Friendly Desperado

Anybody who cares about "ratios" is just outing yourself as a collectivist socialist of one flavor or another. Numbers doesnt make you correct. To put it simply, im (almost always) right, your wrong, and im not sorry about it.

HAPPY PRIDE MONTH!!!

@Ethereals68 TRANS RIGHTS IS WHITE RIGHTS!!!

Happy Pride Month

@Kyle_C137 Sure. He would be better than anybody else the democrats would want to run

Yeah! Yeah!

This is true, in that it is usually a product of trauma or disorder. However... So is BPD, Narcissism, or other Cluster-B disorders. And most psychiatrists will tell you these are rarely cured. The likelihood homosexuals must remain celibate to avoid sin is basically 100%.

@HowardRoark696 Most Europeans cannot even imagine what people carry over here in free states, every day, with no permits or paperwork. As far as knives are conserned i dont think theres a single state you cant carry a machette openly in public, and I frequently do

Lowe is allowed the occasional lefty moment. I don't care about equal oppression, I want liberty. Every Brit has the right to carry a Kirpan, pepperspray or Claymore in public!

@cjtheancap @Nickersanders88 Fake Ancap of you side with communist agitators

@Nickersanders88 fake Anarchist, they should've killed those 2 federal agents.

Rest in Piss.

250 years ago Americans decided that we dont give a shit what the rest of the world thinks. Almost every European with a spine decided to come overe here since then, distilling everything that once made your continent great over here. What is left there is (mostly) the lesser sons of lesser sons of great men who at one point civilized the world.

More Trumpian arrogance Do his minions have any idea how low America's reputation has sunk under Trump Probably not...

@RepThomasMassie Not with you, LOSER

G’day mate, where’s the party headed?

@carynannharlos Deffinitionally, you cannot be a libertarian and not be a conservative. *TAPS SIGN*

Definitionally, Libertarians are not conservatives.

@LPTexas Get my fùcking snake off your degenerate commie flag

🏳️‍🌈 Happy Pride Month, Texas. Pride is in June for a reason. In the early hours of June 28, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn in New York, the same kind of raid that had humiliated and arrested LGBTQ people for decades. Simply being gay was a crime in most of the country back then. But this time the people inside refused to scatter, and they held their ground for nights. One year later they marched, and that first march became what we now call Pride. Strip away the politics and that fight was about one simple idea: what consenting adults do in their own lives is none of the government's business. That happens to be an idea Libertarians have championed from the very beginning. We were making the case for marriage equality back when it was politically radioactive, while both major parties stayed opposed for years; as recently as the 2008 election, the major-party presidential tickets still wouldn't back it. And we hold that standard consistently: the same logic that protects your church, your guns, and your business also protects your right to live and love as you choose. Freedom isn't freedom if it only applies to the people the government happens to approve of. We don't believe your rights come from a government, a politician, or a permission slip. They're yours. All of them. So this month we celebrate the people who stood up to a government that wouldn't leave them alone, and we keep standing for the same principle today. Live free, Texas. 🤠

@FriendlyDesper MMIWG2SLGBTTQQIA+

This is not collectivist, it's representation for TransQuantities (people who are 1 person but identify as multiple in a group).

@AnCap_Alex_ Actually now that i think about it, this is a logical next step to the trans mind illness. They already demand use of plural pronouns in they/them. Using terms like we/us instead of me/I is a logical nect step. Or in other words "i am legion and we are many"

@CptAncapistan Matt walsh and its not even close

Which of these political commentators do you hold in the highest regard?

The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is unconstitutional and arbitrary, and it must be repealed. Please consider the following arguments: 1. The NFA clearly and directly infringes upon the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms: The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is not protect the right to keep and bear firearms for hunting, or competitive target shooting. The primary purpose is to ensure that the populous of our nation is armed so that they can defend themselves, their communities, and their nation from foreign and domestic enemies, up to and including foreign governments or even their own government. Therefore, the types of arms protected by the 2nd amendment specifically include what we might call "weapons of war," such as fully-automatic heavy machineguns. As a corollary, private citizens and businesses owned canons at the time the Bill of Rights was written. This precedent should not be ignored. 2. The "tax" the NFA is no longer a tax, which means it's just an unconstitutional registry and legal hurdle: When the NFA was passed, one of the requirements was that a $200 tax be paid on regulated items including automatic weapons (machineguns), suppressors (aka silencers), short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), any other weapons (AOWs), and destructive devices (explosives, improvised devices, large-bore weapons, and parts needed to make them). Even though it's absurd, the argument was always made that it wasn't a registry, or even an infringement, but a tax, and that the government has the right to tax. Well, as of January 1, 2026 the $200 tax was reduced to $0 per item for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, while it remains at $200 for machineguns and destructive devices. So it's a tax, but it's not a tax. Also, the fee remains for some items, and not for others - it is quite arbitrary. 3. A major objective of the NFA was to combat organized crime: This hasn't worked at all. Firstly, violent crime rates have fallen and risen back and forth over the decades, seemingly unmoved one way or the other by the 1934 NFA. In 1958 they were down to 4.5/100,000, then they jumped up to 10.2 in 1980. In 2025 they were 4.0, the lowest it has been since at least 1900. But organized crime, especially in the form of corruption and fraud, has reached astounding levels, amounting to billions and billions of dollars fleeced from the public annually. The NFA does not serve the people of our nation in any way. 4. The specific rules created by the NFA are totally arbitrary, and massively ineffective: Newer technology and innovation has poked many holes in the NFA, which I will specifically address: - Short barreled rifles (SBRs) include any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches in length. Such a rifle requires the $200 tax stamp. However, with the introduction of pistol braces to the market, which may be used instead of a buttstock, the user is functionally able to produce the same outcome. - Automatic weapons include any firearm that will fire more than one round in succession with one trigger pull. The development of Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) and Super Safeties (SS) technically does not violate the rule, while still achieving the same rate of fire. Same outcome. - Putting a vertical foregrip on a handgun technically turns it into an any other weapon (AOW). However, if you cant the direction of the foregrip 10% in one direction or the other it is no longer perpendicular to the firearm, and is no longer considered a vertical foregrip, therefore no longer turning the firearm into an AOW, while still achieving the same outcome. Individually, these developments each demonstrate the arbitrary, flawed nature of the NFA. Collectively, they should be devastating. Furthermore, because of the clearly arbitrary nature of the rules, more and more honest, productive, law-abiding American citizens are placed at legal risk of violating a law they know nothing about due to clearly arbitrary distinctions in the code, the results of which have no impact on the outcome of the use of the firearms. 5. Safety First - If the writers of the NFA were truly concerned with the safety of law abiding Americans, then why would they restrict suppressors? They don't make firearms quiet to the extent that movies would have us believe, but they make them quiet enough to protect the hearing of millions of Americans who use their firearms safely and legally. It's one thing to go to the range where you are ready to shoot, and you know exactly when, how, and where you'll be shooting. But many other scenarios exist where the shooter may not have the luxury of donning the right ear protection prior to firing. Take self-defense situations, for instance. If you defend your family in your own home, you will probably not have time to put on ear protection prior to using a firearm. Shooting a firearm indoors without ear protection can be devastating for your hearing, possibly producing life-long hearing loss. 6. Unconstitutional economic discrimination: The truth is, many items regulated under the NFA can still be acquired in the United States... if you're rich. Even though the tax is no longer a tax for many items, the price of NFA items is still higher than it otherwise would be because of the restricted market that the regulation produces. Speaking again about suppressors, these incredibly simple items could be produced and sold for a fraction of their current price, and could even be integrated into many firearm designs without substantively increasing their cost if the NFA did not regulate them. Even though the $200 tax stamp is gone, many law-abiding American citizens are priced out of protecting their own hearing because of this arbitrary, unconstitutional law. And don't even get me started on machineguns. Because of the Hughes Amendment (1986), no new machineguns may be manufactured for civilian purchase in the US, so the supply of machineguns is artificially restricted such that a fully automatic AR-15 can costs tens of thousands of dollars or more. Many machineguns sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. So it's the right to keep and bear arms... if you're rich. How American is that? 7. US National Defense Readiness: One of the reasons Japan saw the invasion of the US as a non-starter was because they knew so many Americans owned firearms. The armed state of American citizens is a real deterrent to attack by our enemies, and in the event of an attack, our readiness as a nation is improved with a better armed citizenry. For small arms units, access to light and heavy machineguns is a massive force multiplier. The NFA literally hurts the readiness of our nation to defend itself from foreign adversaries. On this 250th Anniversary of the United States of America, I propose we do the right thing, and protect the God-given rights of our people to truly keep and bear arms. Repeal the NFA in its entirety. Do away with these arbitrary, unconstitutional restrictions. There's no good reason not to. @SCOTUSblog @realDonaldTrump @TheJusticeDept @DAGToddBlanche @gunrights @TXGunRights @gunpolicy @GunOwners @2AFDN @SecWar @PeteHegseth @DeptofWar

HAPPY PRIDE MONTH NIGGARS!!!

TRANS RIGHTS IS WHITE RIGHTS!! QUEER FASCISM FOREVER!!!

@Knorssman @ConceptualJames @realAaronBergh @ThomasEWoods The whole point of this paper is to get marxists to read it, so it uses that type of language

@FriendlyDesper @ConceptualJames @realAaronBergh @ThomasEWoods The fact there have to be caveats like that but also at the level of who belongs in which class is why I don't take these "class theories" seriously. keep the idea at it being a narrative for society. It's better the idea not take itself too seriously like its logically absolute

There is. Hoppe rejects Marx, as you can see in the next sentence after the highlight, but what he doesn't reject is the overall structure of Marxist critique. He believes he can reorient Marxist critique from a more accurate starting place (as with the French classical liberal class theorists) and then update that with Austrian economics and get something that's not structurally the same as Marxism, or something. Ultimately, what Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists assert is kind of an inverse of Marx, and then they just draw all the same conclusions about how things work from that inverse. Of course, this implies different solutions (protecting private property rather than abolishing it, e.g.). In brief, Marx asserts that private property ownership gives rise to exploitation that the owning class wishes to protect, thus it erects a state built in its own interests to protect itself, and that state becomes an instrument of their oppression. By contrast, Hoppe and the French classical liberal class theorists insist that the state itself is the primary actor here, enabling the exploitation of the productive classes (e.g., homesteaders) and the rise of a parasitical bourgeois class. That is, it's structurally the same paranoid, conflict-oriented model of society but with the root causes and central problem actor locations reversed. (Tom thinks I don't understand this, btw.) Therefore, Hoppe can affirm all of Marx's conclusions from his theory of history while rejecting all of his solutions (e.g., abolishing private property, establishing a temporary socialist super-state apparatus that will manage production until it can wither away, etc.). Ultimately, he has the same structural model. Hoppe and his French class-theory homies would assert that the state itself is the cause of the oppression, effectively creating parasitical and rent-seeking classes, so the proper solution is the direct abolition of the state entirely to allow a completely contractual and voluntarist capitalism to arise. The idea is no state implies no parasitical class that can rent-seek or exploit the productive implies no exploitation, so even though everything is unequal, it's unequal contractually and voluntarily, thus not exploitative. Of course, this is retarded Eurotrashism unbecoming any American thinker, especially one with Ivy training in economic affairs. Americans understood from the start that the only way a contractual and voluntarist society can work is with enough of a state to secure the individual liberties of people against bad actors, individual and collective, and that it must have the authority and strength to be able to accomplish that end rather unambiguously. They also understood that such a state of affairs naturally tends toward a tyranny, which is the critique of people like Tom and Hoppe (who believe the American system already failed, btw), but their solution to it wasn't to just hope for the best in terms of getting people to all understand that they're going to act in a good enough way but instead to divide the powers of government and establish a Bill of Rights that severely limits its power. As Madison and Hamilton argued in Federalist 51, which directly addresses these concerns, in fact, they make the famous argument that if men were angels we wouldn't need government, but they were astute enough students of history and human nature to know that Romantic Idealism like that simply isn't real. Government might need to be minimal, divided against itself in its powers, restricted in its scope, and hindered by having to cater to the interests of varying factions, but it also needs to be centralized, federal, and powerful enough to be able to achieve its only Just ends. Ultimately, Madison and Hamilton were right, and Hoppe, Tom, Gottfried, "Comic" Dave Smith, and all the rest of these idiots are BTFO and always have been. They're utopians mistaking themselves for realists and fools professing themselves wise. But, at least we can understand why they're dumb, I guess.

@ConceptualJames Just about every libertarian with any sense has allied with MAGA. The ones left over are the larping degenerates who infected libertarianism

Libertarians (of the LOLbert type) are just Democrats who hate the Democratic Party and who hate themselves for being Democrats.