2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you. You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.
That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.
OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn’t relate to it at all.
This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…
Translation:
The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a “well regulated militia” , so to speak.
And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.
So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:
2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
Nobody was attacking gun rights.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.
I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.
You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.
Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is. Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.
… Ok
As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
Perhaps if you want to protect your own rights… you should have your own gun, and not depend on others to do it for you.
OK so, benefit of the doubt.
You know that statement wasnt asking for protection right?
2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you. You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
TL;DR;
Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.
That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.
OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn’t relate to it at all.
Translation:
The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a “well regulated militia” , so to speak.
And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.
So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:
Nobody was attacking gun rights.
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.
I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.
As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.
Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
TL;DR;
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is. Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
… Ok
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
Who attacked gun rights? The guy making fun of hypocrites?
Wow, that is a long way to say 2nd amendment nutters support ICE.
Guns have always been the problem and have never been the solution.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7601546-under-no-pretext-should-arms-and-ammunition-be-surrendered-any
I am sure all the people dead from the proliferation of guns to satisfy corporate profits appreciate your advocacy for more death.
I hope you enjoy the taste of boot leather.
Yep, and you are wearing them.
At least you know your place.