Progressives Cheer: Mass Immigration Will Destroy The NRA And The Second Amendment

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: infolurker

Progressivism has always depended on the destruction of American traditions and culture to advance its agenda.

Progressiveness is what made America. It was our drive and the need to push forward is what made us the most powerful nation on the planet. Regressiveness is what will destroy this nation.

Because anything opposed to the self anointed "progressives", is by definition "regressive". Right?

a reply to: TheBulk

Progress is in the eye of the beholder.

Prohibition was progress. Progress (change) towards an insane or bad goal is not progress.

"Progressives" are people who believe that humankind can be perfected, transformed from a base or fallen state to an enlightened or exalted state. Most modern religions depend on this view, as does Marxist political thought and western humanism. The trouble, of course, is that having a Great Idea on behalf of everyone else usually ends in tragedy - Stalin, Mao, the Crusades, Iraq, Afghanistan... As John Gray so brilliantly outlines in his books - try Straw Dogs - the progressive view is fundamentally flawed. It cannot overcome the species nature of the human animal, and all attempts to do so are chimerical. Give me a non-progressive politician any day. - David, Cirencester, UK


In the US, if you're a Socialist, you call yourself a progressive, because it sounds like you're "for progress", even though in reality, Socialism is completely "regressive", given that it has failed every time that it has been tried, leaving countries economically stagnant or devastated. The only reason why David Cameron calls himself a "progressive", is because he agrees with the morality of collectivist-altruism, which lies at the root of Socialism. How can he oppose an insidious political ideology, such as Socialism, when he can't even bring himself to oppose its moral code? - Rougie, London

www.politicususa.com...

Progressivism is a problem-solving method. Historians generally date Progressive Era as 1890-1920, but the progressive method did not end with that date. The progressive method is not an ideology but a pragmatic search for solutions that work, grounded in a healthy skepticism. Thus, for example, Prohibition was a progressive project and was based on the social science of that era, but “The Great Experiment” of Prohibition failed in practice and progressives also worked for its repeal. The 20th century can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of the progressive method.

Yet, again, progressive governments have at times stumbled. Some have applied the progressive method toward horrific, illiberal ends, such as the Tuskegee Experiment, the Holocaust, and Project MK-ULTRA. And the progressive method is susceptible to the paralysis of analysis, to public demands for boldness and confidence, and to being out-spun by voices who don’t need data to justify criticism.

The irony is while you scream "don't take my guns" you've been on a slow boil for so long that your 2nd Amendment is now useless.

Utterly useless.


They don't want your guns.

They alread have your minds and wallets...


& they can implement war on a scale that the average gun hoarder cannot.

It's no longer 1850.


Black Ops will enter your house, put you to sleep, and it'll be determined you died of a heart attack or an aneurysm.


"From my cold dead hands" said Jim Bob...

"Much obliged" replied the government assassin.

The NRA is useless and only serves to protect the manufacturers with the money of the ignorant members. I am pro-2nd and I refuse to give any money or time to that organization.

That being said, I'm also a Leftist and have no fear that the Feds are going to take our firearms or use immigration as a catalyst to do so.

This piece is propaganda and utter nonsense. Why do people fall for this garbage?

If progressive ideas are so good why do they require the tyranny of government for implementation? The fact of the matter is that socialism (or whatever you want to call the collective mindset) requires taking resources from others involuntarily and using the power of government as coercion.

I put it like this... as a conservative, I will freely volunteer my own hard earned money and time for any number of causes that I believe are important. Progressives on the other hand rather take my money from me by force and then distribute it to whatever cause they feel is important. By it's very nature, progressivism puts the collective ahead of the individual's rights.

a reply to: Edumakated

That was really well said. Thank you.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: infolurker

Progressivism has always depended on the destruction of American traditions and culture to advance its agenda.

Progressiveness is what made America. It was our drive and the need to push forward is what made us the most powerful nation on the planet. Regressiveness is what will destroy this nation.

The gullible will happily bite into a #e sandwich, if you tell them it's 'progressive.'

a reply to: Klassified

Right but you are fooled if you believe personal experiences relates in any way with actual demographic data in sets large enough to make your own experience valid in this discussion.

No offense intended. .just the truth

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Klassified

Right but you are fooled if you believe personal experiences relates in any way with actual demographic data in sets large enough to make your own experience valid in this discussion.

No offense intended. .just the truth

I'll go with that. I certainly don't know every black or hispanic out there. But having been raised in a very diverse neighborhood, and dealing with a variety of people from all walks of life daily, gives me a fairly good idea of the demographics in the areas I go into. So I think I am qualified to give my opinion to that extent.

a reply to: Klassified

Hey...I hear you...I have similar experience but like every individual on earth. ..it is myopic

The poll data the author of the article cites actually does not support his conclusion. The trend in the last fifteen years has actually been sharply against his hypothesis on the question of gun rights vs gun control.

Furthermore, the data on the Hispanic population...the one major growth demographic... doesn't support his conclusion, either. They do fall heavily in the 'control gun ownership' category 3:1, but what does that actually mean? Perhaps not as much as he might hope. They're actually less likely than whites or blacks to support an 'assault weapons ban', tightening laws against the mentally ill owning firearms, and gun show background checks. Again, this is the data he cites. If anything, this actually suggests that overall support for these specific gun control proposals could even decline as Hispanics become a greater percentage of the population.

So I'm not really sure what the author is hanging his hat on here aside from wishful thinking.

Really strange...Most of the gun rights proponents in my area are totally hispanic,NRA members and members of local organizations that oppose gun control.

The really big surprise in this area is the number of orientals in the gun culture.
They are very active in the gun rights orgs also.
Progressive dogma about immigrants being guncontrol advocates is just wishful thinking.

Can the country last long enough for the plan to work?

originally posted by: Edumakated
I put it like this... as a conservative, I will freely volunteer my own hard earned money and time for any number of causes that I believe are important. Progressives on the other hand rather take my money from me by force and then distribute it to whatever cause they feel is important. By it's very nature, progressivism puts the collective ahead of the individual's rights.

It has been explained to you 100 times but, you probably aren't giving enough, and you certainly aren't impartial in determining what causes you believe are important.

How well funded do you think anything would be if there were no taxes and all government departments operated as charities?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: infolurker

Progressiveness is what made America. It was our drive and the need to push forward is what made us the most powerful nation on the planet.

Thug life .....
Gangsters paradise ... ?

Powerful nation ?
LOL

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

JSOC would not agree with you.

a reply to: stosh64
www.nytimes.com... already HAVE in Yankeeland...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: infolurker

Enemy's Of The State . Traitors To Our Nation !

... why would anyone ever call the American right wing statist and authoritarian is beyond me.

Actually, it isn't. You guys love "the State" as long as you are in charge of it.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: the owlbear
The use of progressive as a derogatory term is befuddling to me.
The only other options are stagnation and regression.

Guns aren't going anywhere in American culture. No matter how much the gun lobby and the NRA scare you into thinking they are.

The use of "progressive" in the political landscape is oxymoronic as is "liberal" as progressive policies are not progress in any real sense just as liberals are not really for any kind of liberty.

So why keep using them?

Progression is to move forward. Regression is to move backward. Stagnation is to remain in state with no real appearance to ever move forwards.

Progressivism begs the question that any one knows how society should be progressed. Progressivism is based on experts commanding individual behavior. Like the experts are omnipotent.

And as for the term liberal...
It means open to the thought of and implementation of new ideas, politically speaking. The opposite is Conservative, steadfastly holding onto ideas/ideals rather than pursuing a new course of action. It has nothing to do with liberty.

Liberal originally meant morality and action supported by reason. Since WW1 liberal means the State will decide everything. (same as progressive)

Conservative meant to keep what is known to be copacetic. Now conservative means progressive lite.

The immigrants come from cultures that have no indigenous tradition of individual rights.

The arithmetic is very simple.

a reply to: infolurker

When populations decline, which is what is happening in most of western Europe right now, economies decline with them.

Also immigrants, particularly skilled ones, help drive wages down in a country, which helps businesses. On top of this unskilled immigrants are much more likely to be happy to take jobs for minimum wage, so all those undesirable jobs that no natives want get taken up, again helping businesses.

I can't help but think that the real reason for the recent mass influx of immigrants into the west is mainly due to pressure in recent years on governments from far right nationalist parties to cut immigration. So all the gains that were made by these groups are now being offset in one quick swoop.

Infact I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear if western governments have agents out there in places like Syria trying to convince people to emigrate to western states.

The bottom line here is the economy, and the government will use any means necessary to make sure GDP is growing. You're kidding yourself if you think they care about anything else.