such a funny time for this discourse again ☕
You must log in or register to comment.
Are you talking about people in the USA or people elsewhere in the world? The USA is always “special” when it comes to matters like this.
Definitely just the USA. I mentioned earlier that I really respect NZ deciding to disarm after their last public shooting. That’s something that could really happen when corruption is that low and people are educated and healthy.
Leftists have always been pro gun. There’s just not that many leftists. It’s the Democrats and neoliberals who think only Trump and his government should have guns.
The gun discourse always felt like another manufactured divide to further polarize the public and disarm the left in practice.
I thought leftists are always pro-gun, while its the liberals (which includes those progressives in the US Democratic party) are always against guns.
I always felt like a minority in politics. I grew more and more supportative of egalitarian policies as a I grew older, coming to that conclusion from both logics (I wouldn’t want to be treated that way), and also from experience as a racial minority.
But I’ve literally always been pro-gun since the moment the gun topic came up in school.
Which just leaves me in a very confused position when I learned that out of the two big parties (those that can actually win an election), the party I agree more with opposes guns. I just had a mini-identity crisis.
So while I do vote for democrats, I do so begrudgingly, because there is just no viable left-of-center pro-gun party. Every time they say “gun control” on an election year, I just facepalm, like c’mon just drop the issue from the party platform and win a lot more elections, the time to debate guns was 1789, now its kinda too late, cats out of the bag.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
-Karl Marx
I disagree with Stalinism and Maoism, but Marx had great ideas, but sadly people just did a horrible interpretation/implementations of it and used communist/socialist aesthetics to justify their authoritatianism and never actually doing any real egalitarian stuff.
Being pro gun, doesn’t have to mean you’re against sensible gun laws though
So far, what democrats propose aren’t really sensible.
They are giving authority to police to dictate who can or cannot obtain a gun permit.
Like wtf, fuck the police, I don’t trust them with shit.
Give that power to like, idk, some sort of jury and maybe we’ll talk about gun control. But I ain’t trusting cops with the discretion to hand out gun permits. They’ll give it to a white young-adult that’s racist as fuck and threatened people, but will simultaneously refuse to give a permit to a black store owner seeking for a gun to defend against a potential white mob trying to attack his store.
Before 2022, most Democratic jurisdictions operate under “May-Issue” laws, meaning, cops had broad discretion on whether to issue a permit or not, but then the supreme court, ironically its the 6 fascist-alligned judges, struck it down and the whole US is now under “Shall-Issue” laws, which means, cops cannot deny a permit if the background check comes clean, so no more denying guns to non-whites and using “he looks suspicious” as a reason.
Background checks? Yea fine.
Manatory gun safety training? Sure.
Permits? Ummm only if its a neutral nonpolitical jury/citizen’s commission or something like that. Cuz otherwise nope, can’t trust cops with the discretion.
Gun Registry? Don’t give it to the government. An independent citizen’s commission should maintain the registry, only accessible to investigators if there’s probable cause and a warrant should be required.
They are giving authority to police to >dictate who can or cannot obtain a gun permit.
Like wtf, fuck the police, I don’t trust them with >shit.
Give that power to like, idk, some sort of jury and maybe we’ll talk about gun control. But I ain’t trusting cops with the discretion to hand out gun permits. They’ll give it to a white young-adult that’s racist as fuck and threatened people, but will simultaneously refuse to give a permit to a black store owner seeking for a gun to defend against a potential white mob trying to attack his store.
Fun fact: NC “recently” (idfk 1-2yr ago) got rid of their Pistol Purchase Permit required to buy a handgun, because it was found that the Sheriffs (who had the authority to approve the permits) were using the law to discriminate. Iirc around the time I read 60% of denials were to black people. That state and others still gatekeep the CCW permit behind the exact same system. Just evidence to your point.
That said, a jury can be, and often is as we’ve seen, racist too. A NICs check oughta be enough, if you can’t trust someone to carry one you can’t trust them to have it at all imo. Hell even a NICs check, I personally think nonviolent felons should have a path back to firearms ownership, and don’t care if someone is an unlawful user of marijuana.
Manditory safety training, depending on price and time, imo is a barrier to entry for the poor and trivial for the rich. It’d have to be well thought out.
Permits? Bad. Registry? Literal fascism, it’s time to “go.” Idfc if it’s jury, idfc if it’s private companies not the feds, no.
The issue probably comes with determining which major organizations are knowledgable about guns…and then which of those organizations you’d trust.
If there are regulations, unfortunately someone has to administer them. Juries make decisions regarding cases, but cases only arise through police action; and court systems are already overloaded without handling firearm permits for individuals.
I’m pro gun, but I would tie the ownership of guns to a permit, that includes first aid and firearm safety training at least for the smaller arms, and possibly more for larger arms, on top of some background checks (no history of violent crimes or domestic abuse, etc.).
Who gives out the permits?
Make them shall issue permits, as in they can’t be denied as long as you’ve gone through the proper training
Because fascism is here and guns are a requirement now if we don’t want to live in an authoritarian future.
I’ve been anti-gun my whole life. That’s because I had some faith that our society was intelligent enough that we could create a less violent nation that respects democracy and votes our way into a better future.
Reality Check: That isn’t our society.
Guns may not save us from authoritarianism, but not having them guarantees it. Wish it wasn’t so, but it is.
If this train keeps derailing, they will end up coming for you. That’s how fascism works. You want a way to defend yourself or not?
Anti-gun sentiment doesn’t belong in a country where there are more firearms than people.
It’s always been idiocy. Stupid democrats saying stupid things because they know their idiot followers will lap it up. It’s been bullshit the entire time.
Ironically, leftists are more in line with the constitution with our reasoning around gun ownership. In my book, anyone who isn’t happy with the lax state of gun laws is equally an ally and we shouldn’t draw lines in the sand for no reason. You can both own a gun and want it to be harder for people who shouldn’t get them to get them, it’s almost as silly as the “you criticize society and yet you participate in society” argument.
I don’t know. I don’t think we really are good at deciding who should and shouldn’t have a right. there seems to be something fundamentally broken in that
Circumstances change, that’s the main fundamental issue. At the same time, we don’t even check for problems during a lot of gun sales. I would say domestic abuse charges, history of suicidal behavior or terroristic threats, etc. There are at least lines we can draw without it being a free for all or a massive lockdown. Admittedly, it’s mostly so we can feel we’re at least trying something in the face of our children being killed that may actually make an impact in some of the examples.
okay that’s valid and noble. I would like to live to see society change like that
but why do you think they want us disarmed before the change happens?
Well, with conservatives, it’s always about targeting those they don’t like. I wouldn’t be surprised to see anti gun legislation coming from the right that holds those already owning guns immune, but new buyers since November 2024 ineligible. I think we more or less agree?
yeah, probably. I’d bet on them somehow rolling it into concerns about immigrants and how “only real citizens get 2a rights”.
Quickest way for trump to take away everyone’s guns is for people he doesn’t like to arm up. Libs, minorities, etc. incidentally - trump is the only president who has suggested guns be taken away. Not even the snowflake republicans’ deepest fears and hatred of the Democratic presidents was ever validated by one of them saying guns should be taken away like trump.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Turns out they hate women more than they love guns.
No actually I think more women should carry them and learn the laws regarding defense in their locale. Know plenty myself that already do.
And women seem to agree with me, which is why they’ve been one of the fastest growing groups of new gun owners in the past few years.
I think this episode plot of Bojack is one of the most bitingly effective takedowns of US culture I have seen, these words live rentfree in my head as a future epitaph to put on the gravestone of the US.
Turns out they hated women more than they loved guns.
Proceeds to ban all guns Turns out America hates women more than it loves guns.
Diane ❤️
They took away black people’s gun in the past. Specifically their guns. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Exactly why I mentioned it.
Can you explain? I’m not familiar with such an event.
Democrats and NRA worked together to end several gun rights in California because black men started open carrying.
Thanks
Nobody is taking the guns from Americans, because nobody has the balls or the numbers of enforcers to do it.
For reference, the number of Americans who came out to the No Kings Day protests was larger than the sum total of all enlisted US Military and police officers. Next look at the number of Americans who own guns, it’s much larger than all of the above.
They just gradually redefine American and the gun problem disappears, ez
“They’re not taking my guns away, just those America hating
immigrantsgangscommunistsdemocratsdomestic terrorists”Nobody is just straight up kidnapping Americans off the street and deporting them to a concentration camp without due process. We would simply shoot them.
What is this strawman doing here?
Your logic is so bad that I’m not arguing with you. I’m making fun of you.
Mostly left of center liberal here. I’ve got no problem with guns and folks using them safely and responsibly. Problem is, there is a whole shitton of assholes that can’t even follow the first rule of firearm safety.
I like it this way, guns are a privilege NOT a right. Just like driving.
Aren’t they literally a right though?
“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is a right. If we were to get rid of gun rights, we’d need to repeal the second amendment.
oh i know - it’s comically stupid to say with such emphasis they’re NOT a right, when they literally are.
Personally, I welcome better regulation of gun ownership, and think the entire reason for the 2nd amendment is from a time long gone. Even the most “well regulated militia” would be easily squashed, short of them having similar firepower to the US Military.
100%. There is no question that the original constitutional amendment is barely applicable to modern technology. Also, plenty of countries have guns and don’t shoot each other up all the time.
I really dont know, but i dont think other countries have such an ease of access to guns as we do here. Still, it’s clearly a mental health/culture issue
Switzerland, for example.
Im no expert but they have significantly less ease of access to guns. According to chatgpt:
Switzerland
Cultural context: Firearms ownership is tied to militia service—most adult men serve in the military and may keep their service weapon at home.
Ownership:
Citizens can own firearms, but permits are required for purchase (background checks, no serious criminal record, no history of addiction or dangerous mental illness).
Automatic weapons and certain high-capacity firearms are restricted.
Carrying guns:
Very tightly restricted—permits for concealed or open carry are rarely issued.
Guns are generally kept at home, not carried in public.
Ammunition:
Service members may keep their rifles but must return military ammunition; private ammo requires separate purchase/permit.
Registration & oversight:
All gun sales are registered with authorities.
Federal and cantonal (state-level) governments oversee firearms closely.
Gun deaths:
Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (approx. 27–30 guns per 100 people).
But gun homicide and mass shooting rates are very low, partly due to strict regulation, cultural responsibility, and fewer social/economic drivers of violence.
America is well past the point where any of this is going to end without gunfire. So yeah. Leftists, it’s time to admit that MAGA doesn’t give a shit about your “protests” or your “letters to your representative”. Protests only work if the person you’re protesting gives a shit what you think.
It’s time to get your guns. Mussolini didn’t end up hanging upside down in an Italian town square because of protests.
WRONG.
It’s past time to get your guns. We (I vote Democrat and live in a blue state) have banned most guns.
Great fucking job.
Oh and btw most (as in >50%) gun deaths in the USA are from suicide where how the gun functions or how many bullets it holds at one time are irrelevant. Pity that no political party in America gives a shit about all those miserable souls who want to die. Easier to ban guns and disarm ourselves in the face of fascists who’ve taken over our nation.
Like I said… great fucking job. Quick, someone bitch about Palestine, that’ll surely help.
To rephrase this line
Protests only work if the person you’re protesting gives a shit what you think.
Protests only work when you directly affect their vested interests. They don’t care about you or what you think. Period. Yet, they do care about something.
Organize. Find out what those vested interests are. Hold them hostage. Create the credible threat that if they do not start representing our interests, as is their assumed role of the position they have been appointed to, then we will royally fuck it up and hit them where it hurts.
Then, it doesn’t matter if they care what we think, we have established our authority and made it known that it will be enforced with immediate consequences. If they want their authority as a government official then they will respect our authority as their constituency or else.
Most of all, be prepared for them to retaliate and defend their interests. To deter us and threaten us to stand down. These are the times in history where we can’t back down. We cannot give in to them just to save our own skin when it comes at the cost of, if allowed to continue, the skins of millions of others under the boot of their oppression.
We fight and stand our ground knowing that we may possibly die, but also possibly survive and save millions of lives, or we do nothing, let millions fall to their atrocities, until they finally turn their sights on us and we die with regret that we didn’t even attempt to stop them.
They can’t do this without us so, if they want to go this route, we need to be ready to sink the whole goddamn ship so they don’t get their cake and eat it too. Mutually assured destruction is not just a nuclear deterrent. The best part is, us workers can rebuild. We built this all to begin with. The owning class assholes, if they get rid of us, will live out their final moments in a burned out husk surrounded by resources with no ability to use them. They will be Kings of nothing, to die of thirst surrounded by water with nothing but their imaginary wealth to keep them company.
Well…yeah. But mine fits on a bumper sticker…
I kid…I kid. I have to make a wise ass comment or cry. I choose the former.
It’s okay comrade, I understand.
Mussolini didn’t end up hanging upside down in an Italian town square because of protests.
While you’re right that the people who killed Mussolini were armed dissidents, it’s worth remembering that he was allowed to be taken after being deposed after a vote of no confidence from the fascist government of Italy after they got their shit kicked in a few times militarily, and it was the King who removed and presumably arrested him before the citizens did their thing.
And also, the Allies were plowing a path of destruction towards Italy.
Moral of the story: no great story is as simple as we need it to be. There is still politics, there are still decisions by the ruling class that allow the next steps to happen and that ruling class can have their will bent. We still need to be involved in the political system, armed mobs cause as much harm as good even in the best of circumstances, so we want to avoid that if possible, but we need to also have that force behind us or the politics won’t work.
War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him… but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing… but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say — supply the control. Which is as it should be.
–Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
The calm that washes over me when I see people just casually talking sense on the internet
Love your username!
(•ө•)♡
Ikr it’s the gentle reassurance that nuance and substance are still out there.
it is a strategy to get the right wing to defend disarmament
deleted by creator
I hate guns, but without a doubt, the best way to have common sense guns policies is for the minorities the right hates to be armed.
best case scenario I’m wrong and guns are good for the cause, we win. worse case scenario and we get less rednecks with machine guns. unless the outcome is straight up fascism that only bans minorities they hate to have guns, in which case they really do need guns so they can at least try a revolt before ending in a concentration camp anyways.
The right wing will only defend disarmament when they feel like they’re being targeted.
I strongly agree with this. We need to remember that there is no such thing as hypocrisy with right wing lunatics. They are reactionary. They aren’t being inconsistent because they don’t believe in anything.
People might as well be talking about the right to bear Pokemon cards for all the difference guns seem to make.
Americans had one of the largest protests in history and police drove down suburban streets firing paintballs at people standing in their doorways.
People stop and upload content to Tiktok when citizens are abducted by masked men while a child cries for her mom.
We zombie walked into fascism and have camps being built and military being deployed to cities and do nothing after elections are rigged or a demagogue incites a coup.
Crazy how you can just drop weapons into the mix like fucking Zardoz and observe the same trends play out just with a lot more random violence. It’s like putting Tapatio on everything. “Ah yes, multiculturalism is a fine topic. But what if everyone had guns?”
Actual leftists have always been pro gun though…
I don’t think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.
Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606’s comment, but:
- I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
- Not everything Marx said was gospel.
Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
More importantly than that, there were no machine guns, no tanks, no airplanes, no helicopters, no guided missiles, no rockets, no cluster bombs, no satellites, no drones, etc.
The quote is from Marx’s address to the communist league in 1850, so approximately the time of the US civil war. This was a time where the most powerful weapon of war was the cannon. Most cannons at that time were smoothbore breech loaded weapons. They were slow to load and inaccurate. In WWII up to 75% of all casualties were the result of artillery, but in the civil war it was only 12% of all casualties.
Aside from cannons, everything else was weapons carried by individual soldiers. Grenades sort-of existed at the time, but were very unreliable, and very difficult to use. So, it all came down to individual soldiers and their muskets.
Also, consider that in the 1850s a professional standing army was rare. At the peak of the US civil war there were 700,000 soldiers on the Union side, but it started with only 18,000 soldiers. That means that in wars during Marx’s time, most soldiers were conscripts or newly recruited and barely trained.
All that to say that in Marx’s time, it might have been possible for civilians armed with personal weapons to take on a government and win an armed conflict. The “proletariat” army would more or less be on an even footing with the army of the state / bourgeoisie. They’d have more or less the same weapons and the same level of training. The only thing they wouldn’t have would be the slow, inaccurate and unreliable cannons that were more scary than effective. But, presumably they could more than make up for that in sheer manpower.
Finally, even though it probably didn’t matter to Marx, consider what having a gun at home would mean in the 1850s. If an intruder comes and breaks into your house, are you going to defend your property with your musket? Probably not. It takes minutes to load and once fired, minutes more to reload. Are you going to use your musket in a “road rage” incident while riding your cart to market? Probably not. Were there mass shootings by musket? Of course not. Were there homicides and suicides? I don’t know, but I assume it happened occasionally, but it was a very different weapon back then.
Marx was concerned with the great forces of history, so he probably wasn’t the type of person who was going to consider the negative consequences of firearms lying around the house. But, even if he had considered it, back in the 1850s having a musket at home probably wasn’t a major danger to the household or to society at large.
So, let’s say what Marx said was gospel. Even in that case, it was gospel for the 1850s. What would a modern-day Marx say about things today? Maybe a modern-day Marx would say that modern standing armies are so overwhelmingly powerful that it’s pointless to pretend that they can be beaten by civilians with small arms and no training. Maybe he’d take lessons from Gandhi and MLK and suggest non-violent resistance. Or, maybe he’d be a prepper and suggest that civilians stash grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. But, IMO, his advice probably wouldn’t be that civilians just have muskets (or their modern day equivalents) because he’d have to know that in the modern world a bunch of untrained dudes with AR-15s isn’t going to win against the US military.
How exactly should we enforce the rule of no recreational nukes? It typically comes down to shooting the guy trying to get a nuke - so by who, then? I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude the existence of nukes dooms us to a state forever.
I personally don’t believe a non-anprim stateless society is feasible so I wouldn’t know.
Yes, Karl Marx wrote:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
“To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [bourgeois], the workers must be armed and organized.”
Sage advice… for the 1850s.
Followed shortly after by:
The former Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and as a result, Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets. This is a clear example of how gun control can be used to oppress a population and take away their right to self-defense.
The former Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and as a result[citation needed], Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
And then they call everyone else revisionist
You think Stalin wouldn’t have killed all these people if they had guns?
law enforcers tend to be cowards. an armed community is harder to oppress
What?
Like…
I legitimately don’t know what you’re trying to say or why it’s relevant.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
“…and as a result…”
Read your own pull quote.
This is going over a lot better than when I said it, in progressivepolitics@lemmy.world no less. What a difference a month makes these days, I suppose.
I would fuck with that sub Lemmy. I got into an argument and they deleted every single comment I made in another separate post, even though it was at +14. Idk if they’re tankies or punks, but they both quacking to me.
Like, I’m all for gun laws. But unfortunately a lot of crazy shit is legal, and a lot of people are crazy.
Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.
Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.
That is an amazing way of wording a sentiment I’ve had for a long time
US people ☕️
Mag dumping each other for fun and profit.
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Sick of the constant, “Where my 2A people at?!” around here. I am right fucking here, but I’m not in much of a position to mount a personal assault on Washington DC. All I can reasonably do is defend my immigrant wife and our home if it comes to that.
FFS, some of these people even question self-defense. “They’ll just kill you, moron!” Yeah, well that was on the table anyway.
And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody’s getting hurt. I guarantee it.
Here’s an interesting thought, let’s see how this plays out. Florida is red enough ATM, governor and state Congress. Why haven’t they passed open-carry legislation? Why isn’t it even under discussion? Think they’ll make it happen?
I’ll give you three guesses, but you’re only going to need one. Fuck no they will not legislate open carry because men like me will be at every protest with an AR-15 on my shoulder and a Colt .45 in my belt.
And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody’s getting hurt. I guarantee it.
And there’s the real case for private ownership.
If you have the choice of being disappeared and killed…or being disappeared and killed while taking a few of them with you, definitely choose the latter.
It won’t help you, but if you do it, your neighbor does it, and the next 10, 20…50 people do it, eventually two things are going to happen: if it’s local forces, they’re gonna start needing help, and if it’s not local, it forces those powers into a more difficult decision of having to either get more overt with their fascism or backing off. It’s not ideal but that’s pretty much the options you have.
If they want to do all the shitty fascist things, don’t let them do it easily and for free. The higher ups might not care, but that local cop in the red hat might start to think twice when “his” government keeps asking him to haul away people, and each time, another of his friends goes down. If not from a place of shifting world view, then maybe from self preservation.
The analogy I go to for this concept is “the thorny vine.” A single thorn is a minor inconvenience, but if one were to attempt to grab the vine and tear it down by force, then there’s a lot of pain.
It’s honestly crazy that we have the “right” to bear arms and the “right” to protest, but half the country cannot protest while bearing arms. Meanwhile, police are shooting people’s eyes out and trampling them with horses.
Or burning them alive in houses cause they (the cops) throw flashbangs without thinking.
I tried several times in the last few days to articulate the points you’re making. well said
I’m sick of the 2A people doing fuck all beyond barricading their own doors
Be the change
Yeah screw those people who :: checks my notes:: cares about their family! Fucking bastards!
Yeah, fuck all of those other families!
you seem to be riding the, fuck all families, train so you don’t have a good argument here
deleted by creator
The fact that we have millions of people willing to barricade themselves while ready to defend their homes with weapons, is what will keep this tyrannical administration from knocking down random doors and dragging people out for looking at porn or leftist youtubers.
Nobody, NOBODY in the US wants to be the one breaking down the door of another US citizen, because everyone knows how many people are ready to open fire.
It’s not ideal, but it’s what we have.
If you think it would be better to “rise up” and form an armed revolution… you’re insane and dumb. They have fucking missiles and tanks.
Lol
Lol
Well thought out rebuttal, I didn’t have time to read it all but I will try to address each point later.
You typed up all them words in a country where citizens are getting disappeared right now
so your argument seems to be, ‘there are 2a people not sacrificing their lives to murder my enemies, curious…’
seems to me that in order for the next step to happen there needs to be an armed movement, which you are actively are at this moment suppressing. there needs to be more guns in progressive hands, and a collective movement else it’s just sparkling mad gunman, and thoughts and prayers.
and i guarantee you would be the first to claim the shooter would be a republican plant
And the best thing you can do to prevent that is to keep a fucking gat pointed at your door when they come, and that way we turn a potential takeover of our nation into a house-to-house meat grinder, effectively preventing that kind of action.
You are not going to win an offensive game, no matter how many people you recruit to throw their lives away in the face of machine guns and ordinance. It’s delusional roleplay thinking from watching too many movies or youtubers who make careers on LARPing.
Well what ya do is meet up at protests and devise some shenanigans
