Socialist view of the Second Amendment

[RPCVYemen]

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

OK. Let's test that hypothesis. If banning is borne of socialism, then we would expect to find no example of a weapons ban prior to socialism, correct?

When do you want to mark the start of socialism? The articulation of the theory is 19th century. Do you want to pick an earlier date?

Mike

 

[Ash]

Consider this. Private ownership bans of firearms in the world today are the result of socialist governments. Prior to the UK's socialist governments, citizens owned firearms of every kind, revolvers being quite popular. Sherlock Holmes would not have his Tranter these days. The same applies in all other nations which have become socialized - or the extreme of communism. These are truths.

Now, weapons bans have occurred through history, of course. Always a result of power over the citizens. However, it was NOT a result of a democratic republic. Freedom was incongruent with firearms banning. But when the movement came to punish industry in the name of workers, other things happened, too. As the government is the only entity that can equalize the masses, the government, by necessity, must have the control. With that control comes the banning of firearms, or at least the heavy restrictions of them. It also comes with other things. Our fine British friends are looking now at not even owning their bodies. This very day it is being advocated that unless you have written paperwork to the contrary, your organs are not your own. You die, your consent to donate is assumed. Not a far step from that, of course, is that your organs are not your own at death. Impossible? Well, half of your estate is not yours, but the government's at your death.

Socialism requires government control. Government control requires a cooperative populace. A cooperative populace requires gun control.

Ash

 

[woodybrighton]

er machine guns were banned in the UK by the conservative party that also brought in firearms certificates
due to a fear of a communist inspired revolution didn't like the proles armed

now you can twist that all you wants the troys are not and never have been socalist

 

[RPCVYemen]

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.

The web site you sent me to was just a bunch of Libertarian rants. I didn't see anything about the Louisiana Purchase or the embargo on that page.

My point was slightly different. When someone makes a statement "Jefferson was xxxx" - and Jefferson's actions in office completely contradicts xxxx, it cracks me up. Do you actually maintain that Jefferson enforcement of the the embargo, or the Louisiana Purchase reflect libertarian values?

Jefferson the essayist was very different from Jefferson the President. What seems to pass for historical research on guns boards is a quick troll through Bartlett's Quotations trying to find a set of words that might mean whatever the researcher wants to mean. For example, people quote - with a straight face - Jefferson's views on individual rights, and completely ignore his policies of search and seizure of goods and ships of people he thought might be thinking about violating his trade embargo. Which tells us more about what Jefferson said? His flowery writing before became President, or his actual action as President?

To my mind, people actions speak louder than their words - and Jefferson's actions as President don't appear to me to reflect Libertarian values.

Mike

 

[Joe Demko]

Private ownership bans of firearms in the world today are the result of socialist governments

Socialism is an economic theory. Gun bans are borne of authoritarian governments. The left-right dichotomy is entirely inadequate for addressing the real world of politics. The political compass, though not perfect, is better.

 

[Ash]

The banning of handguns was completed by Blair's government, but even under John Major, the socialists forced the passing of the initial law. The people of the UK, as a majority, were already pressing towards the socialistic Labour party before even 1996. Partly due to Major's less charasmatic ways, largely due to the recession and to scandals that were plaguing the Conservative party, the people were already heavily in Labour's court with the Dunblane massacre which led to the virtually complete banning of handguns other than historic relics. That move was led by left-wing members of parliament.

In theory Socialism is about economics. In reality it is not. It is about control. An idealist says it is about control of the workers. A realist says otherwise.

Ash

 

[Joe Demko]

In theory Socialism is about economics. In reality it is not. It is about control. An idealist says it is about control of the workers. A realist says otherwise.

IOW, for purposes of this discussion, words mean what Ash wants them to mean.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Socialism is an economic theory. Gun bans are borne of authoritarian governments. The left-right dichotomy is entirely inadequate for addressing the real world of politics. The political compass, though not perfect, is better.

You nailed it. And there seems to be a general trend that once someone is elected, the power of government seems to suck them in an authoritarian direction - doesn't seem to matter if they are left or right. Jefferson is a good example, as is Lincoln.

To be fair, I think that most folks (at least in the US) who successfully seek office are motivated by a desire to help their neighbors and friends. When they are in office, they run into a hard problem (poverty, poor education, unemployment, health care, failing small businesses, jobs moving overseas, etc), and they see that they have a tool to solve the problem. In theory, there may be some constitutional/philosophical objection to using that tool. But by an large, the tool will get used - the folks in office do not want to stand by and watch someone suffer when they have a tool in hand that may be able to stop that suffering.

If you watch politics closely - at least US politics - the "pure" philosophical views are maintained only by folks who are not in power. As an example, as long as the Republicans did no control the Congress, they were adamant about fiscal responsibility - they fought for a constitutional amendment that would required balanced budget! This isn't ancient history - in my lifetime, as long as the Republicans were out of power, they very much wanted a balanced budget. Once they were in power, they ran up deficits as high as the sky.

There are some really hard problems out there, and government often has the power to solve them in the short term. Often, no one else will step up to the plate, so government steps up. Of course the solution engenders more or different problems - but that's for the next crop to solve.

I don't have any reason to believe that Libertarians, once in power, will be any different from anyone else. Especially if your model of a good Libertarian is Jefferson .

Mike

 

[Foosinho]

Foosh, you are incorrect.

About what? That parties views migrate? 50 years ago, southern Democrats were racist bastards (AL Gov George Wallace was a Democrat), and when northern Dems pushed for civil rights, the southern Dems said "stuff it" and switched to the GOP. George Wallace wouldn't be able to sniff a Democratic nomination today. The GOP used to be isolationist. They aren't now (with the notable exception of Ron Paul). Parties, and their positions, change.

That's why I'm a liberal, not a "Democrat". I don't vote based on party affiliation, but the individual's espoused views.

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/...aforguncontrol

While I am not a "Democrat", I am a staunch liberal. I one a gun. I plan to buy more, when finances allow. One in four staunch liberals own guns. Yeah, that's lower than the 2 in 5 in the general population, but it's a high enough number to be beyond aberration. It's just about statistically impossible for more than half of people who identify as liberals to be for banning firearms. In fact, if the ratios hold and the proportion of people who support firearms bans goes up vs the general population at the same rate that firearms ownership drops vs the general population, you're talking less than 40% of liberals support banning handguns (not all firearms, just handguns). That's a lot, but nowhere near "all", especially given that about 1 in 3 of the general population supports banning handguns.

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?

Easy friend. I said nor implied any of this. Evangelical, Presbyterian, and Christian are not dirty words.

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.

I didn't say Christians were bad people, even "super-devout" Christians. I said nothing of the sort. In fact, personally know some pretty terrific people who are Christians. I'm from a primarily Catholic enclave, but I even know some Evangelical Christians who are awesome people, including a guy who was one of my very best friends in college. Heck, my parents are great, giving people, and they've been very heavily involved in the Church I grew up in. Being a good person has no direct relation (positive or negative) to being Christian, or vice versa.

What I said is that there are some people out there who feel that there is "no room at the inn" in our country for people with different religious beliefs than they. We've even had a President who said atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. And then there's this guy:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." --Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

Wouldn't that imply the converse - voting for candidates who, for example, support butchering science class by inserting "ID" into it - is "voting God into your city"? If that's not "dancing around the edges" of theocracy, I don't know what is. Science class is for science, not religious doctrine. Reconciling current scientific theory with religious doctrine is not the role of the state - it's the role of religious leadership.

People who try to inject matters of faith into a constitutionally secular government make me nervous. Let's not forget that was kinda why people migrated here from Europe 400-500 years ago; to get away from that.

MOST Republicans (hell, most AMERICANS) are Christian, therefore they want their candidates to be Christians as well.

Something like 80% of Americans are Christian. So no, it doesn't surprise me at all that most candidates would be Christian. I voted for our latest Governor - an ordained Baptist minister - without hesitation partially because of his staunch pro-separation position.

On a side note, you don't see the DNC putting forth a "devout" atheist or a Muslim do you?

There is a Muslim Democrat in Congress - and he took a ton of stick for swearing in on the Koran. An atheist would be outright unelectable except in very specific areas - atheists are the most despised demo in the US.

A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%

How do I always end up on these thread drifts, when I'm just trying to combat the fictions that "all liberals hate guns" and "socialism is authoritarian"? I think I'm too wonky for my own good.

 

[Ash]

Tell me where Socialism did not reduce the individual freedoms of citizens when applied???

Oh, and Communism is fundamentally the purest democracy in that everyone works for the common good. In theory, of course.

In theory, of course, in theory.

Show me where the theory of Communism worked.

Show me a socialist government where firearms ownership is free and open. I will show you many socialist governments where firearms ownership is not. Show me a socialist group which espouses firearms ownership and I will show many that seek outright bans.

Show me a left wing organization in America which supports firearms ownership and I will show several that seek bans or the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I would say I am classically liberal in that I believe in limited government and self-determination. However, I am conservative in that I believe that abortion is murder (a woman seeks not control over her body, but over the body of another, that of the child which is to be killed). But the words today tend to mean something else.

Reality remains what it is. If you chose to stand up and be counted with those who seek the ultimate removal of the 2nd Amendment, it matters little what you personally believe.

And George Wallace died a Democrat, by the way. Senator Byrd remains a Democrat. The Republicans did not enter the south in the 1960's as you imply, but the 1980's. I live here. I know. And we are not the racists. Indeed, only in the 1990's did local elections turn from Democrats to Republicans.

That is all aside. Whether or not I define anything, reality is as it is, no matter how much that hurts.

Reality is, of course, that George HW Bush signed the import ban. He lost the election because of that.

The Reality is, too, that in the US, every major legislation that infringed upon our firearms rights was passed by a Democrat congress and signed by a Democrat President. And Johnson and Roosevelt were very left wing liberals. As an aside, did you know Roosevelt tried to nationalize private forest mangement? Yep, he did. His administration attempted to claim that all forest management was the responsibility of the government. Private property rights were of no consequence. Did you know a back-door attempt was done by the Clinton administration by Al Gore through the Clean Water Act?

Ash