The Socialist Rifle Association

[T.Lex]

So the question becomes, at what point does their articulation of belief provoke a governmental response to take rights away.

That power becomes important when the political winds shift.

 

[Ggreen]

The majority of people in this thread sound like wokened when they talk about 3%, Oath Keepers, NRA etc. I've been in more exhausting conversations with folks in my personal circle explaining "No, the Oath Keepers aren't Nazis" than I care to remember.

How can people lawfully exercising their RKBA be a bad thing on a gun ownership forum. Totally lost here. What's with the pearl clutching?

Fearful hypocrites. I've been excommunicated from the sra social groups for being a libertarian, but all of the people were kind and just wanted to learn and defend themselves. It's not some shadow organization that wants to take over the country.

 

[GIJEW]

So the question becomes, at what point does their articulation of belief provoke a governmental response to take rights away.

That power becomes important when the political winds shift.

Something like "Intent; means; opportunity". Regarding individuals, the burden of proof is on gov't to prove "ivan" went to riot instead of staying home on his keyboard. Kind of the same for groups--like antifa or ALF being declared terrorist groups--when rhetoric becomes action. Shifting political winds shouldn't matter until the rule of law becomes politicized

 

[larcat]

Rght. My woke acquaintances think I'm a fire breathing right winger and my libertarian friends think I'm a hopeless pinko. But, 2A is a civil right, I'm happy if anyone exercises it lawfully. Maybe it's the strong libertarian streak in me speaking.

Fearful hypocrites. I've been excommunicated from the sra social groups for being a libertarian, but all of the people were kind and just wanted to learn and defend themselves. It's not some shadow organization that wants to take over the country.

 

[larcat]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to T.Lex again.

So the question becomes, at what point does their articulation of belief provoke a governmental response to take rights away.

That power becomes important when the political winds shift.

 

[Tombs]

So the question becomes, at what point does their articulation of belief provoke a governmental response to take rights away.

That power becomes important when the political winds shift.

When their message promotes dismantling of the constitution, plainly.

Such as gun control. "Hate speech" control. Etc.

If they're calling the bill of rights racist, then it's pretty obvious what their intentions are.

Conversely, if people do not believe the government is upholding their rights and is protesting/rebelling against dissolution of those rights, it's pretty easy to draw the distinction as to how both parties view the document.

 

[T.Lex]

When their message promotes dismantling of the constitution, plainly.

Such as gun control. "Hate speech" control. Etc.

First amendment right. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they can't say it. And taking away one right based on the exercise of another doesn't seem fair.

For instance, you can own a gun, but if you own a gun, you give up the 4A right to be secure in your house. Same idea.

If they're calling the bill of rights racist, then it's pretty obvious what their intentions are.

Borrowing a bit of GIJEW's framework (which really only omits "substantial step") intent is a slippery slope.

Conversely, if people do not believe the government is upholding their rights and is protesting/rebelling against dissolution of those rights, it's pretty easy to draw the distinction as to how both parties view the document.

Don't you see the paradox? Taking away someone's 2A for exercising the 1A is exactly the dissolution of that right! Advocating for that is itself an encouragement to ignore the constitution.

Of course, advocating for it is constitutional. This is absolutely a "I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it."

 

[larcat]

Right. This is precisely why I don't give money to the ACLU anymore. Their policy a/o about a year ago is not taking assembly cases if the assembled are lawfully open carrying. That just means they don't actually care about 1A.

First amendment right. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they can't say it. And taking away one right based on the exercise of another doesn't seem fair.

For instance, you can own a gun, but if you own a gun, you give up the 4A right to be secure in your house. Same idea.



Borrowing a bit of GIJEW's framework (which really only omits "substantial step") intent is a slippery slope.


Don't you see the paradox? Taking away someone's 2A for exercising the 1A is exactly the dissolution of that right! Advocating for that is itself an encouragement to ignore the constitution.

Of course, advocating for it is constitutional. This is absolutely a "I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it."

 

[1nderbeard]

Sorry, a bit confused.

Are you pointing out that certain people are saying the self-described socialists shouldn't have guns, while those saying that would be allowed to have them?

I'm saying most big-government liberals are not in favor of the citizenry having guns, and yet they all travel with armed security. I'd venture a guess that most of the socialists being described are not in favor of the general populace having guns, or are at least in favor of more gun legislation.

 

[JettaKnight]

Are they in Shannon and Mikey's crosshairs though? If guns are impermissibly dangerous then they should be taking on armed leftists as well...

To be fair, this organization is a gnat compared to the NRA. I wouldn't expect anyone to waste their breath on them.

 

[larcat]

This. I rabbit holed them months ago and this thread has made me look again. Near as I can tell most of their "I'm real" is "we have a website.. on the internet.

Worth noting here that they claim 6k members nationally. They are organized as a 501c4 rather than a 501c3 which means I believe that donations are not subject to the sorts of transparency normal 501s require, they have a professionally produced "brand kit" and they, and this is the most important part -- have no actual, tangible contact links or people listed as directors, officers, contacts. The closest is the "central committee" page. The majority of local chapters are protonmail addresses.

That is all to say.... The whole thing feels very astroturfed to me. The structure of everything is "look we're real and big" but is the opposite of how an organization in on the ground organizing works. Could all just be "opsec" but meh, smells like BS.

To be fair, this organization is a gnat compared to the NRA. I wouldn't expect anyone to waste their breath on them.

 

[GIJEW]

Borrowing a bit of GIJEW's framework (which really only omits "substantial step") intent is a slippery slope.

Not clear to me why intent is a slippery slope--especially in the framework of "intent;means;opportunity".

Kind of like kamala h saying:
A) " 'weapons of war' have no place in our society" vs
B) "if I'm elected I'll give congress 100 days to enact 'reasonable gun safety legislation' and if they don't, I'll use an executive order to confiscate them"

A is an opinion and B is declared intention to do something. Even then, without the means and opportunity, intent is an empty threat that shouldn't give gov't grounds to act--unless the rule of law is politicized

 

[T.Lex]

Not clear to me why intent is a slippery slope--especially in the framework of "intent;means;opportunity".

Kind of like kamala h saying:
A) " 'weapons of war' have no place in our society" vs
B) "if I'm elected I'll give congress 100 days to enact 'reasonable gun safety legislation' and if they don't, I'll use an executive order to confiscate them"

A is an opinion and B is declared intention to do something. Even then, without the means and opportunity, intent is an empty threat that shouldn't give gov't grounds to act--unless the rule of law is politicized

I don't see anything about intent there, other than her intent to institute gun control.

That's her self-admitted intent.

She doesn't have the means or opportunity yet to do it (other than sponsor legislation as a senator). And, she hasn't even really taken any substantial step towards doing it in an unlawful manner.

She doesn't not appear to advocate for anything outside the law.

Frankly, this "socialist" group doesn't appear to have advocated for anything outside the law, either. (Although, I will confess to not doing much research on this group because they literally have no chance of directly impacting me or my life.)

Intent - or the measure of it by other people -as a litmus test for rights is a slippery slope. There's lots of cases out there about trying to ascertain mens rea (a fancy expression for "state of mind" basically.) From a legal perspective, I'm much more comfortable gauging whether someone has done something illegal, something that puts their rights at risk, based on what they've done.

That's where the line is between their proverbial fist and my proverbial nose.

 

[foszoe]

Other than thoughtful correct forum posts about gun rights for all instead of some.

I don't see anything about intent there, other than her intent to institute gun control.

That's her self-admitted intent.

She doesn't have the means or opportunity yet to do it (other than sponsor legislation as a senator). And, she hasn't even really taken any substantial step towards doing it in an unlawful manner.

She doesn't not appear to advocate for anything outside the law.

Frankly, this "socialist" group doesn't appear to have advocated for anything outside the law, either. (Although, I will confess to not doing much research on this group because they literally have no chance of directly impacting me or my life.)

Intent - or the measure of it by other people -as a litmus test for rights is a slippery slope. There's lots of cases out there about trying to ascertain mens rea (a fancy expression for "state of mind" basically.) From a legal perspective, I'm much more comfortable gauging whether someone has done something illegal, something that puts their rights at risk, based on what they've done.

That's where the line is between their proverbial fist and my proverbial nose.

 

[GIJEW]

I don't see anything about intent there, other than her intent to institute gun control.

That's her self-admitted intent.

She doesn't have the means or opportunity yet to do it (other than sponsor legislation as a senator). And, she hasn't even really taken any substantial step towards doing it in an unlawful manner.

She doesn't not appear to advocate for anything outside the law.

Frankly, this "socialist" group doesn't appear to have advocated for anything outside the law, either. (Although, I will confess to not doing much research on this group because they literally have no chance of directly impacting me or my life.)

Intent - or the measure of it by other people -as a litmus test for rights is a slippery slope. There's lots of cases out there about trying to ascertain mens rea (a fancy expression for "state of mind" basically.) From a legal perspective, I'm much more comfortable gauging whether someone has done something illegal, something that puts their rights at risk, based on what they've done.

That's where the line is between their proverbial fist and my proverbial nose.

I think we're talking past each other while saying similar things

 

[DadSmith]

Does the Constitution provide rights to it's enemies?

 

[foszoe]

Does the Constitution provide rights to it's enemies?

To all citizens.

 

[GIJEW]

Does the Constitution provide rights to it's enemies?

IMO the Constitution is a contract under whose terms the citizens grant the authority to govern to elected and appointed officials on the condition that they respect our rights. Our rights predate the Constitution.
Individuals or groups of them, can undermine the "social contract" and forfeit their rights but that requires action, whether that's regular crime or treason. Just having a subversive opinion doesn't count. "Thought crime" is for fascist/communist states

 

[ditcherman]

Does the Constitution provide rights to it's enemies?

Is it more correct to ask “does the constitution restrict the government from acting a certain way, from restricting the rights that the citizens that live under it have, including citizens who want to undermine that same constitution?”
This gets closer to home for us, i.e. arguments between, let’s call them fudds and 3%ers, disagreeing on what restrictions should/could be enacted. Take that a little further away from us, those that generally agree, and apply it to those who agree on much much less.
As a purist, I believe they are absolutely allowed to bear arms.
The end game, if nothing is worked out, is forbidden to talk about here and (because?) it makes many uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It shouldn’t, but it can.

 

[cobber]

To all citizens.

Well no. It limits government. You're protected whether you're a citizen or not, because you're a human and endowed with human rights. Which the government (supposedly) cannot infringe.