you'll never be able to achieve a well educated society, and so an armed partially uneducated society is best you can get - which will always be a danger - as we clearly see in everyday America.

[-]

jasont80@reddit

I'm not so sure. Terrorists have higher-then-expected education levels, with many leaders having doctorates.

[-]

Icy-Success-3730@reddit

The only thing stopping a terrorist with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

[-]

Holyschmidtballs@reddit

Here's the full quote.

'An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.' - Robert Heinlein

[-]

Allaplgy@reddit

One of the dumber quotes of all time.

[-]

Orchidivy@reddit

Absolutely not. Guns are too basic. Give them tactical nukes.

[-]

-MBerrada-@reddit

A muslim wouldn’t interpret a non-Halal restaurant as oppresion. He would just go to another restaurant which serves Halal food.

[-]

JasperTheWolf990@reddit

Yeah, that’s legit what we do. Why would we eat somewhere where pig and other gross stuff is?

[-]

crazyfrecs@reddit

Your description makes me think you're one of those 'libertarians' that just want freedoms for some people not all.

Trans people, mexicans, and muslims arent out to get you or the public dude. Your concerns are racist caricatures of people.

Oppression is from the government.

[-]

Yeah he definitely seems like one of those right wingers, he’s basically painting minority groups as dangerous and irrational, when most of us aren’t like that. Imagine an atheist saying that Christians might think a school is oppressive because it doesn’t allow the Ten Commandments to be shown in schools, that’s the level of ridiculousness and caricature this post is.

[-]

TheMawsJawzTM@reddit

Remove the identity politics. It's collectivist nonsense.

Armed individuals are harder to oppress. Everyone's an individual, and everyone has natural, human, birthrights, individually - no matter what God they pray to or what they tuck up in their skirt or what color they describe their skin. It's all equally moot when it's understood that human rights are human rights.

[-]

Still_Definition_623@reddit

They’re talking about taking away gun rights from trans people. The minorities in the pictures are targets of this administration. Underlining their right to the second amendment makes sense.

[-]

wins0m@reddit

Minorities don't get to choose to "remove identity politics" because the politics of identity are forced upon them by violent majorities.

Not very complicated, read a book.

[-]

TheMawsJawzTM@reddit

gif

L

[-]

torino42@reddit

There is no minority smaller than the individual

[-]

chandlarrr@reddit

Quote credit: Ayn Rand

[-]

Direct_Philosophy495@reddit

Well introduce yourself to shame-based masturbation, and you will quickly see how the individual can be two things at once.

[-]

Maldorant@reddit

This was a funny comment imo, sorry you’re getting downvoted lmfao

[-]

torino42@reddit

What? I don't think I'll be doing that.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

The point would be that the thugs who pander to "minorities" are the same ones who want to disarm them. Often explicitly...the Dred Scott ruling specifically that blacks couldn't be counted as people, because then they could own guns, and that would be too dangerous.

Ask the Black Panthers what they think of the Dems and their efforts to violate The Second Amendment.

[-]

Seen_Any_Elves@reddit

But if we don't separate people into categories then how will we know who to blame for our problems?

[-]

TheMawsJawzTM@reddit

And how will we ever us-vs-them people into worshipping actors in two dominant political parties

[-]

Leather-Application7@reddit

I abhor Collectivism such as Socialism, Fascism and Communism, but local networks and community are good. Rooftop KOREAN would not have been as effective as Rooftop KOREANS.

[-]

Pezotecom@reddit

Of course we don't deny the economies of scale that arise from groups, but I understand I am part of a company because I like money and the company gives me money, so acting like a 'family' gives me more money.

The second I start believing that my company has any sort of existence beyond what my boss' desires imply, then I am close to schizophrenia.

My two cents

[-]

Leather-Application7@reddit

I don't disagree. I am friendly with co-workers, even friends with some, but we're not family. Work is a profession.

[-]

-Django@reddit

People are often oppressed based on aspects of their identity, so it seems relevant to me. Though thinking about systems like castes in India and serfdom, sometimes the majorities of the population face the most oppression.

[-]

ConscientiousPath@reddit

individuals are often oppressed based on aspects of their identity yes. Which is why it's important to de-normalize always focusing on such group-identity aspects instead of seeing individuals.

[-]

-Django@reddit

It'd be nice if we could do that more, but seems almost too idealistic for me. I think deep down, humans have a "us versus them" pack mentality. Identity politics and oppression play right into this.

[-]

Rudirs@reddit

Yeah, it's silly pretending that identity doesn't matter. There's plenty of history to show that the government recently has, does, and for the foreseeable future care about identity. From race to religion to sexuality and gender. I could give a dozen examples but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

One very pertinent example is black Panthers being armed and pushing for black citizens arming themselves. The government, the police, and other powers-that-be won't care about an individual black person with a gun (plenty of examples of them getting shot or arrested without cause). They probably won't care about a statistic like 35% of their population being armed. They will start caring at 50+% of black, trans, gay, or whatever specific minority population being armed.

An individual is nothing without their community, and as much as I think we should all be allies for anyone being mistreated most support will realistically come from within communities and not from allies outside of those communities.

[-]

trahloc@reddit

100% someone doesn't need me to approve of their life choices to have a right to defend themselves. Being their own person and being willing is all that's required. We only have issues if they demand my approval or submission.

[-]

Bernkov@reddit

Amen.

[-]

Rvtrance@reddit

Yeah the founders said these rights were given to us by God that we were born with them. Including the right to bare arms.

[-]

QuodAmorDei@reddit

Armed citizens would be best. But, guns are the great equalizer for when rights are about to be stomped on.

[-]

Confident-Drama-422@reddit

The smallest minority on Earth is the individual

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

Only if the majority of people believed in this...

[-]

landlordmike@reddit

Which... Is why it's important to be armed.

[-]

lurkmastersenpai@reddit

The problem is everyone defines their individual rights differently and will kill to collect on what they think their rights entitle them to

[-]

howlinmadmummer@reddit

Fantastic response!! You get it!!!

[-]

SuitableParking8480@reddit

Your hypothetical scenarios are rather hyperbolic

[-]

calargo@reddit

A Libertarian having to go to the DMV to get a Drivers License might feel oppressed

[-]

ElLicenciadoPena@reddit

I'm a libertarian and I think drivers licenses are a necessary part of the minimal role of the state of protecting private property. A misused car is a lethal weapon capable of killing multiple people. Life is the first and most important private property. If you want to drive a car, you should be able to demonstrate that you're capable of doing it without harming other people.

[-]

Wandering_Organism@reddit

I agree. And to elaborate on this...in my opinion, I think that the government's role is to facilitate common values such as competency, etc. The DMV granting a license as a sign of competence to operate a motor vehicle isaway that the government actually "serves" the people and society can fucntion efficiently and effectively...and thus, people can be left alone to live their lives. By "serving" the people and facilitiating these common values, private property can be preserved (such as "life" as you mentioned; which I agree is the most important private property).

[-]

JohnnyHendo@reddit

What if the government did the exact same thing with guns? At least require a competency, safety, and handling test to acquire a license that you have to have to purchase a firearm.

[-]

OffWalrusCargo@reddit

So this is how I'd differentiate, keeping and bearing arms no license or testing needed, though a good gun seller should be required to teach the basic firearm safety rules when selling a gun. But if you want to carry concealed a test for competency should be allowed since there is a greater chance of unplanned use.

[-]

interwebzdotnet@reddit

Driving isn't a legally protected right, so this is not the equivalent you are implying.

[-]

bravehotelfoxtrot@reddit

But devil’s advocate—

When discussing this on principle, how could one address his point? What is the fundamental (not merely legal) difference between:

“Use of vehicles is inherently dangerous and potentially deadly, therefore it is desirable to centrally manage licensing and permission to use.”

and

“Use of firearms is inherently dangerous and potentially deadly, therefore it is desirable to centrally manage licensing and permission to use.”

“Because the law says so” is certainly relevant in some ways, but it doesn’t really satisfy the question for me. If firearms were invented in 1822 and somehow managed to gain some of the ubiquity they have today, I doubt the lack of second amendment protection would meaningfully shape the libertarian response to state gun control.

[-]

No_Application_2927@reddit

All Amendments Matter.

Not just the 2A.

It is the bedrock contract.

[-]

interwebzdotnet@reddit

It's not really about the danger, it's more about the actual intended use and those implications imo.

A gun is / was required to secure your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and needs to be available on demand to you as the end user.

A car, not so much, and definitely not as critical when it comes to the on demand need. You can definitely work around not having a car if you need one, and the car itself likely isn't a barrier to you having the rest of the rights you enjoy.

[-]

Werdna629@reddit

Yeah this is a really great call out - personally (although this may get disagreement here) I’d say you’d have to use the same logic and go through that process.

That being said, the 2nd amendment seems very clear to me, and this would be an infringement on that, for the legal side of this.

[-]

smorrow@reddit

There are other pathways to making/keeping guns legal that don't depend on people recognising natural-rights arguments or anything else.

Basically, 3D printing has made "criminals don't obey the law, they will have guns" real if it wasn't already. If guns are inevitable then they might as well just be inevitable for everyone, legally.

[-]

Only_Constant_8305@reddit

lol nobody that 3D prints guns is doing it because they want to commit a crime with it. You have to put in so much work and effort, especially with post-processing the print that you put in countless of hours. Oh yeah, and there's also the fact that those parts are made of plastic, since metal 3D printing systems cost usually 6 figures

[-]

smorrow@reddit

Printed guns have nothing to do with metal printers. No-one has metal printers. They never will. So nobody designs printed guns with metal-printed parts.

Printing guns in Europe is mainly a gang thing, except when it's a lone-wolf-ish far-right thing. It's just a matter of time until it's a school-shooter thing (especially since knowledge of printed guns is highest in the same age bracket that does school shootings), in which case you're going to wish the only gun control that works (a good guy with a gun) was nearby.

[-]

Only_Constant_8305@reddit

Printing guns in Europe is mainly a gang thing

Maybe in the UK where gun control is even tighter than a virgins butthole, but outside nope. Anyone who believes 3d printing will let pretty much any criminal manufacture a gun just by pushing a button has no idea about 3d printing. Those gangs could also just pick up a used milling machine for only a few thousand euros and make the parts out of metal in the first place, and those machines make parts which are way more precise than anything that comes out of a plastic 3d printer

[-]

smorrow@reddit

Maybe in the UK where gun control is even tighter than a virgins butthole, but outside nope

If you follow this stuff you will have seen busts of large-scale print farms in European countries that aren't the UK. One in Finland had 100 people arrested in relation to it.

Anyone who believes 3d printing will let pretty much any criminal manufacture a gun just by pushing a button has no idea about 3d printing.

An article on the same site called Beyond the FGC: How the Urutau is Redefining... makes the case that any 100-IQ animal can (minus the stupid "just by pushing a button" goalpost), but stops just short of "therefore real guns should just be legal already", for no good reason.

JStark who designed the FGC said in the Plastic Defence documentary that anyone can make it. If you'd rather trust the dev than the journalist.

Those gangs could also just pick up a used milling machine for only a few thousand euros and make the parts out of metal in the first place, and those machines make parts which are way more precise than anything that comes out of a plastic 3d printer

Yes, someone who knows CNC can machine parts (but can make good money legitimately anyway). Ope, I guess a man that does not know CNC doesn't exist or something then! That's what you're saying.

Also, guns that are designed to be 3D printed are designed to be 3D printed. They're designed for the precision of the machine.

You're missing the point, anyway, which was that in the long run the existence of printed guns is a guarantee that proper guns will just be legal. At some point our generation will have the political power and the attitude will be there's no point in banning something that criminals can just download.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

That all assumes the bizarre fantasy that the state can ever be trusted with competence tests or other gatekeeping.

Ask poor Southerners with unpopular political ideas, faced with voting competence tests, how that works out.

[-]

ElLicenciadoPena@reddit

The belief or lack of belief of the state as a necessary evil is what separates minarchists from ancap. I believe the state has only one role, which is to protect private property, which includes life. Everything else is overreach. And making sure potentially lethal artifacts are handled by qualifications people is a necessary part of that protection.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

You are not addressing my point. You are engaging in simplistic reasoning, where you assume that because the state SHOULD protect your natural rights, it CAN COMPETENTLY protect them, instead of making things worse.

[-]

Far_Advertising_9599@reddit

But couldn’t you make the same argument with fire arms though?

[-]

thiccpastry@reddit

Question for you then: would this same philosophy extend to gun ownership?

[-]

ElLicenciadoPena@reddit

Of course. I think that you should have the right to own a gun as long as you can demonstrate how to use it (not accidentally shooting someone because of ignorance of functioning), and you're a lawful citizen with a minimal degree of mental stability.

[-]

thiccpastry@reddit

Love that!♡

[-]

Minute-Performance67@reddit

Well, following that logic you must be in favor of gun control?

Or do people want to debate which is more deadly between a car an automatic rifle?

[-]

ElLicenciadoPena@reddit

I think both guns and cars should be regarded on the same tier because they’re quite similar.

You should have the right to own and carry a gun, but in order to avoid endangering others, you should be able to prove that you know how to handle it safely so you don’t accidentally shoot someone. If you commit violent felonies, you lose that right. If you’re deemed psychologically unstable to carry a firearm, your right should be suspended until you’re deemed fit again.

You should also have the right to own a car, but in order to avoid endangering others, you should be able to prove that you know how to drive it safely so you don’t accidentally run someone over. If you drive while drunk, you lose that right. If you’re deemed physically unfit to drive (for example, poor eyesight or bad coordination), your right should be suspended until you’re fit again.

The only role the state should fulfill is to protect private property, and life and body are the first and most important forms of private property. Cars and guns shouldn’t be prohibited unless explicitly banned; they should be widely allowed unless someone is specifically deemed unfit to use them. Just like you have the right to freedom unless you commit a crime and are imprisoned. Then your right to freedom is suspended because you misused it.

[-]

Minute-Performance67@reddit

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying

[-]

jerkhappybob22@reddit

You do realize if someone wants to kill you with a car they arent gonna care if they have a license right?

[-]

AlcoholicsAnonymous6@reddit

Most people that die because of a car weren't in a position where the driver wanted them dead, a large majority of car deaths are accidents, usually caused by an incompetent driver, requiring a license reduces a lot of car related deaths.

[-]

PhilRubdiez@reddit

I bet a good chunk of them are licensed drivers. Licensing has no effect on capability.

[-]

kdawg-bh9@reddit

I agree with this. Just about every wreck on the road was either caused by a licensed driver or someone who’s previously held a license at some point. It’s bad choices that cause wrecks, not capability to drive (to an extent).

[-]

PhilRubdiez@reddit

I’d argue good decision making is the heart of good driving. Decide to get over when your exit is coming. Driving slow in inclement weather. Give extra space when you see everyone in front of you slowing down. All of those are decisions. True accidents are rare.

[-]

kdawg-bh9@reddit

I completely agree

[-]

DrLews@reddit

A rock can be a lethal weapon, should we issue licenses for them to?

[-]

ElLicenciadoPena@reddit

It's extremely difficult to kill one or many people accidentally by inexpertly handling a rock. If you could instantly kill someone by not knowing how to correctly use a rock, then yes, I would push for rock licenses.

[-]

kdawg-bh9@reddit

We could say the same thing about firearms. Should we have a class that instructs people how to properly aim and shoot before they can own a firearm?

[-]

Chester-Bravo@reddit

I think fun safety should be taught in elementary schools.

[-]

WallyMcWalNuts@reddit

YOU’RE A FRAUD!!!

/s

[-]

_shredder_@reddit

Can confirm.

[-]

sadson215@reddit

A person who has close to 50% or more of their income stolen is oppressed.

[-]

stosolus@reddit

A business owner that refuses to sell you their good for whatever reason is not oppressing you.

What fundamental right is a business owner stopping you from having?

Then it's not oppression.

Oppression comes from the government 8 out of 10 times.

So yeah, this meme is spot on.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

It is oppressing associative trade. While people have property rights to the extent of refusal to provide services, they cannot do it in a manner that injures or discriminates against a class of people.

[-]

bravehotelfoxtrot@reddit

It is associative trade. Freedom of association includes the freedom to disassociate from whomever at any time for any reason.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

Isolationism in libertarianism? Seems to me a bit irresponsible. Hitler "disassociated" from Jews. Slave owners "disassociated" from blacks in the civil war era. Again, while I do grant that people have rights to the extent of refusal to provide services (which is what your point is), they cannot do it in a manner that injures or discriminates against classes of people.

Using freedom as a disguise to invoke hatred is stupid.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

The idea of there being a specific class of people who have special protection is pure evil.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

Special protections are meant for people who have been so discriminated and prejudiced that no other remedy to stop hatred but governmental interference will accomplish the objectives. It speaks volumes about how fundamentally fucked up society is. If the government has to step in to protect the liberties of other people, then it isn't the government that is the problem. It is their job to step in at that point, granted, that the use of power is within Constitutional boundaries.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

No, it speaks volumes about how gullible people are, and how racist, that they believe the lie that this or that group NEEDS the state to "protect" it, or even benefits from that state protection.

Society is not that fucked up, but the state is, and so are people who BELIEVE society is that fucked up.

No protected groups as a concept is evil, and does not magically undo past discrimination, but just distorts the community in a different way.

The solution to taking a depressant isn't to take a simulant. You don't end up sober, you end up even more sick in two different ways.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

No, it speaks volumes about how gullible people are, and how racist, that they believe the lie that this or that group NEEDS the state to "protect" it, or even benefits from that state protection." If you believe oppression doesn't exist, then I am not sure what the complaint is. This seems like a complete dismissal of eons of history.

The state is ran by people. People do fucked up things. People are not pure just because they are not in governments. And the evil people do carry over into governments. Governments are a necessary evil to protect us from the evils of people because the two powers check each other.

The problems with government is when their evils start to align with oppressive tactics by the people who has influence over other people.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

Yes, of course there was racism among institutions in the past.

It's positively dim to assume that this reflects the present.

The state does fucked-up things...like promote the racism of Wokism and Critical Race Theory today, that gullible rubes accept as fact.

The solution to a bully is to get a bigger bully to stomp a mudhole in them.

No, that's postmodernist, machiavellian childishness. The solution is to stick to the actual principle of justice, not to commit the exact same injustice in the opposite direction.

But the modern nitwits are obsessed with power qua power, as if one should not break its hold, but instead be the ones who seize it.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

"The solution to a bully is to get a bigger bully to stomp a mudhole in them.

No, that's postmodernist, machiavellian childishness. The solution is to stick to the actual principle of justice, not to commit the exact same injustice in the opposite direction."

Digging the big brains. But I used to think like this at one point and found out that the only way to correct the stupidity of people is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Experience is the best teacher (because history isn't enough.)

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

The "sides of the aisle" is another scam, it's authoritarian vs freedom, not Dem vs Rep.

But the solution is a system that does not reward the bullies, for the very reason you cite of them being bullies either way. Different bullies is an intolerable situation. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The system has to punish the quest for power, not just dole it out to a different gang of thugs.

And voting is irrelevant, especially given how the election system is most countries is a sham, and the US most of all. The Soviet Union had more legitimate choice than the US does.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

"But the solution is a system that does not reward the bullies, for the very reason you cite of them being bullies either way. Different bullies is an intolerable situation. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The system has to punish the quest for power, not just dole it out to a different gang of thugs." Still missing the point a bit. For us to invoke freedom, we must intrude on the authoritarian's beliefs that they should hold corrupted power. We then become the bully, the authoritarian by virtue of stopping authoritarianism, or reverse authoritarian for short.

The most pointedly thing you have here is stopping systems that rewards bullies. We kind of already have that. It is called tripartite government, a system of checks and balances, etc. What stops bullying is competition amongst the people who have power, not by succumbing to the one on the hope and prayer that people will change. By all means, I would hope and pray that people wake up and see governments as the tyrannical entities they are, but society consistently wants government intrusion into everyday life, making them co-conspirators. The system is absolutely fucked from the inside out; the government, and the voters who allows the government to be. The only way we can get the people to change in their mindset on what the government is to do is to put them in an environment where they have no choice. And I mean it in the most literal sense possible. Want to vote in order control the moral dictates of other people? How about we force it upon you instead since you thought it was a good idea. That is what I meant by the "bigger bully."

[-]

stosolus@reddit

they cannot do it in a manner that injures or discriminates against a class of people.

Show me an example of when this happened in the private sector.

And I'm curious to the scale of so many oppressions that can only happen with the government.

[-]

Leather-Application7@reddit

Well, segregation.

[-]

stosolus@reddit

Are you sure?

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

I am pretty sure that is covered underneath it. Government isn't the only powers which derives the irresponsible use of freedoms (in other words, fundamental abuses of power).

[-]

stosolus@reddit

When you speak of segregation, are you referring to the government's usage of Jim Crow?

As for the actual customer issues.

Does the customer have a right to buy whatever they want, from whomever they want?

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

No. Slavery was a real thing... Jim Crow was another monster built within the same walls of discrimination, and was a major reason why the CRA was enacted.

And to your other question, yes. The right to associate is reciprocal. Now, before you start, because I know what you are trying to do here, I already explained I agree that a shop owner has a right to refuse service... twice... The "usage" of that right as pretext to shield discriminatory acts does not count.

[-]

stosolus@reddit

The "usage" of that right as pretext to shield discriminatory acts does not count.

Does not count for what?

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

In these instances, you are not refusing service based on your right to "disassociate", but are trying to claim a right to discriminate.

[-]

stosolus@reddit

but are trying to claim a right to discriminate

Individuals and businesses don't have this this right?

Also, why are we arguing semantics.

What oppression was felt by the people that couldn't get a cake from a specific place?

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

The limitations on the right to discriminate is if it doesn't harm someone. The relevant question to that is when does it not?

"Also, why are we arguing semantics." It is relevant because it is a major principle of libertarianism. Freedom has limits, generally when an action causes harm to someone. There are also inherent responsibilities that comes with freedom.

"What oppression was felt by the people that couldn't get a cake from a specific place?" Classification based warfare on gay people?

[-]

bravehotelfoxtrot@reddit

Good thing is: the oppressed customers have the right to disassociate from shop owners who hurt their feelings.

[-]

laughsitup2021@reddit

Yep. But there lies the problem. Why should either party be forced into one position or the other? This is the reason why I say the right is reciprocal. Mutual respect of rights on both parties is needed to avoid bullshit conflicts such as this one. In other words, common sense of the golden rule.

[-]

dankpants@reddit

The individual is the smallest minority

[-]

Notworld@reddit

It's almost like our government has been running a decades long psyop to conflate 'oppression' with 'not getting your way politically' to make the idea of resisting tyranny with violence uncouth.

[-]

metakynesized@reddit

When everybody has arms, it becomes harder to cry oppression over arbitrary things.

If the urologist is armed it's harder for the trans to make that case or atleast not without consequences, same for all other examples.

[-]

AnCapine@reddit

yes

[-]

Appropriate-Gene5235@reddit

depends, in my country Lebanon, we have a lot of problems with small minorities and camps being armed, bc it's a threat to our sovereignty, but yes it is very hard to control them, bc they have a mind of their own, nd by that i mean they have the mind of Iran and Palestine, the army has tried to remove their weapons (rightfully so) and it hasn't gone as well as expected. L'Orient has a good paper abt this topic where it says that those camps stand with the back of Hezbollah, so if you take down the hezb, the camps will go down as well. So in conclusion, yes it is harder to control a minority if they are armed and actively able to get more weapons.

[-]

R0NiN-Z3R0@reddit

On the basis that it is a factual statement? Yes. Anyone who is armed is hard to oppress. But on the insinuation that anyone, minority or otherwise is currently being oppressed in contemporary America? No, I don't agree.

[-]

popcornsprinkled@reddit

They're talking about taking guns from trans people now. They are our canaries, it important to watch out for them.

[-]

Mastiffmory@reddit

An illegal can legally own a gun and those examples did not include a “Oppressed farmer who is being paid less for his crops then he should be”. Lets be equal here

[-]

a_n_d_r_e_@reddit

In libertarian thinking, the main principle should always be the 'do not harm' principle.

The first two examples are clearly harming people, the other two are mostly defending themselves.

Despite me not being a fan of weapons, I can agree with the meme in principle. It all depends on what one uses the weapons for.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

How is any group in that pic clearly harming anyone?

[-]

a_n_d_r_e_@reddit

I mean the examples in the post' text.

[-]

KAZVorpal@reddit

The squatter is not defending himself. He is an aggressor.

The idea that one must constantly use some property in order to ber allowed to continue to own it, after having invested the resources into buying it legitimately, is foolish to the point of insanity. It violates the very principles of property rights. One does not need to justify what one does with one's private property.

[-]

NewCalifornia10@reddit

This just sounds like minorities wanna kill us. Have it be individual instead?

[-]

traianmatisi@reddit

Thats exactly why all the political context has to change. Who defines minorities? Should religion influence polítics? Is ICE a valid responde to illegal immigration?

Instead of chanfing, THEY have us chasing each others freedom and feeding us propaganda of "Why is a danger to democracy/your life style/freedom/etcetera".

Freedom isn't freedom if it's not universal. Períod.

PS: No one is free to oppress, our definition of freedom has to be updated as well as the political context

[-]

Acrobatic-Spirit5813@reddit

I mean if you feel the need to escalate any issue to violence of that level you’re probably either right or insane

[-]

Tsulaiman@reddit

Muslims ignore restaurants that specialize in pork.

[-]

NukMasta@reddit

Frankly I feel like if some minorities ought to be more armed (women mostly, the physically disabled maybe?) than the general populace. The ideal is ofc still everyone being armed, "An armed society is a polite society" and allat, but still

[-]

MissingJJ@reddit

No, look at America right now. I can’t believe there hasn’t been any shooting yet.

[-]

Sidetracker@reddit

Any armed group is harder to oppress.

[-]

ItsBarvazi@reddit

I don't support arming the mentally ill.

[-]

Tacoshortage@reddit

All of you writing "The smallest minority is the individual" are the very reason we as a group will never amount to much. Precisely because we can't seem to think or identify as a group. You're all so busy being individuals that you can't recognize that small, medium and large groups can still be infringed upon. This meme is 100% Dead On Balls Accurate.

[-]

tksmase@reddit

Fringe identity politics are cringe. Just say individual, stop with the skin based group circlejerk.

[-]

bigntex@reddit

The transes are mentally ill, no different than a schizophrenic. The roof Koreans should have their guns instead.

[-]

finetune137@reddit

Government aka the state is armed minority.

[-]

DruMau5@reddit

Top right image is hilarious. The image is from the race roots that took place in LA. Korean Town shooters which kept angry mobs from burning down Korean Town. No one was oppressing them. The government couldn't stop a riot so they stepped in to protect their property rights.

[-]

tillqueasily@reddit

Do you think libertarians aren't also a minority? All of your examples are offensive attacks and not defensive, self defense is for everyone, not just the "minorities" you agree with.

[-]

germansoviet13@reddit

How are these offensive attacks?

[-]

tillqueasily@reddit

Only speaking from my own pov here, but I don't think any of the examples could possibly be self defense. OP suggests that minorities might "use guns for absurd reasons" as if that doesn't happen with irresponsible gun owners in general.

I'm a gun owner, I think that trying to limit it based upon someone's gender identity, national origin, religion or their living situation is inherently a problem.

[-]

DeIzorenToer@reddit

Mentally ill people should not be allowed guns.

[-]

future_pirate@reddit

Minorities are harder to oppress or commit hate crimes against when they are armed. I fully support that sentiment. If the left wants to support those groups' safety they should support gun rights.

[-]

Grayman1120@reddit

I think everyone should own a gun and know how to use it no matter what you believe in

[-]

DurstigeSpinnie@reddit

Libertarianism varies a lot between USA and Europe. Maybe I am biased, gun control laws have been working insanely well in Europe. I think everyone can agree a set of well thought of rules and a well run state is good, our problem is states have weapon-like bodies and features that can be used to opress freedoms, gun control drivers license and security isnt like those

[-]

WhiskeyNick69@reddit

“I think everyone can agree” is where you lost me as a libertarian.

[-]

DurstigeSpinnie@reddit

Isnt everyone here libertarian? Anyone who says there shouldnt be any rule and no state is outright stupid for ignoring years of human history where we tried to build centralised systems. I am for freedom but this ammount of anti-statism isnt rational nor possible in real life to achieve. USA is a good example of armed and functioning society, whereas mexico is also armed but it only leads to death

[-]

smorrow@reddit

gun control laws have been working insanely well in Europe

So why is the armed-crime capital of Europe Sweden, which has about the same gun laws as the UK and Australia, the countries everybody seems to hold up as the proof of gun control "working"? Why is the UK the proof instead of Sweden the test?

Libertarianism varies a lot between USA and Europe

It varies between the Anglosphere and Europe, because Euros are apparently congenitally incapable of understanding it. Been aware of this for 15 years at least. It took us British far too long to begin resisting our rulers, but at least we did begin.

[-]

MeasurementNice295@reddit

Banning force equalizers don't stop violence, it just pushes it to the lowest common denominator and the weaker part always bears the burden of that.

Old lady with a knife against a gang of home intruders with knives?

Brutalized.

Old lady with a gun against a gang of home intruders with guns?

They will prefer to take their chances somewhere else at even a whiff of suspicion of that being the case, as the cowards they are.

"God made men and women, but Samuel Colt made them equal" type shit, got it?

[-]

EldritchWyrd@reddit

No I don’t. It works when it’s an overall homogeneous society. When there are 1000 factions and cultures and ideologies in an environment where media takes sides, it leads to chaos.

Like open borders, and unregulated capitalism it works in theory / perfect world

[-]

Diarrea_Cerebral@reddit

Isn't there a sub for US libertarians? This is a very specific topic from a certain country. For the rest of the world, concealed carry is not a normal everyday thing.

[-]

stumpinandthumpin@reddit

But these are the groups that are also much more likely to terrorize the public. Bottom right/top left and top middle are something like 75% of all violent crime, and bottom left seems to do all the non-gang mass shootings now.

[-]

SnrkyArkyLibertarian@reddit

In principle, yes, however I'd only use the meme as is if I'm debating a leftist and know the identity politics images will mess with their worldview.

[-]

germansoviet13@reddit

Leftists are pro gun, "under no pretext" and all that

[-]

NSFW_Milkshake@reddit

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear despite the divisive overtones.

[-]

BitchStewie_@reddit

Sure, but all of those scenarios apply equal to other races. What if a white person feels oppressed seeing gay couples in public? What if a white person feels oppressed seeing someone else with a gun? It's not any different and in the real world those people don't go around murdering others 99.9% of the time.

These are cherry picked examples.

The bottom line the right to self defense applies to all people.

[-]

autographplease@reddit

he’ll yea, with the way things are going on x and instagram against minorities, I mean the open racism, I am very much turning into a libertarian.

[-]

Equivalent-Region895@reddit

The second amendment is for all citizens. Notice I said citizens.

[-]

kittysparkles@reddit

Armed anyone. Minorities are included in anyone.

[-]

adalsindis1@reddit

I. General yes

[-]

ValorantEdater@reddit

I mean the meme is demonstrably false.

The US is the most armed society on the planet. When exactly, is the critical mass where we beat oppression and become the most polite society on the planet?

Because I'm seeing constant tribalism in the US, with eroding freedoms and growing government overreach. I'm seeing adults shooting children for ringing their door bell or turning into their driveway accidently. I'm seeing the government coverup sex crimes while purposely redistricting to geryrmander and reduce the power of the citizens to vote them out of office.

And with all these guns, nothing is happening.

The US has a lot of slogans that make citizens feel better about owning guns, but none of them are actually based in reality. Including the fact that citizen gun ownership doesn't actually make a socieity safer.

And because I know someone will call me a fake Libertarian for this take - I am able to recognize something from a Libertarian viewpoint without having to lie to myself about it. You can simply argue that people should be able to own guns because you think people should have the freedom to buy anything they can afford. Instead of lying that more guns make you safer, less oppressed, or a society more polite. We have a big enough sample size to know that those three arguments are false, so why continue to lie about it?

[-]

Kaiser_Constantin@reddit

Im german and I dont want a certain minority group in my country to get access to fire arms.

[-]

Chingachgook1757@reddit

The individual is the smallest minority.

[-]

eliisback@reddit

Identity politics are stupid but this is a correct statement. I don’t think trans people with guns is a good look right now. No, I do not think the government should be able to take your right to own a gun away because of mental health issues (I have anxiety myself and am medicated NOT WITH SSRIs) but trangenderism is a mental illness that has resulted in severe damage to an entire generation due to propaganda, medical malpractice, and a severe moral failing on the part of parents. Also, transgenders are uniquely violent toward themselves and others having the highest suicide rate of any mental illness currently even surpassing the big 2 (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). If you are not comfortable with an unmedicated bipolar/schizophrenic person walking around with a loaded pistol or rifle, you should be equally uncomfortable with a trans person doing the same thing as it is statistically more dangerous to you and them.

[-]

viking_@reddit

I don't think the meme says anything like how you're interpreting it. Anyone can misuse or misinterpret any concept to their own end. Anyone (regardless of minority status) could claim they're being oppressed by food being expensive and shoot up the local grocery store or whatever. The entire point of individual rights, and protecting them, is that some other person might abuse their freedom to do harm to others, but that isn't a reason to take away everyone's freedom, any more than you put everyone in prison because some people commit murder.

[-]

Whole-Violinist182@reddit

I agree. Armed people are harder to be controlled, oppressed and beaten into submission, because no bureaucrat will act unchecked when met with a perspective of acute intra-organic lead poisoning.

[-]

mrsniffles666@reddit

No. This is dumb

[-]

wagon-run@reddit

The government is doing a great job oppressing Trans people despite them having guns. What are they going to do exactly? Shoot their way onto a college sports team? This meme is utter nonsense.

[-]

pepsicherryflavor@reddit

That may be true but there are forms of oppression that are so subtle they don’t require a gun and also there is no way for a government to be 100% certain that someone who wants a gun is sane and isn’t a threat to society so I don’t think they should be legal

[-]

RonaldoLibertad@reddit

Anyone who is armed is harder to oppress. That's what the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.

[-]

GunsNSnuff@reddit

Everyone should own a way to protect themselves.

[-]

No_Seaworthiness1627@reddit

We should be armed. A disarmed nation is ripe for exploitation and overtaking. Now, sanctions on what class of firearm is available to the public, and/or no possession without proper training makes sense too. AR15s are a platform that is ridiculously modular and useful in so many ways, but I do think that more people need training and sidearms training to prevent accidental injury, or defensive training in civilian settings.

[-]

rhaphazard@reddit

I think the most interesting part of your question is that all the examples you gave are of the supposed "minority" actually oppressing their alleged oppressor.

The gynecologist is being forced to accept a mental illness as fact, the restaurant owner is being forced to comply with a religious law they don't believe in, the home owner is being forced to give up their own property, and citizens of a country are being forced to accept illegal aliens.

In each case, it would actually be the other side that benefits most from physical protection.

[-]

Low_Abrocoma_1514@reddit

Armed people are harder to oppress*

There I fixed it for you, no need to divide the population into boxes, we are all ome people fighting the oppression from Tyranny

[-]

AlphaIota@reddit

I don’t agree with 1/3 of this meme. “Minorities” and “To” have their weapons pointed up when not in use. Everyone else has them properly pointed down.

[-]

RailLife365@reddit

Carrying firearms in the "up" position is perfectly fine when indoors, and there is no occupiable space above. It's actually the preferred direction to point the muzzle if on a second (or higher) floor of a building with no floor above it.

I'm not arguing against you, simply adding information that I know.

[-]

patriotmd@reddit

Wut?

[-]

thiccpastry@reddit

Yes. I love it. My right-libertarian ex put me onto this concept.

[-]

Misterfahrenheit120@reddit

Do I agree with everything in this meme, no.

Do I agree with the sentiment, hell yes!

[-]

JuanMurphy@reddit

Who the fuck is being oppressed?

[-]

natermer@reddit

The smallest minority is the individual.

This is why individual rights are the ones that matter.

[-]

l0udninja@reddit

Lower left larping at a cod player.

[-]

tygamer15@reddit

Definitely agree with this image.

An illegal Mexican immigrant, when interacting with ICE, might feel oppressed.

They probably are being oppressed.

[-]

heyohhhh84@reddit

Colt made everyone equals

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

You could just as easily say armed majority would use them to do all sorts of bad things with bad excuses. All these could end badly and might result in a strong backlash against the group. At the least you don't get casually trampled if you have the ability to fight back. I support armed minorities personally. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves.

[-]

Goobapaaaka@reddit

Black Panther polices audits need a comeback.

[-]

FuzzyPickLE530@reddit

Its important to note that the vast majority of people never engage in violence more than a fist fight. Some not even that in their lifetimes. We have a very small percentage of the population that is actually dangerously violent, and the actions of an individual shouldn't reflect on another. We just get caught up in trying to apply simplistic "solutions" on everyone.

[-]

Cambronian717@reddit

The only true minority is the individual and all individuals are harder to oppress when armed. No need for identity politics or group identity. We are all individuals and have the right to bear arms for our own defense and the defense of those around us.

[-]

phillyman276@reddit

Maybe not the bottom left. The 4473 does have a mentally fit question. Im not a fan of the 4473 but some people should genuinely not have guns

[-]

Moaiexplosion@reddit

You can’t use an AR15 to convince your appraiser that your house is actually worth $50,000 than they appraised simply because you are the one brown person in a mostly white neighborhood.

[-]

Dangime@reddit

The smallest minority is always the individual.

[-]

EllenRipley2000@reddit

Armed people are harder to oppress. I love this meme because it asks the gun-loving and racist Republicans to think about the implications of their rascism and gun worship.

[-]

Miserable_Layer_8679@reddit

Yes

[-]

Suggins_@reddit

Those first two bullet points are laughable. The last one I'd agree with the immigrant. The squatting thing is a whole can of worms but if it's one of the thousands of homes being monopolized and left vacant by big real estate that keeps getting corrupt bailouts and tax breaks I'd side with the new occupant lol.

[-]

ilikecars2345678@reddit

i thinkn the meme is based

[-]

Parking_War_4100@reddit

I think you meant biased.

[-]

Martorfank@reddit

No, their "oppression" might just been having fail a test and getting angry at their teacher. Would agree if it weren't for the underlying message of justifying unreasonable violence against those that just simply disagree with you. Just like with the recent kids in the Christian school that most of the left is celebrating upon their deaths. You are not misinterpreting the meme, all your examples are what they want to happen.

[-]

conor20103039@reddit

[-]

ReddtitsACesspool@reddit

I interpreted this meme in about 2.65 seconds, and my interpretation was that countries with minority or targeted groups that have arms to defend themselves are hard to infiltrate and takeover.

[-]

memcwho@reddit

The smallest minority is the individual.

The minorities pictured, and described, by OP would become the oppressor in every situation he mentions.

In such a scenario, the individual being pressed is the person on the receiving end of the violence. Therefore, they have the right to defend themselves.

Besides, there will be a different doctor who will offer dick chopping services, restraunteur offering porkless meals, and unused buildings to steal. Don't wanna get shot be an armed defender? Don't be an offender.

[-]