Socialist view of the Second Amendment

[Ready2Defend]

My grandfather was a Baptist pastor in Oklahoma for 50+ years before his death in 1992. He fought liquor-by -the drink and legalized gambling by helping to organize opposition to these measures. He meant well. And his life was filled with giving practical help for people in need.

Now I as his grandson wonder if using big-brother goverment to enforce good health and family budget habits is really the role of goverment. I don't drink alcohol, smoke, take illegal drugs or gamble. In the extreme these are damaging to the individual. I would much rather goverment be much smaller in our lives with the risk that we will have to live with the consequences of our behavour. To a large extent we do live with the cosequences of our behavior no matter how much we want the goverment to rescue us from it.

A person can be extremely conservative in their personal standards of what is right and wrong - but still not believe the state should be in the business of forcibly imposing those standards on others.

I don't think there is any contradiction between being far right and far libertarian. I just wish we had a viable electoral option that reflected this perspective.

I agree.

 

[Ash]

I opposed gambling in Mississippi because of the organized crime it brings and the damage it does economically to non-gaming dependent entities. Frankly, folks can gamble if they want.

Of course, every libertarian fails to be libertarian when the junk yard, paper mill, 24 hour scrap yard, or elects to build next door to their house. Zoning laws suddenly become real important then. OF course, the guy who is most ardently against building in the national forest is the fellow who has already built his house there.

Now, a far libertarian is by definition an anarchist, because at some level, most folks wish for standards to be imposted by a government. The argument comes down to which standards. Murder, rape, robbery, most folks seek to have these things banned. Yet banning murder does indeed apply a restriction to personal liberty. It is a moral standard that the government imposes. Few libertarians believe that murder should be legal nor burglary. It becomes a question on the amount of imposed morals they are willing to put up with. Since murder should be illegal, so should child molestation. Then theres domestic abuse - nobody wants that. And then there are highways and bridges that need to be built.

Has our government gone far beyond that envisioned by those who established it? Yes it has. Congress should have been a one session every 4 years type of thing, except in emergencies and senators should still be appointed by the states. The gradual erosion of personal liberties, of private property rights, the birth and growth of the nanny state, these things are products of 200 years of folks coming up with a new idea. Most of the ideas would have been best left not done. Government mandating the kind of TV signal is transmitted for example.

The most extreme libertarian is thus an anarchist, one who thinks a government should not exist because his personal liberties should not be infringed by any means and to any limit. He may not wish to murder, may think it is wrong, but does not want a government enforcement of any kind.

In any case, firearms are most certainly hammered by the expanded government we now see. A socialist might claim to want to protect firearms rights for the same reason folks hat the 2nd Amendment inserted. However, the socialist also believes in the collective good versus any company, so he'll be wishing to punish said gun makers for taking advantage of the proletariat in the first place. Split personality makes it tough, because the socialist believes in pushing towards the common good because the common good has been ignored. An interesting aside is that Gillette was a socialist and invented the safety razor for the common man to be able to shave at home.

Ash

 

[MakAttak]

Let me give you some Far right examples. I live in a very conservitive part of the deep south aka the "Bible belt" We still have a remnant of prohibition as nearly every other county is dry. Those cities and counties that do allow alcohol strictly prohibit sales on Sunday or with in so many feet of a church (it varies) I am old enough to remember the 1960's and the big thing when I was in school was forced conformity through dress codes. Especially hair length for boys. You had to look like you were ready to go to Viet Nam. Practically all businesses were required to be closed on Sundays and certian "deviant" sexual practices were concidered a crime, Even between a man and his wife! All of this came from the far right. In contrast, gun laws were and still are extremely lax when compaired to other more liberal parts of the country. In my state any adult that may legaly own a firearm may carry it loaded in his vehicle without any sort of permit and a great many do.

And this is the purpose of federalism. I don't think the Federal government has any reason to get involved in such things.

However, at a local level, I applaud such measures. This is a matter of how people want to live. IN THIS WAY, several different localities may set up rules for how different people prefer to live. If you do not like this, nothing is stopping you from moving to another county.

If you dislike such restrictions, MOVE AWAY. As you said "every OTHER county is dry." Move to one of the counties that DO allow drinking if it bothers you.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I'm not surprised that pure socialists endorse RKBA.

The thing is, pure socialists are like the exotic particles that spew out of particle accellerators: they can't exist in the real world for long.

 

[Foosinho]

I agree [Democrats buying votes via welfare] is very successful and disgusting.

This meme has a certain ring of truthiness to it, but it really doesn't hold up under inspection. The less education you have, and the less money you make, the less likely you are to vote. By a huge margin. There just aren't that many poor, uneducated people (the kinds who are eligible for welfare), and they are dramatically underrepresented at the polls. The vast majority of the voting public are college educated professionals. The more money you make, and the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote; accordingly, wealthy people are overrepresented at the polls. Not to mention, if you have money you have additional influence on the political process beyond a simple vote.

In fact, the smallest demographic group in America are economically disadvantaged people who support Democrats. There are more pro-gov't conservatives than economically disadvantaged Democrats. Even so, 1 in 10 "economically disadvantaged Democrats" own a business, 1 in 5 trades stocks,
and 1 in 5 has a household income north of $50k/yr - so they aren't all welfare recipients.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945

The "base" for the Democratic party is primarily upper-middle class and well educated. One in four of which have a gun at home.

In fact, if I had to guess I'd guess that less than 1% of Democratic voters are welfare recipients. Way, way less.

Not that politicians don't pander for votes. They most certainly do. The latest GOP tax cuts, which threw a bone to working Americans ("we're cutting your taxes!") and threw the vast majority of the cut to the wealthiest Americans, were pandering. So were the recent Dem proposals for targeted middle-class tax cuts and gas price fixing (that won't help welfare mothers!). Those measures are aimed at winning the votes of middle-class America, which make up the vast majority of the voting public.

I guess I am willing to put up with athiests ... if it means retaining my right to keep and bearing arms.

How magnanimous of you, putting up with my constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion.

The thing is, pure socialists are like the exotic particles that spew out of particle accellerators: they can't exist in the real world for long.

The real world is not a neat, clean place where any "pure" political theory/ideology can survive. Be it pure unfettered free-market capitalism, or socialism. There are always people willing to abuse the "loopholes" in the theory for their own benefit (just look at Russia since the breakup, and all the violent corruption in a capitalistic society).

As for socialists and RKBA... does everyone forget that Marxists advocate the violent overthrow (if necessary) of the ruling class? One look at the history of South America should make that abundantly clear. The issue of gun control is not a left/right issue. Dubya recently signed new gun control measures.

And credit to the OP for recognizing the difference between socialists and liberals.

 

[WildeKurt]

In a perfect world guns would not be necessary. Then again neither would governments, constitutions, etc. The second amendment is an unacknowledgement of this reality. I think the author stated it:

Socialists would love to see a society free of violence—but we live today in a world steeped in violence. We believe that the fountainhead of violence is the ruling class, which must resort to force and violence to maintain its minority rule. They seek a monopoly on that force and violence.

The same guarantees granted for religion and speech in the constitution are there because the framers knew that there will always be those who wish to take for themselves the rights, property and well-being of others. These people may be (actually usually are) well-meaning but not necessarily.

 

[Ash]

Oh, the issue of gun control most certainly is a left versus right issue. Who passed the 1968 Gun Control Act? Who passed the 1934 act? Who passed the Assault Weapons Ban? Tally the list and you will indeed find a very clear list.

The truth is GHW Bush was not very right. Neither was Nixon. Reagan was, and he allowed the importation of surplus arms banned for half a generation. The left wing has always sought to ban firearms. Socialists have always sought to restrict them, too. As to marxists. Tell me of a single marxist nation that allows broad firearms ownership? Cuba? North Korea? Show me one single socialist nation that allows broad ownership. Plenty allowed restricted ownership, licensed ownership, ownership of arms in non-military calibers.

Socialism brought us some of the most repressive and over-reaching laws in the US. The "Progressive Era" might have brought us the right for women to vote, but it also brought us Prohibition AND the income tax AND changed the fundamental design of congress removing states from the equation by changing the way we get Senators. States have no rights now regarding Senators. Calling the House of Representatives "The People's House" is now completely absurd. Folks, you need to read the discussions of socialism in the UK in the early 1900's through the end of WWII!

Okay, so Bush just signed a bill that makes it easier to ID the mentally ill and so prevent them from buying firearms. Okay, some folks are going to be swept up in this and it will cause alot of headache for some. How about the GCA? How about AWB? How about AWBII? How about the Brady Bill? How about 1934?

Never in US history has a Right Wing government brought these things about. The Right Wing did not bring us Prohibition, the banning of cocaine, nor Social Security. The right did not ban firearms. The left did. Every time.

Ash

 

[Joe Demko]

Reagan was, and he allowed the importation of surplus arms banned for half a generation. The left wing has always sought to ban firearms.

Reagan closed the machinegun registry. He lobbied for the AWB. As governor of CA he signed gun control legislation into law. However right wing he may have been, he wasn't as friendly to RKBA as you would like to paint him.

 

[Ash]

He also did what I said he did. All the talk about Mosins, AK's, Enfields, CZ-52's, CZ-50's, Systema Colts, SVT-40's, K98k;s, Swedish Mausers, K31's, SKS's, Hakims, Rasheeds, Webley's, Turkish Mausers, CZ-82's, Carcanos, etc, would not occur around here. Board traffic here would be pretty slow.

As to California, does anyone think that it would be less gun-control crazy right now had Reagan not been governor?

Ash

 

[Foosinho]

Oh, the issue of gun control most certainly is a left versus right issue.

Sigh.

The Right Wing did not bring us Prohibition

Yet it was enthusiastically supported by the KKK.

Look, "left" vs "right" is not about particular issues, they are about approaches to problems. It's not that hard to find people all over the political spectrum that agree on varying issues.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Modern liberals tend to be collectivists. while classical liberals like Thomas Jefferson would be called libertarians by todays standards.

That sort of cracks me up.

Care to explain the "libertarian" Embargo Act?

How about a liberatarian slant on the Louisiana Purchase?

And credit to the OP for recognizing the difference between socialists and liberals.

I couldn't agree more. I am pretty shocked.

Mike

 

[Joe Demko]

As to California, does anyone think that it would be less gun-control crazy right now had Reagan not been governor?

He had the power to veto. He didn't use it. He was ex-POTUS and had nothing to gain by lobbying for the AWB. He did so anyway. You can paint a halo around him if you want, but I'm not buying into it. At best, Reagan thought some guns were okay in the hands of some people. He was not a committed advocate of the RKBA.

 

[Beatnik]

Regarding the OP,
My understanding of the firearms issue is that banning is borne of socialism.
As stated, voters are generally people who have been rewarded by capitalism. I don't believe that the poor "non ruling-class" are voting for social agendas either.

I read in the early 90's in Rush's book The Way Things Outta Be his theory of why so many rock gods and movie stars are flaming liberals: guilt.

They've been rewarded beyond anyone's wildest dreams for comparatively little work, and they get to feeling guilty about it.

I think if you scale that back to upper-middle-class levels, there's still a level of guilt - it's hard to go out and buy your kids a $600 game system for Christmas without straining too hard and not feel a little guilty about it.

Add to that the fact that said UMC individual doesn't practice a religion which teaches charity, and a constant media blast saying that it's the government's responsibility to care for people who didn't go to school, and it's not surprising that they get votes. It's a perfect compromise: give me money you really don't need, and you don't have to do anything.

Now back to socialism: I think the gun control thing was alluded to in the article. It's a topic because we don't trust these poor unfortunate non-ruling-class to handle affairs for themselves. We need the state to step in and take care of it. And obviously, the easiest way to prevent gun violence is to take away the guns.

All our favorite arguments to the contrary don't work, because, after all, we're talking about people who passively decided to give over 50% of their wealth to a demonstrably ineffective system designed to take care of people who can't buy Playstation 3.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Originally Posted by Owen Sparks
Modern liberals tend to be collectivists. while classical liberals like Thomas Jefferson would be called libertarians by todays standards.

That sort of cracks me up.

Care to explain the "libertarian" Embargo Act?

How about a libertarian slant on the Louisiana Purchase?
_______________________________________________________

If you read the entire post you will see that I qualify that statement with the phrase "with a few glairing exceptions such as slavery, the founding fathers were libertarians.

This should clear some things up.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007639.asp

 

[Ash]

You may certainly sigh all you want, but truth is truth. Tell me of a left wing organization that seeks to strengthen RKBA and I will show you many, many more which seek outright bans.

Ash

 

[4v50 Gary]

Krahling said: This view is often held by socialists that are out of power.

The view favoring gun control is held by socialists that are in power.

Absolutely right and they (the socialists) are not in control for long. Generally, there's confiscation followed by a purge until someone is in complete control (dictatorship of the proletariat). Worked for Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If you want the government to have the power to enforce behavior and dress based on religious principles, imagine how far things could go if a religious group you did not agree with gained majority power. (like Islamic law)
Would you be willing to tolerate people drinking and gambling on Sunday if it meant your great grand son would not be beheaded for possession of alcohol? Or would be willing to run the risk that your kids may see, horror of horrors, a topless woman at the beach if it meant meant that your great granddaughter would not have to wear a burka in public? Giving the government power to enforce any victimless crime can and will eventually be abused because laws are made by mortal men and mens interpretation of right and wrong is not infallible. That's why the founding fathers designed the Second Amendment to give the people the ultimate power to throw off an oppressive government, even if that oppression is by the majority, and even if that oppression is for your own good.

 

[Ash]

Well, no Christian I know has argued for a theocracy and there are many Christians in government today and they don't impose theocratic requirements on the people. As to topless, gasp gasp and horror of horror, why stop there? Sex on the beach is the ultimate demonstration of personal liberty, right? It's natural, right? An expression of love, right?

Or is it merely one man's definition of morals? Would YOU be willing to allow your young daughters to have sex with older men in order to guarantee that her great granddaughters could not be stoned to death by angry mobs for promiscuity? Come now, don't equate one standard with another. Or do you really think that public obscenity laws regarding the bared breast equate to the Shia laws?

Last time I checked, guns were neither moral nor immoral themselves.

Ash

 

[woodybrighton]

real socialists are quite keen on having citizens heavily armed most Russian school kids got taught how to use an AK47.

 

[WildeKurt]

Look, "left" vs "right" is not about particular issues, they are about approaches to problems. It's not that hard to find people all over the political spectrum that agree on varying issues.

Too many people on one side like to demonize the other for their own betterment (gain/sustain power). Not only is it not a left/right issue, the whole concept of left/right is too simplistic. Many on the left and many on the right could benefit with a disarmed public. While each of these groups makes up a minority, together they may make up a majority. Only other issues keep them apart. Pity us if this does not remain so.

 

[strangelittleman]

WildeKurt, Very well stated!!

 

[Ash]

Indeed, but reality is what it is, and support for any person on the left will add to a loss of firearms freedoms. Directly? Perhaps not. However, the local guy who likes guns but is a Democrat might be helpful, but he will support his party when it comes to re-districting. Your district might just be transformed into a Democrat-dominant district. Then comes national politics, and can anyone, anyone at all, tell me when the Congress had a pro 2nd Amendment Democrat as Speaker? Anyone? No, you cannot. That is a simple fact. Pragmatism trumps lofty ideals every single time.

Simplistic?

Ash

 

[Foosinho]

My understanding of the firearms issue is that banning is borne of socialism.

Not really. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a political ideology that has "ban guns" as a core value. While there are some extremists (as there are in any political movement), the "gun control" advocates are only advocating gun control because there is a problem with violent crime committed using guns in primarily urban areas. "Banning guns" is not the goal - reducing violent crime is the goal. Banning guns, or certain types of guns, is seen as a means of accomplishing the goal.

People are free to have different opinions about how to solve the problem, but painting people who want to reduce violent urban crime as indiscriminately anti-gun is counter-productive. (Yes, there are some people who are indiscriminately anti-gun, but they are a minority, even on the political left. And in most cases, those people are just unaware of the reasons why people might need a gun beyond "commit crime". "Self defense" is a hard sell, even with high violent crime rates, because (a) if reducing the availability of guns reduces the violent crime rate, you've already solved the problem, and (b) the likelihood of any one individual being a victim of violent crime is statistically improbable.)

As stated, voters are generally people who have been rewarded by capitalism.

I'm not so sure that there is a direct relationship there. I think the direct relationships are between education and voting, and education and wealth (tho in the case of the second it isn't always clear which came first).

I don't believe that the poor "non ruling-class" are voting for social agendas either.

To some extent, they (er, we? I suppose I should acknowledge which side of my bread is buttered.) do. I think the GOP's resurgence came on the backs of working-class social conservatives... who traditionally voted Democratic for economic reasons. But the idea that Dems are directly buying the votes of welfare recipients is pretty silly.

I read in the early 90's in Rush's book The Way Things Outta Be his theory of why so many rock gods and movie stars are flaming liberals: guilt.

They've been rewarded beyond anyone's wildest dreams for comparatively little work, and they get to feeling guilty about it.

I'm not so sure "guilt" is the right word for it. Many of the uber-wealthy have gained their wealth not thru hard work, but thru privilege (luck, basically). And they've got so much money that "tax rate" is essentially meaningless (if you take 20% or 80% of Warren Buffet's annual income in taxes, it's going to make a lick of difference to his lifestyle). That probably has something to do with why millionaires break GOP, while multi-multi-millionaires break Dem.

Now back to socialism: I think the gun control thing was alluded to in the article. It's a topic because we don't trust these poor unfortunate non-ruling-class to handle affairs for themselves. We need the state to step in and take care of it. And obviously, the easiest way to prevent gun violence is to take away the guns.

I think you're missing the boat here. There is no "ruling class" in socialism. There's no socio-economic "class" to speak of. That's kinda the point. I think people tend to conflate political and economic theory. Democracy != capitalism, and authoritarianism != socialism. In fact, you can't really have socialism without democracy. (More later.)

Absolutely right and they (the socialists) are not in control for long. Generally, there's confiscation followed by a purge until someone is in complete control (dictatorship of the proletariat). Worked for Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot.

Kinda underlining the point that they weren't really socialist countries at all. Some ruthless dictator stepped in and took advantage of the situation to install themselves as dictator of an authoritarian state.

Well, no Christian I know has argued for a theocracy and there are many Christians in government today and they don't impose theocratic requirements on the people.

Weeeeeelll..... Christian Reconstructionists sure like to dance around the edges of this topic quite a bit. And one look at the GOP primaries shows that you have to have belief in the right type of God to even have a chance. I think the Republican Party now is fundamentally different, if you'll excuse the pun, than what it was pre-Reagan. That difference is the overwhelming influence of theocratic fundamentalist Christians.

What Kennedy had to deal with as a Catholic running in a primarily Protestant country feels very different to me - an ex-Catholic, no less - than what Romney has to deal with in the GOP primaries. It doesn't help much that Romney punted when he gave his "freedom of religion" speech; while Kennedy defended his right to be non-Protestant, Romney had to defend Mormonism.

We're skating on some thin ice here, and I know this can be a difficult thing for evangelistic Christians to see, so I'll just remind everyone of the old Jefferson quote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

As to topless, gasp gasp and horror of horror, why stop there? Sex on the beach is the ultimate demonstration of personal liberty, right? It's natural, right? An expression of love, right?

Laws must have a secular purpose. If you can come up with a legitimate secular purpose for banning female toplessness, go right ahead. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a law banning male toplessness. Like I want to see some overweight hairy dude with his shirt off, right? It's a threat to public safety - people could go blind.

Indeed, but reality is what it is, and support for any person on the left will add to a loss of firearms freedoms.

Absolutely untrue. This assumes that parties don't pay attention to the policies of the people who win elections. They do. Parties are not unchanging monoliths of policy. A quick look at our own history confirms this fact.

Not only is it not a left/right issue, the whole concept of left/right is too simplistic.

Absolutely correct. I've had people who don't understand this (and the difference between economic and political theory) tell me that "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, without bothering to understand the theory.

 

[Ash]

Foosh, you are incorrect. Tell me, in 100 years, where the major destruction of our 2nd Amendment rights came from? I am not talking theory, but fact. Or, perhaps I should post a quote from America For Gun Control FROM THE DEMOCRACT PARTY WEBSITE "In america 30,000 people died due to guns in 2006, 97% of murders are comited with guns. This group is for Democrats that think we should strengthen gun laws or eleminate the 2ed amendment all together."

http://www.Democrats.org/page/group/americaforguncontrol


And, I am not reconstructing anything. You want to spit on me? I am said Christian, one member of that dirty word, you know, Evangelical. Yep, a Presbyterian. Egad, can that be? Ah, but yes. You think your IQ is higher than mine? You thing your wisdom greater? Or is it that you merely are superior to me, that sub-species of homo-sapien with the marginal intellect?

Your arrogance is not unsurprising. It is generally expected by elitists that one who, in his evident ignorance and backwardness, would read the Christian Bible, would have faith in Christ, would go to church (and you'll love this, I'm a Deacon), would stop and help stranded old ladies in the bad section of Atlanta, gave food to the needed after Katrina, spent countless hours as a nameless face doing relief work on the Mississippi Gulf Coast putting up roofs and building shelters, is at the very least unenlightened and probably not too smart.

Ash shakes his head as he turns from the debate, his head hung low, broken in spirit as the ugly truth of his backward ignorance and mindless faith has been shown to the rest of the world. If only he were enlightened like some others. If only...

 

[Zundfolge]

Absolutely right and they (the socialists) are not in control for long. Generally, there's confiscation followed by a purge until someone is in complete control (dictatorship of the proletariat). Worked for Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot.

Someone's been reading his Hayek

Weeeeeelll..... Christian Reconstructionists sure like to dance around the edges of this topic quite a bit. And one look at the GOP primaries shows that you have to have belief in the right type of God to even have a chance. I think the Republican Party now is fundamentally different, if you'll excuse the pun, than what it was pre-Reagan. That difference is the overwhelming influence of theocratic fundamentalist Christians.

Thats pretty ridiculous.

Virtually ZERO Christians (even the harder line "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" ones) want a Christian theocracy here in America. HOWEVER, most people want the candidate that represents them to be "one of them". MOST Republicans (hell, most AMERICANS) are Christian, therefore they want their candidates to be Christians as well. On a side note, you don't see the DNC putting forth a "devout" atheist or a Muslim do you? (and frankly either party could run a Jew and win)

Just because we elect presidents that wear suits and ties, doesn't mean we want a federally mandated national dress code.