The greatest argument against the Second Amendment is that its biggest supporters aren’t lifting a single trigger finger to stop fascism.
Cosplayers. The whole lot of them.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
463 points (97.9% liked)
Flippanarchy
2840 readers
39 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This feels like a deadly misunderstanding of both the people who you're referring to (they're getting exactly the thing they want why would they try to stop fascism), and also the argument for why leftists should have been 2a the whole time.
Like, don't let the desire to be correct pull you this far into the weeds. They will never care that they're hypocrites, they just want you dead.
I know. I was being sarcastic. The common argument for 2A is that their ancestors needed guns to fight fascism.
I never seriously thought they’d do the same. I just think it’s funny that they pretended for so long. Most couldn’t load a musket.
Damn I'm dumb. My bad
why leftists should have been 2a the whole time.
I agree that leftists should support gun ownership, but I deliberately do not support the Second Amendment, or any part of the US Constitution, for the simple reason that the document is part of the law in 
. Even in a theoretical instance where the text of the law is not problematic (which the Second Amendment is; it is a poorly written sentence, even by the standards of the time), the fact that it is law gives the text a role in the maintenance of the various hierarchies the State imposes.
Fair. I'm also of the unironic and literal "arm the homeless" leaning. How would you have wanted gun rights worded if it were up to you to write the law?
I would simply not write the law, since I am an anarchist and I oppose laws.
As a point of agreement within a freely associated anarchist community...it would depend on the needs of the people. Like there might be communities where the members freely agree to not own guns, or communities where members freely agree to all own guns, or something else.
Personally, my preferred approach would be to share gun ownership, maintenance, training, and regular usage collectively within a small community of a couple hundred people at most. The hope would be that the community is small and safe and we all know and trust each other, so we wouldn't need to carry guns all the time around each other. But then if we needed to defend ourselves against tyrants, we would collectively be armed to the fucking teeth and trained to use these tools. But I would never want to impose this approach.
Hmmm. That feels like the worst interpretation of anarchism, like kind of how non-anarchists have always just assumed anarchism means "no rules I do what I want". You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right? Hell you can run a court in an unhierarchical way.
But if you're uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it. You're basically describing what should happen anyway. I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don't employ violence
But if you're uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it.
Nah, that's not the part I'm objecting to at all. I'm not against rules, written rules, or rules having serious consequences. I'm against, specifically, rules backed by State power. I am using "rules backed byi State power" as a definition for law.
You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right
So under my definition, rules can be used to facilitate a lack of hierarchy...but not law by my definition, because the State inevitably imposes the dominant hierarchies.
If you are operating under a definition of "law" that does not require State power... then I suspect we disagree on definitions and not what we mean to say through them. Sorry if this is too pedantic, but I really do think that understanding each other's definitions is super important. In an academic work I would simply begin by stating a list of definitions from a minimum of primitive objects...but people would find that weird on a casual web forum 😆.
By "rules" I mean "points of agreement which are required to freely associate with a group". So then, consequences can be baked into the agreement. For example, you could put in the agreement "We agree that if any member discharges their firearm in a dangerous way, they must surrender their firearm immediately and retake the firearms safety class.", or something like that depending on community needs.
I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don't employ violence
Me too. I just don't believe that it is useful to name such a text a "law". I believe it is useful to make a distinction between "a rule" and "a law".
Broke: The Second Amendment is bad because guns are bad.
Woke: The Second Amendment is bad because gun owners are not stopping fascism like what the framers 🤮 promised.
Bespoke: The Second Amendment is irrelevant to anarchist theory and praxis, and it should be burned to ash with the settler-colonial
Constitution and all its defenders. Guns are useful tools for fighting oppression, but must not be fetishized.
They also love to wave the American flag and screech about freedom. As long as their chosen propaganda outlet is telling them everything is fine and the brown people are getting a boot on their neck they don't care. My only hope is when these dumb mother fuckers can no longer afford groceries or gas they might start to wake up. But then their propaganda will tell them it is somehow the democrat's fault and throw in the word "woke" and they won't question it.
Its biggest supporters are fascists.
They see themselves as future fascists; temporarily embarrassed pacifists.
if you are looking for an image, it was probably deleted.
Wise words, wise words
Here there was an image, But now it is gone, We are sorry for your loss, But it's time to carry on.
I stole and reposted it.
I made that meme, and I encourage people to go forth and use it to upset conservatives
I find it really fun to repost satirical kirkaganda on facebook where I subtly shrink his face each time until someone notices.
That's like 99% Helvetica Scenario, right there.
I still cant tell if that's how big his face was or if this image has had it enlarged
It is accurate and unedited, you can trust me, no need to look it up and verify
I dunno it looks really natural to me. At least back in the Photoshop era, shrinking a face down on an angle like that would be hard to pull off (at least for me).
Did they just subtlety decrease his face size in this? Epic.
Even the wisest cannot tell.
Shout out to CK for going on a personal record of not saying anything racist in over a year
I always think someone edited his facial festures with a shrink tool to make it small on his large head.
"Counting or not counting gang violence?"
The exception that proves the rule.
We all have the power to make someone happy. Some of us do it by entering the room, while some do it by leaving.
Kirk's shooter is all but forgotten now (which took like a week btw), probably facing execution which I bet was super worth it
Kirk himself after getting Kirk'd simply got replaced in 0.1s with other rapedwinger
all it did was create a meme for larpers to laugh at
adventurism sure is effective huh
it's become sadly far too common to see a communist claim that killing fascists isn't worthwhile.
larper
moth has sympathy for you. the world has beaten you down, and you have given up. rest, comrade. even in your dejected and miserable state, you have worth.
There's an argument that in terms of total human suffering in the world, eating an execution for killing Kirk is a net-positive because Kirk had an abnormally large platform.
Pretty apt criticism tbh. Everyone likes to joke but for that week the shooter's motivations were the world's most fiercely contested game of hot potato. "Not ours, not ours, we condemn violence!"
I think about that now every time somebody brings up Teh Ebic Revolution and how it's coming any day now.
Ya got me there.
I see guns as a great way for the USA to remove the “conservatives.”
"Necessary to the security of a free State..." is pretty cut and dry...
Sometimes I confuse this grifter with the other one, the brother of the tradwife influencer with big breasts.
I know they tried to make this guy into a Horst Wessel, but I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even remember who this guy was five years from now.
fuck he kinda has a point tho
He’s got a point
view more: next ›