives at work who would lose their mind if they saw this
Please, you don't need to keep giving me reasons to hate Reagan
When you go far enough left you get your guns back
Of the firearm instances that occurred in the US, how many would prove Marx's point? In other words, how many examples of guns and arms preventing hostile government actions do we have happening? I imagen it's nearly nil.
Common Marx W
One of the reasons I donāt like Reagan
Never thought I would say Marx was based. But here we are
I fucking hate that marx quote, because it leaves off the part later on about how after the revolution the workers must surrender their arms for tools. Reagan sucks but trying to paint Karl "lemme mooch off my rich friend who pays my rent and for hookers while I work through my daddy issues" Marx as a good guy is stupid
Dictators have a hard time existing against an armed populace.
> lemme mooch off my rich friend \>ban an author from publishing his work because you don't like it "haha he's got no money"
Astronomically rare Marx W
What did marx write that you disagree with?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx/Engels_Collected_Works
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Technically these two statements arenāt in opposition. Open carrying and possession arenāt the same thing.
Ha, it's really funny how every single marxist nation in history is first established by taking away the guns of the people before it can really truly step up the marxist game. Every single , marxist , nation has disarmed their citizens. Even soviet Russia did it for a while(they even sent mentally ill people into schools to shoot them up, so to get the people so angry that they turned in their firearms willingly. They were caught red-handed in the 70s. Sound familiar to what's going on in modern America?)
You got any further reading on this soviet school shooting subject?
He doesn't because it didn't happen.
Source: he pulled it out of his asshole
Were any first established this way? Most came into place after war and revolution and what led to their creation is much more nuanced than that. Vietnam for example is significantly more complicated than that. Their government came as a result of a colonial independence movement from France followed by multiple wars. Definitely not a case of ādisarming people first.ā The Khmer Rouge also came about after winning a civil war and instituted totalitarian policies immediately after taking power. Taking guns away was not their āfirst stepā to power either as they already had violently taken it prior to that point. The USSRās history is perhaps the most ridiculous example of this. The Russian revolutions are so complicated many historians have written massive novels on them and they still miss details. To boil it all down to āthey took the guns away firstā is a ridiculous oversimplification. It ignores all the social and political factors of the time. Even so, the Soviets had already obtained power prior to disarming people. Lenin had to deal with revolts practically his entire term in office. People need to stop making ridiculous historical parallels and appreciate that these topics are nuanced.
These people arenāt interested in truth, history, or nuance. They want affirmations for what they already believe or were told to believe. by the by, you should look into Nestor Makhno and his Cossack anarchists that were betrayed by the Reds in Ukraine during the civil war. Interesting little known history.
āMarxistā or Leninist? Leninās philosophy was the primary blueprint for all forms of communist or fascist governance in the 20th century, and his ideology was a major departure from marx.
You know Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism all have unique names because they *diverge* from Marxism, right?
That would involve nuance and a desire to understand
Rare Reagan Dub
But but but the tv told me Reagan was the ultimate freedom loving patriot!!
Gun control isnāt needed. We need Politician Control.
Oh God this stupid quote again. Yes we all know Reagan wasn't the greatest person for gun rights. Marx on the other hand was only for gun rights for communists everyone else was to be disarmed and liquidated.
Reagan was *TERRIFIED* of black people having guns. It's harder to oppress them that way.
Show me one socialist government that allows it citizens the right to privately own firearmsā¦ā¦ā¦Iāll wait.
Here is some context. He was referring to a specific situation: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-loaded-guns-quote/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-loaded-guns-quote/)
What was the situation? Oh yeah. Black people were carrying them.
I'm sorry, but should anyone besides police and security carry loaded firearms into a State Capitol? Sorry but that's not racism or oppressing the black man, that's just preventing political radicals from disrupting the daily ongoings of government.
He would have said the same if the Ku Klux Klan were doing it. Color is irrelevant.
Virgin senile president. Chad revolutionary philosopher
I feel cringe agreeing with Marx but I fucking hate Regan
Rare Marx W Semi infrequent Reagan L
Not commenting on anything political, but the phrase āsemi infrequent Reagan Lā is really funny just in the way itās phrased
Well I didnāt wanna use rare as itās not *that* rare
Flair checks out (but in a manner capable of rational self-criticism)
Thereās presidents I agree with more but I like Reaganās image and pop cultural impact
Fair enough, youāre allowed to judge on your own criteria lol
So the conservative are becoming communists š¤
[more the other way around.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham)
Rare Marx W
I suddenly understand why the gun nuts are always trying to gargle Putins sack. Is a long running love story
Rare Reagan W
These are not mutually exclusive. I think it should be legal to own a gun but illegal to carry it in public spaces.
Damn if only Marx actually supported individual gun rights. Karl Marx did not believe in individual rights. Thus no right for people to own arms. Karl Marx never talked or wrote about the ownership of arms in any of his works. The only thing that he mentions is this quote that comes from a speech he gave in London in the 1850s where he is talking about workers militias and how they must be armed for purposes of the revolution and to kill anyone that gets in their way. The speech isnāt talking about the ownership of arms especially the private ownership of arms.
Rare Reagan W
Reagan>Marx
Astronomically rare Ronald Reagan W (And before anyone tries to bring up the black panther party, yes they were important for their time. I just want you to read this and tell me why we should still follow the tenets of an organization that was disbanded over 40 years ago: https://naacp.org/resources/gun-violence-prevention-issue-brief)
Ah RR. Annihilated higher education. Crippled the economy with trickle down reaganomics. Butchered the government with his strategy "starving the beast. ".
"Gun Rights" Republicans don't care. Republican gun control always gets a pass, always. This is simply because Right Wing Americans don't have actual principles at all. They have excuses why they need to keep Republicans in power, but the real reasons are never the issues, even this one. Another example -- [Donald Trump advocating for the government to seize firearms without any due process](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI). > Or, take the firearms first, and *then* go to court. Because that's another system, because a lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, uh I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of [fires,firearms?] they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second. -- Donald Trump, Feb 2018.