Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For years we have been hearing about conservatives being crazy for wanting to have guns.

Now progressives are setting up there own zones guarded by armed militia.

Now the conservatives who wanted and want to defend themselves sent looking so crazy.

Have progressives been hypocrites this whole time?

If you're a reader check out the book liberal fascism by jonah Goldberg. Highlights alot of progressive hypocrisy.

Many of them are absolutely hypocrites.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
For years we have been hearing about conservatives being crazy for wanting to have guns.

Now progressives are setting up there own zones guarded by armed militia.

Now the conservatives who wanted and want to defend themselves sent looking so crazy.

Have progressives been hypocrites this whole time?

I don't think those are the same people. Leftists/Anarchists are very different from liberals. Bleeding-heart (pardon the pun) gun control folks tend to be liberals.

Leftists and anarchists often very much share the view of right wing militia types that the populace (particularly the proletariat) needs to be armed to protect itself from the capitalist governments overreach.

Then how do you explain all the people in the media that have always been critical of the 2A when it came to the right, yet are either saying nothing or supporting the CHAZ.

Originally posted by Artol
I don't think those are the same people. Leftists/Anarchists are very different from liberals. Bleeding-heart (pardon the pun) gun control folks tend to be liberals.

Leftists and anarchists often very much share the view of right wing militia types that the populace (particularly the proletariat) needs to be armed to protect itself from the capitalist governments overreach.

I think those individuals are more libertarians than liberals.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then how do you explain all the people in the media that have always been critical of the 2A when it came to the right, yet are either saying nothing or supporting the CHAZ.

Oh, I guess I haven't noticed that, but they are probably partisan liberal hypocrites...

Of course we always have to remember that Democrat and Republican media are completely different and show you different things about any given situation, so while Republicans leaning people seem to think this is a terrorist insurrection, Democrat leaning people see it as a peaceful form of protest or maybe like a harmless block party.

How would taking over multiple city blocks and guarding them with guns be considered peaceful or harmless?

Originally posted by Silent Master
How would taking over multiple city blocks and guarding them with guns be considered peaceful or harmless?

That's probably a question better asked to the people that support the zone for that reasons. But I guess the argument, supported by the way it is portrayed in Democrat leaning media, is that the police packed up by themselves, and since then there have been people hanging out without using force, without looting, rioting or perpetrating crime.

Why did the police pack up and leave?

Anyone see the video where cops hang out at a congressmans office and let looters riot. Disgusting. Love when they get exposed as the disgusting pos they are.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why did the police pack up and leave?

Idk, scared? Had enough of this shit?

Originally posted by Artol
Idk, scared? Had enough of this shit?

Scared of what? had enough of what?

Originally posted by Artol
Idk, scared? Had enough of this shit? All Sm does is troll so do not expect any real discussion from him.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Scared of what? had enough of what?

I think the wikipedia page gives a pretty good, not too biased in either direction description of the events:





But look, you are going at this the wrong way, you won't convince me that the liberal view of this being harmless fun is wrong, because I don't hold that view.

Originally posted by Artol
I think the wikipedia page gives a pretty good, not too biased in either direction description of the events:





But look, you are going at this the wrong way, you won't convince me that the liberal view of this being harmless fun is wrong, because I don't hold that view.

Sounds like violence to me, now. that wasn't so hard was it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sounds like violence to me, now. that wasn't so hard was it?

Oh shit, you proved it to me, I completely changed my mind on this topic, thank you for schooling me.

Originally posted by Artol
Oh shit, you proved it to me, I completely changed my mind on this topic, thank you for schooling me.

You're welcome.

I do wonder, do you disagree with my hypothesis that there are a lot of Democrats who, based on the news they consume, do not view this as a violent insurrection?

Because I totally understand that you don't believe that, and I would also agree that there is violence involved as well, so I don't agree with their view either, but I'm pretty sure that is at least in large parts their view.

I think most democrats know they used violence, they just don't care. But, I suppose there could be some truly ignorant Dems that are just too dumb to think for themselves.

Originally posted by Artol
I don't think those are the same people. Leftists/Anarchists are very different from liberals. Bleeding-heart (pardon the pun) gun control folks tend to be liberals.

Leftists and anarchists often very much share the view of right wing militia types that the populace (particularly the proletariat) needs to be armed to protect itself from the capitalist governments overreach.

This. Liberals aren't leftists.

And no, the distinction has nothing to do with "classical liberalism."

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think most democrats know they used violence, they just don't care. But, I suppose there could be some truly ignorant Dems that are just too dumb to think for themselves.

I see, I see, what about the argument that the violence was either justified or in self-defense. I presume you don't buy that, but do you think there's more Democrats that believe that?

The truly dumb ones might believe that. but I'd then ask for proof that these specific people acted in self-defense and sed dems wouldn't be able to provide any proof, they'd just start with their usual tactic of calling everyone that disagrees with them racist.

Anarchism is simply stateless vs. Having a state. In the same way atheism doesnt connotate any other beliefs except for the one about not believing in god; anarchism can be right or left wing. One of the best left anarchists is book chin, maybe chomsky is you count his weird hyper specific version of syndicalism, and on the right the best two are murray rothbard and hans herman hoppe.

Also, someone else already pointed out that today's liberalism is not what's meant by the word, in say the misesan sense.

Liberalism in the classic sense uses the divine individual as the smallest indivisible unit, whereas today liberals feel more collectivist.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This. Liberals aren't leftists.

And no, the distinction has nothing to do with "classical liberalism."

What do you think about this?

https://i.imgur.com/RuRVgdY.png

When i took that test i was 5 down and 4 to the right.

That makes you a comfortable right-wing libertarian.

Yeah definitely, i like von mises, rand, rothbard, hoppe, mcpherson etc. And finding their work came as a consequence of reading people like paine, hamilton, smith, and jefferson.

Originally posted by SquallX
I think those individuals are more libertarians than liberals.

Yeah, a lot of them might be left libertarians. As far as I can tell they aren't really right libertarians (what is commonly in the US called Libertarian or has overlap with the term Anarchist Capitalists (AnCaps))