LiberalGunOwners announcement
LiberalGunOwners announcement
Hey all (yes, all 55 of you people that are subscribed - I see you, and you're awesome people),
I've been contacted by two of the people that were mods on r/LiberalGunOwners (u/u/1-760-706-7425 and u/GiveAShot, @account and @GiveAShot, respectively) and they've convinced me as best as they could - given that I'm permanently banned from Reddit - of their identities and status as moderators on r/LGO.
I've added them as moderators here because, TBH, I'm winging it here, and am not the most tech savvy person by a long shot. They have experience as moderators, and wanted some kind of backup in case the subreddit goes completely down. I'm happy to oblige; I'd like to see some kind of continuity of community.
You're viewing a single thread.
Nothing wrong with that (though be aware the mods of 2aLiberals are not what they claim to be.)
But, also be aware that there's nothing mandating that reddit mods have a seat on a c/ or magazine solely because they moderated a place with the same name. We get a chance in the fediverse to build from the ground up, and not every mod from reddit is going to be up for the change.
(though be aware the mods of 2aLiberals are not what they claim to be.)
As long as I don't feel like they are taking positions that are opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms, and are at least left of center, I'm not going to worry too much about policing most specific opinions. (See sidebar about bigotry, etc.) If this particular magazine ends up growing significantly, I know that I won't have the time or technical ability to moderate effectively.
Interesting...
I joined this magazine (without reading the side bar, until now) thinking that "liberalism" refers to a political ideology that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, emphasizing individual liberty, limited government intervention, and free markets. It is generally considered a right-leaning ideology due to its emphasis on limited government and individual freedom...
Little did I know, that's not at all what is being talked about in the side bar...
So, are "the mods of 2aLiberals not what they claim to be", or are the users or LiberalGunOwners now what they claim to be?
Isn't it quite contradictory to list the social movements that this magazine is in support of while also talking badly about fascism and authoritarianism? These movements often try to censor free speech, try to manipulate and coerce free speech (in favor of their personal feelings), and often physically attack people who disagree with them... That's fascism. The left, in the United States, often votes for policies that bring on more infringement, more limitations and regulations, more taxes... That's authoritarianism (NOT liberalism).
Am I completely off base here? Or have I stumbled upon some kind of mass identity crisis?
My purpose was to give a space for people that are outside of the US political right--people that are not economically or socially conservative, people that don't want to exert coercive control over other people--a place to be comfortable discussing firearms, training, hunting, legislation, and so on.
The political term "liberalism" has evolved significantly in the 150 years or so since the term was coined; I'm using a definition that's far more commonly understood.
At this point, I think most people recognize that a left/right distinction in politics is insufficient. Left-right can refer to both social issues, or economic issues, but you also have a libertarian/authoritarian dimension. To put it in more concrete terms, fascists and Nazis both tend to be quite far right on social and economic issues, but also extremely authoritarian. Stalinists are far left on economic issues, tend to be more socially conservative, and are also extremely authoritarian. Libertarians, strictly speaking, are very anti-authoritarian, but can be either socialist or capitalist (libertarianism was originally a socialist political ideology, but was co-opted by the fringe right in the US in the 50s/60s). Anarchism is a socialist, anti-authoritarian political ideology.
In the US, gun politics tend to be dominated by voices that are on the political right; people that are socially and economically conservative and/or regressive. Many of the people that have the loudest pro-gun voices are also opposed to many other individual liberties, like the concept of bodily autonomy (e.g., abortion rights, legalization/decriminalization of drugs), sexual autonomy, freedom from religious coercion, etc. The left--people that broadly support things like real religious freedom, bodily autonomy, etc.--also tends to oppose gun rights.
Sorry for the disjointed response; I'm at work, and typing between other tasks.
BTW, being pro-LGBTQ+, BLM, and feminism is in-line with classical liberalism, as those movements all emphasize individual liberties for those groups, and those groups that have been traditionally denied liberties through gov't and social intervention.
Thank you for the further context regarding the rationale behind the magazine's focus. I appreciate the goal of creating a "safe space" to discuss firearms, though I don't agree with the nature of limiting other people's speech through strict moderation or bans... I think being open-minded and encouraging constructive discussion is more important than "safe spaces".
being pro-LGBTQ+, BLM, and feminism is in-line with classical liberalism, as those movements all emphasize individual liberties for those groups, and those groups that have been traditionally denied liberties through gov't and social intervention.
people that don't want to exert coercive control over other people
While I understand and agree that individual liberties are important, I have concerns about some means used to achieve those goals. For instance, there have been instances where legislation has been proposed that could limit or coerce free speech, such as through restrictions on dead naming and misgendering.
Additionally, certain social equity programs that, by their nature, can be seen as discriminatory, such as affirmative action or specific minority business development programs (Minority Business Enterprise, Women-Owned Small Business, Native American Business Development Programs, Section 3 Housing, etc.). TRUE equality does not discriminate based on race or gender. It's crucial to find a balance that promotes true equality while respecting individual liberties and avoiding unintended consequences (ie, the shifting role of a father in a family, being replaced instead by "Big Brother").
At this point, I think most people recognize that a left/right distinction in politics is insufficient. Left-right can refer to both social issues, or economic issues, but you also have a libertarian/authoritarian dimension.
This I also mostly agree with. However, I guess I am of the minority(?) opinion that modern liberalism has lost it's true values. I understand and agree that individual liberties are important, and marginalized groups need all the help they can get, BUT the point is, while saying what you've said here, how can the magazine's description blatantly say...
This is a magazine for people that identify as left-of-center
... while also recognizing that people can be in favor of policies and ideologies that come from various locations on the broad spectrum that is the political compass? Hell, the whole point of 2A in the United States is anti-authoritarian. Yet, "the left" continues to make it exceedingly more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms, without realizing that criminals don't give a crap about their regulations and "gun-free" zoning...
Personally, I'd consider myself more right leaning, because I want 2A rights... Which, as time goes on, "the left" becomes more afraid of... I also value lower taxes, deregulation / free trade, school choice (free choice), non-socialist healthcare (more free choice), decentralization of power to local governments, and I don't believe that murder should be legalized (free choice, to use contraceptives)...
Overall, my point is that I am "Pro-LGBT, Pro-Equality-For-All, and Pro-Women's Equality / Rights"... But I also lean right... Because I recognize that without 2A, none of the aforementioned policies would be defensible.
For instance, there have been instances where legislation has been proposed that could limit or coerce free speech, such as through restrictions on dead naming and misgendering.
I'm not familiar with those proposed laws off the top of my head. BUT, on the other hand, when you're working at a job, your employer can compel certain speech, and if you won't comply, you can be fired. If you're talking about legislation that compels e.g. teachers to call students by the pronouns that they use, then I don't see a problem with that, because it's regulating teachers in their capacity as employees of the state, not in their individual capacity. If a teacher doesn't want to do that, then they are absolutely free to seek employment at a private institution that isn't funded by the state. (...Which will then compel their speech in other ways, and perhaps in much more restrictive ways.)
Your religion may compel you to evangelize. But if you evangelize while you are acting in your capacity as a state employee, then you are violating separation of church and state. So prohibiting that speech while you are acting a representative for the state doesn't not harm your individual rights in a significant way.
TRUE equality does not discriminate based on race or gender
Sure. But we still see discrimination now. We're not at a point where people are treated equally in places they live, schools they go to, career choices, policing, etc. Acting as though certain demographics don't need more support in certain areas than other demographics do isn't going to get us there either; it's just going to widen the gap. If society truly treated people equally now, then you'd see highly competitive schools with demographics that roughly mirrored the population as a whole (..which you do, because they have intentionally worked towards diversity and inclusion, rather than looking solely at "merit").
(ie, the shifting role of a father in a family, being replaced instead by "Big Brother")
Why would shifting the role of father be bad? I'm not saying that the father should be replaced by the state, but why is a traditional father role better than a father that's a nurturing home maker, and a mother that's the primary provider? Or two fathers? Or two mothers? Or a blended family with two fathers and two mothers? Men benefit in all of those cases, because they have more options that can suit who they believe themselves to be, rather than what society expects of them. Men get to choose their role, rather than having one assigned to them.
Yet, "the left" continues to make it exceedingly more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms
More specifically, Democratic lawmakers in general, yes. But not all people that tend to vote Democratic believe that; I vote democratic because I also strongly support abortions rights, LGBTQ+ rights, tax reform, major criminal justice/policing/rehabilitation reform, single-payer health care, etc. I'm not a single issue voter. But if more people that identify as Democratic get involved in shooting, we're more likely to see Democratic politicians start changing their stances. Having a place where people that are on the left can talk, and be supportive of gun rights while also supporting things that are more traditionally seen political left point should help, over time.
Personally, I'd consider myself more right leaning, because I want 2A rights...
That alone doesn't make you on the political right. The fastest growing demographic for new gun owners is black people, but black people overwhelming vote on the political left--or for Democratic candidates, at least--because the left has more to offer them. Gun ownership is part of a spectrum of issues that may help define where you are, but isn't the single determinant by itself. You say, for instance, that you're pro-LGBTQ, pro-women's equality (which is broadly consistent with 2nd wave feminism at a minimum), etc. These are things that the political right are generally opposed to; when DeSantis says that Florida is where woke goes to die, those are the things he's in opposition to. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that any of the current Republican presidential candidates (Trump, DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, Christie, Hutchinson, Elder, or Burgum) are in favor of any LGBTQ rights, and all of them appear to want to significantly curtail the rights of transgender people. All of them were in favor of eliminating the reproductive choices of women.
I disagree with Democrats--which comprise the bulk of the US political left--on 2A issues.
without 2A, none of the aforementioned policies would be defensible.
Unironically, yes.
As my Appleseed instructor said, "git gud".
An examination of abortion rights from the standpoint of philosophy. Yes, it's a thought exercise, but it's illustrative of the point.