1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Confiscating Property and the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Legal' started by TheGoodLife, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. TheGoodLife

    TheGoodLife Member

    Dec 13, 2004

    You can read what Walter Williams says at the above, but here are two excellent paragraphs explaining where we are right now on the road to socialism.

    "The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance.

    There is nothing complex about those 12 words the framers wrote to protect us from governmental property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority. I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their butts."
  2. MrTuffPaws

    MrTuffPaws Senior Member

    Oct 7, 2004
    Hey wait a minute! I just talked to some guy and he said that we where headed down to road to fascism. Then at lunch yesterday, I talked to some one else who said we were going down the road to communism. Now you are telling me that we are heading down the road to socialism? I am starting to get confused. :confused:

    Personally, I think we are heading down the road of fear mongering to push the agenda of who ever or what ever happens to be in power at the time, none of which that I have seen I care for.
  3. thereisnospoon

    thereisnospoon Member

    Jan 27, 2005
    At my house
    We're not going to shoot back anyway, right? That would be a NONTHRAA. :neener:
  4. cpileri

    cpileri Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    dont be confused: its all STATISM

    Communists, socialists, fascists and welfare state advocates are, to varying degrees, statists.

    Statism is a term to describe any economic system where a government implements a significant degree of centralized economic planning,which may include state ownership of the means of production. The term "statism" can refer to various dissimilar ideologies that share the commonality of having centralized economic planning conducted by the state."Statism" is sometimes used to refer to government intervention in civil as well as economic matters.

    While most of the media and political class refer to communism and socialism as leftist ideologies and Nazism and fascism as ideologies of the far right, these ideologies are merely different forms of statism.

    Socialists believe in government ownership of all economic entities and land.
    Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which individuals control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. Thus, they are not subjected to the ownership, control, or power structures of others. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has evolved and branched to a great degree, and though highly politicized, is strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. SInce private ownership creates classes, govt owns it all; with govt controlled by the people (riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!)

    Fascists realized that government did not have to own enterprises in order to have total power over them. Thus, fascists tend to be extremely authoritarian and comprehensive regulators. Both ideologies are based on the subjugation of individual liberty and free markets by the agents of the state.

    Nazism, is Hitler's brand of brutal, nationalized socialism.

    COmmunism: As a social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, and no social classes. All property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed. As a political movement, communism is a more radical branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through their wish to completely do away with all aspects of market society under the final stage of the system, as well as some communists' commitment to armed revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism, and their focus on the international working class as key in that revolution.

    Most feared of all (unless you are in charge): A totalitarian r├ęgime or state attempts to control nearly every aspect of personal, economic, and political life.

    (plagiarized from many sources)

    So, seems to me we are headed toward Fascism right now, with of ocurse totalitarinaism off in the distance but on the same road.

    Last edited: Jun 29, 2005
  5. TheGoodLife

    TheGoodLife Member

    Dec 13, 2004
    It is an issue of degrees

    Thanks cpileri.

    It is an issue of degrees, some more violent than others, but all via some form of statism.
  6. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Say your out of toilet paper? For what it means to the traitors that run the country you might as well use a cope of the Bill Of Rights! Wonder how many in DC would be tried for treason if the founding fathers could come back?
  7. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Senior Member

    Feb 16, 2004
    The road we're on is the road to tyranny, which is what all of the above systems exemplify. I've long said our battles are not between left and right, liberalism and conservatism, or Republican or Democrat. Our battle is between tyranny and liberty. Tyranny seems to be winning at the moment.

    But if you want to get technical, I believe that this ruling represents our officially becoming an oligarchy rather than a Republic. At its most basic level an oligarchy is a government run by the few instead of the many, but it has come to refer to a government run by a select few corporations. We've been an unofficial oligarchy for some time--this ruling just codifies it. We now officially have a government of the Walmarts, by the Walmarts, and for the Walmarts.
  8. Otherguy Overby

    Otherguy Overby member

    May 8, 2004
    Refrigerator box

    Seems I can carry a pistol in Walmarts. I sure canna do that in DC.

    Also Walmart keeps to a balance sheet, DC doesn't.

    Walmart provides goods and services for a reasonable fee, DC doesn't.

    Most Walmarts sell guns and ammo. DC?

    If I get something I don't like from Walmart, I can take it back and get a refund. Try that in DC.

    As far a Blue state specials, Kmart tried that and went BK... :neener:
  9. Shweboner

    Shweboner Member

    Feb 17, 2003
    Newberg, OR

    As far a Blue state specials, Kmart tried that and went BK...

    Yeah, then Kmart came back.... and bought Sears!?!
  10. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The leftist extremists have done very well in the courts over the past seven decades or so. Pity Bush doesn't care to stop them.
  11. Gewehr98

    Gewehr98 Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    It may very well be the proverbial acid test.

    Although it's gratifying to see how quickly some states are passing laws restricting the scope of eminent domain.


Share This Page