You could not be more wrong. Half of Europe does NOT have socialist governments. Not even the Scandinavians countries. They have high taxes and lots of welfare. Not socialism. Socialism is political as well as economic,and it is entirely dependent on a lack of civil liberties. Stop listening to the clueless moron on the TV news.
Helpless Venezuelans lament losing guns, right to stand up to government
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
You could not be more wrong. Half of Europe does NOT have socialist governments. Not even the Scandinavians countries. They have high taxes and lots of welfare. Not socialism. Socialism is political as well as economic,and it is entirely dependent on a lack of civil liberties. Stop listening to the clueless moron on the TV news.
AlexanderA
Member
I didn't say that the NRA was designed to pander to the extreme political right. I said that the NRA's "kick" against socialism is designed to pander to the extreme political right. Wayne Lapierre is a crafty political operator, he has maneuvered the NRA into becoming an arm of the Republican party, and now it appears he was taking money from the Russians to help influence the election. All in all, this has made the NRA toxic to most middle-of-the-road Americans, has hampered its recruitment efforts, and has made it less effective in advocating for gun rights. The gullible can continue contributing to the NRA, but they should at least realize that a lot of their money is going directly into LaPierre & co.'s pockets.
AlexanderA
Member
This is nothing but a right-wing meme, and, frankly, it makes me livid. The United States has been a participatory democracy going back at least to the time of Andrew Jackson. If you read Abraham Lincoln's speeches, they are full of democratic rhetoric. We fought WW1 "to make the world safe for democracy." A "republic" refers to the governmental structures, namely, that this is not a monarchy. Being a republic does not mean that the will of the majority is continually frustrated by the minority. Indeed, if gun rights are a minority position, saying (falsely) that "this is not a democracy" won't save them.
It always cracks me up when leftists describe themselves as 'middle of the road Americans'.
As if their extremism is the norm and as if they're particularly proud to be Americans.
Gee, I guess we aren't getting back to Venezuela huh?
Or back to socialists selling themselves as middle of the road Americans and attempting to disarm America (the same way they disarmed Venezuela) for that matter.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
A common rebuttal done by anti gun people to the idea of defending from a government is this
quote: 'For some reason there is a segment of the American population that believes their hand gun and semi assault play toy is a match against drones, air strikes, tanks, remote missiles, ect. The United states military can wipe out half of the US population remotely without a single soldier using his real automatic assault rifle."
my reply to that is this
War and battles are ultimately won on the ground.
A platoon or company of government soldiers rolls into cookie cutter neighborhood any town USA and is faced with incoming fire and sniper fire , it is not long before several are down. So they call in a airstrike or arty obliterating a entire neighborhood innocent woman and children too. That draws international attention and UN condemnation and now the said government is on the hot seat for possible international intervention.
However disarm the peasants, especially if they are in denial of what is happening as what happened in Venezuela, and arm your loyalists and chances are the terror you put upon the people will go less noticed. At the very least you won't have to explain to the international community why you blew up a entire neighborhood or more routing out rebels.
quote: 'For some reason there is a segment of the American population that believes their hand gun and semi assault play toy is a match against drones, air strikes, tanks, remote missiles, ect. The United states military can wipe out half of the US population remotely without a single soldier using his real automatic assault rifle."
my reply to that is this
War and battles are ultimately won on the ground.
A platoon or company of government soldiers rolls into cookie cutter neighborhood any town USA and is faced with incoming fire and sniper fire , it is not long before several are down. So they call in a airstrike or arty obliterating a entire neighborhood innocent woman and children too. That draws international attention and UN condemnation and now the said government is on the hot seat for possible international intervention.
However disarm the peasants, especially if they are in denial of what is happening as what happened in Venezuela, and arm your loyalists and chances are the terror you put upon the people will go less noticed. At the very least you won't have to explain to the international community why you blew up a entire neighborhood or more routing out rebels.
A couple of speeches and some propaganda doesn't make it our form of government.
Maybe you should look up the difference between the two.
I wouldn't expect that it would.
Activism to keep our rights followed by bullets (if it comes to that) will.
Besides, you aren't the majority. At best you're a very noisy, shrill minority.
SilentStalker
Member
I don’t think the NRA has been about protecting 2A rights in decades, if ever, at least not in totality. I’m no fan of bumpstocks but they were quick to throw those to the sharks. And I’m pretty sure they were with Reagan in the 80’s and pretty sure they were for the 1968 crap as well. So, all in all I’m not sure they aren’t much more than a well postured money grabber feeding off of the fears of helpless Americans that think feeding the NRA is the only way they can keep their guns.
AlexanderA
Member
I'm 73 years old, I have an Honors degree in political science and history, I have a law degree, I worked 30 years for the government, and I'm well aware of what I'm talking about. You?
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
That explains a lot.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
Please people let's not get into a off discussion of often loose and misused terms and also personal interpretation of things like democracy or socialism and so on , there are members here that will not always agree on EVERYTHING in politics but we are all here because we enjoy and care about firearms and the right to keep them. It is easy to get passionate but also easy to get bent out of shape depending. Otherwise we risk having this thread shut down.
Tyranny can from the left, it can come from the right. What this article posted and thread proves is power can be corrupted absolutely, and those that deny it can happen in a developed western country are in denial, some of them you can convince to see the light on this, some you never will until they have to live through it themselves as such I have noticed discussing this topic elsewhere on more general political discussion boards.
Tyranny can from the left, it can come from the right. What this article posted and thread proves is power can be corrupted absolutely, and those that deny it can happen in a developed western country are in denial, some of them you can convince to see the light on this, some you never will until they have to live through it themselves as such I have noticed discussing this topic elsewhere on more general political discussion boards.
AlexanderA
Member
Bingo. I've come realize that the NRA is a 100% corrupt organization. It's made up of two kinds of people: the takers (at the top) who line their own pockets, and the gullible members who keep feeding them. The NRA leadership doesn't really want a pro-gun victory, because that would negate their reason for asking for money. All they want to do is keep the pot boiling. (I might add that the supposedly pro-gun politicians are exactly the same way. They promise, but they never ever deliver. Having a live issue is more important to them than actual results.)
Last edited:
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
Possibly , I won't comment further in particular on that at this time. It is true that any organisation ( like a government) can become self serving. However while the anti gun people love to use the NRA as the whipping boy for the blame for continued gun violence what they fail to see is if you take the NRA down another will take its place unless you ban all gun organizations all together. That would open the door to a host of 1st amendment challenges and open the door for any organisation , private, political or religious to be brought down the same path.
As like political parties, no one should should put full trust or blind trust in them, otherwise you may become brainwashed and at the least let down ultimately.
For a "pro gun" person, you seem to hate the NRA with the passion the anti gunners have. Strange, since they are the biggest reason we haven't lost more gun rights in this country.
SilentStalker
Member
We have to be careful tho as our enemies would love nothing more than for us to tear apart our largest political advocate from the inside, even if it’s corrupt. We have to be very careful with how we handle this.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
If it is corrupt, show proof and then I will say well yes. True it is a huge money making and lobbying machine but otherwise without specific fact it is just opinion. My take, the NRA is a organisation that has stood up and does stand up for gun rights thus should be supported but that doesn't mean members and pro gun ownership people shouldn't scrutinize or put blind trust in them either.
One thing is for sure, the majority of Americans do support the right to own a gun whether they are in the NRA or not. They might not always agree on gun laws or not on everything or every kind of gun but overall the majority don't want the 2nd taken away. What the NRA has not done in the past well is public relations considering they are beaten by the mainstream media too often. The spokes people for the NRA should think it through more before they say something this I have seen before. Saying a slogan like "guns don't kill people, people do" is a slogan that is simpleton at times when dealing with a onslaught of media attention.
No, even having all the guns does not avail a tyrant if the support from the people is not there and they are willing to put their lives on the line--see the end of Romanian dictator Ceausescu or how the people of Russia stopped the Communists from attacking Yeltsin for a coup. When a government loses its moral authority to rule, it is ultimately doomed no matter how much power it may appear to have. People immediately think of Stalin or Mao, but even there, people worked to undermine those tyrants too--Stalin's successor denounced him and Mao was forced to end the Cultural Revolution before it got him too.
SilentStalker
Member
Um, show me proof positive case where the nra has without a doubt preserved your rights. They may be out there but I’m not familiar with them. And, as I said, they were in full support of getting rid of bumpstocks, they were with Reagan in the 80’s where you lost more rights, they were for the GCA as well. So, from where I’m sitting those are pretty big losses. Where are they on the magazine deal in NJ? First it was 15 round mags, then 10, now they are down to 7 in NJ. One slice at a time. As far as I can see they take up a lot of money and little goes to the courts. I urge you to look up Lapierre and Cox’s salaries. Look at their mansions and you tell me. Still think the bulk of the funds go to fighting for your rights?
The NRA isn't perfect, what is? What the hell are we supposed to do as pro gun citizens? At least they are trying to hold back the left wing gun grabbing tide.
Last edited by a moderator:
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
Battles are won, battles are lost. Some of the things you mentioned are battles lost because the other side was better at making their case, right or wrong, based on facts or not. I can say though that the NRA was powerful in standing up to banning all handguns, something that was at the forefront of the anti's agenda before "assault weapons" became their first objective which the NRA fought against that also.
However when you have a majority of politicians elected that are anti gun they are gonna vote that way. Are you gonna blame the NRA they got elected by not doing enough to stop them? Because the fact is not all Americans vote with the 2nd as the most important thing in their mind, they might vote thinking first about healthcare, economy, environment, getting out of a war, and jobs before considering the 2nd amendment and if a politician gets elected based on those other issues you are stuck with anti gun legislation as well.
AlexanderA said:
"You could have a monarchy that was democratic, and conversely you could have a republic that was dictatorial."
This sounds like some moronic college class discussion. So you claim a dictator would let people vote and give them freedom. Must be nice to live in a fantasy world.
"You could have a monarchy that was democratic, and conversely you could have a republic that was dictatorial."
This sounds like some moronic college class discussion. So you claim a dictator would let people vote and give them freedom. Must be nice to live in a fantasy world.
And you still don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic?
Most extreme leftists have much the same resume and the same hope that they'll get socialism right this time (at the cost of other people's lives).
Probably because while he might know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, he doesn't view the Constitution in quite the same way that we do.
LRDGCO
member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 689
You are mistaken, and falling for Sanders' dishonesty.
Social welfare states, like Sweden, Denmark, and to a lesser extent, France, are not Socialist systems.They are just massive welfare states. Socialism necessarily requires that the coercive power of government be concentrated in the hands of a Socialist party. It most definitely requires vast, albeit not total, state ownership of the main means of production, banking, and real estate. Many European states are engaged in corporatism, dirigism, and cronyism that approaches levels of direct state control, but none of these states are Socialist.
Venezuela is.
Socialism is based on the utterly false premise that society represents the endless fight between competing groups for finite resources and that some groups are more disadvantaged than other groups, necessitating the authoritarian distribution of those finite resources according to the group categorization of the ruling party. That is why Socialism is the basis on which Naziism, Fascism, and Communism were all built. It is unequivocally incompatible with the primacy of individual rights. When the "needs" of groups are deemed of superior value to the rights and freedoms of individuals, various degrees of totalitarianism will out.
SilentStalker
Member
And we are starting to see that here in our republic.
AlexanderA
Member
To respond to posts #46 and #47, I have to say that a republic refers to a government structure, whereas a democracy is an underlying political philosophy. These are two different things. Apples and oranges. They can be complementary, or not, as the case may be. A republic, in its simplest terms. is a structure that is not a monarchy. The U.S., France, Germany, Russia, etc., are republics while the U.K., Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Japan, etc., are monarchies. In other words, in a republic, you have a president rather than a king. Sometimes the president is powerful, as in the U.S., France, or Russia, and sometimes he's a figurehead, as in Germany, Italy, or Greece.
A democracy is characterized by free elections and popular sovereignty. In other words, the source of power is the people. This is different from ochlocracy, or mob rule. The United States has always aspired to democracy, the roots of which can even be seen in the Declaration of Independence. The 2nd Amendment itself is deeply democratic, referring as it does to the right of "the people." The entire arc of American history is a striving toward more and more perfect democracy, with the abolition of property requirements for voting, the extension of the vote to blacks and women, the popular election of senators, etc.
Simply having a republican structure does not guarantee popular rule. Dictators and tyrants can and do use republican structures for their own ends. (Hell, Venezuela is a republic!) Conversely, it's rare for a king to be a dictator in the modern age.
A democracy is characterized by free elections and popular sovereignty. In other words, the source of power is the people. This is different from ochlocracy, or mob rule. The United States has always aspired to democracy, the roots of which can even be seen in the Declaration of Independence. The 2nd Amendment itself is deeply democratic, referring as it does to the right of "the people." The entire arc of American history is a striving toward more and more perfect democracy, with the abolition of property requirements for voting, the extension of the vote to blacks and women, the popular election of senators, etc.
Simply having a republican structure does not guarantee popular rule. Dictators and tyrants can and do use republican structures for their own ends. (Hell, Venezuela is a republic!) Conversely, it's rare for a king to be a dictator in the modern age.
- Status