Re: as an anarchist, i'm pretty disappointed with guns nuts ...

On 8/14/26 9:38 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 8/13/2026 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 8/13/26 1:52 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2026 4:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/26 10:15 AM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm not voting for anyone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold 
>>>>> War or
>>>>> cheers for the Intifada like it's the World Cup." - Bill Maher
>>>>
>>>> i'm not voting for anyone who doesn't think gun rights are universal 
>>>> you stupid anti-freedom turd
>>>
>>>
>>> How is it that you understand self-defense (which is the basis of gun 
>>> rights) is a universal right but somehow /property/ does not rise to 
>>> the same level?
>>
>> because they aren't the same thing, and do not have the same properties
>>
>> self-defense is inherently self-limiting to to oneself. unlike 
>> property rights it does not expand arbitrarily. the unbounded 
>> expansions of property rights, on the other hand, then can interfere 
>> with the basic freedoms of others, whereas defense of one's actual 
>> self does not
>>
>> nvm the fact that gun rights aren't even about self-defense like cons 
>> endlessly bleat on about 🙄🙄🙄, that is best left to a legal/policing 
>> system. gun rights are fundamentally about democratizing /common 
>> defense/ against tyranny (both internally and externally), not "self- 
>> defense"
> 
> Defending against a tyrannical government is just self defense.

except it's not /just/ self-defense because tyranny functions at the 
collective level rather than just the interpersonal one.

i get that u don't acknowledge the existence of collective dynamics.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Do you even ever think about the reality that guns are in fact property?
>>
>> gun ownership is very much not zero-sum, unlike the kinds of property 
>> ownership that can then interfere with the freedoms of others
>>
>>>
>>> Your belief system is a bundle of contradictions.
>>>
>>
>> u don't have something worthy of being called "a belief system", as 
>> it's not established upon principles that u actually uphold generally
>>
> 
> So you see guns as being a special kind of property.
> 
> What if someone can't afford a gun? In that case it's pretty clear your 
> ethics would require you to redistribute partial ownership of your gun 
> to him. He can't afford to get one of his own so you need to share.
> 
> You should be glad to do it.
> 

i do advocate for _free_ guns u moron, so yes i do think we should 
actively train and arm the population (to some high percentage). and i 
think we should do so on the taxpayers dime because it's advantageous 
for the preservation of liberty, to have a distributed the common 
defense against tyranny. we have than enough gun production to achieve this
-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃