It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Nah, all in for direct democracy. Plus I'm already doing what I like, so what gives?
Try questions instead? This "know your enemy" stuff must be new to you.
They need to stay in their lane.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JBurns
Socialism is an economic system that involves workers owning the means of production. It also involves sharing the wealth generated by those means of production. What the hell does the "National Rifle Association" have to do with either of those?
Are they now trying to prevent workers at gun manufacturers from owning stocks in those companies? And are they going to try to prevent gun manufacturers from giving employee bonuses (which is literally a socialist application of sharing the wealth)? Otherwise, that statement doesn't make sense. They need to stay in their lane.
originally posted by: JustaBill
a reply to: enlightenedservant
They need to stay in their lane.
Isn't that like "shut up and dribble?"
The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization. Together with our more than five million members, we're proud defenders of history's patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Is socialism Constitutional?
That is the question.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.
Blah blah blah blah you're a good cheerleader for the socialist party. We should never have implemented social security but we did and most of us have paid into the system for quite some time. It's also not enough to retire on. Now what ?
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: howtonhawky
I know what Marxism is. I also know that Marx & Engels were talking about in the Communist Manifesto, which describes the transfer of political and economic power from royalty & feudalism to the capitalists; from the capitalists to the socialists; and then from socialists to communists.
But anyone who supports or benefits from a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, employees being able to buy shares in the companies they work for, worker's compensation, unemployment benefits, employee profit sharing, and Social Security literally supports socialism in action. And if I had to guess, that includes plenty of people who work at gun manufacturers. Hence why this whole idea is stupid.
But seeing as so many people just dumb this stuff down and use "socialism" as a catchall bogeyman term for anything they don't like, I'm not surprised that many people who currently enjoy some of the things that I mentioned in the last paragraph are rooting for the NRA to oppose socialism.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: JustaBill
a reply to: enlightenedservant
They need to stay in their lane.
Isn't that like "shut up and dribble?"
No, it's not. American members of the NRA and its American employees have the right to speak out on whatever issues they want because of their constitutional rights. American citizens who are basketball players like LeBron also have the constitutional right to speak out on whatever issues they want.
However, the NRA is not an American citizen; it's a nonprofit organization that supposedly advocates for gun rights. It collects money from members for the purpose of advocating 2nd Amendments rights for its members and other Americans. It's official website's homepage even literally calls itself a civil rights organization:
The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization. Together with our more than five million members, we're proud defenders of history's patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.
home.nra.org...
And contrary to what many of you think, progressives like some of my own family members are card carrying members of the NRA. But that's because dues are supposed to be going towards protecting 2nd Amendment rights, not towards fighting against socialism in America. Fighting against socialism in America would include fighting against the socialist policies that I've already mentioned before, which clearly has nothing to do with its supposed purpose.
Like I mentioned in another post, it would be like a National Pancake Association deciding it was going to suddenly start fighting against capitalism here. Where would that be in its mandate?
Blah blah blah blah