NRA launches effort to defeat socialism

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.

Exactly.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

They need to stay in their lane.

Isn't that like "shut up and dribble?"

God I hate LaPierre. What a stupid, backwards POS he is. Socialists have the right to run, and they are getting plenty of votes because capitalism is so destructive. Luckily there are plenty of young people that don't fall for his BS.

I've been doing some reading.

And I've found that indeed, socialism can exist in our representative republic.

The Constitution would allow for socialism.


The further I read, however, the more I found that socialism doesn't always stay as socialism. Socialism isn't static. It is dynamic.

Now a representative republic has no guarantee of staying as a representative republic either. So there is that.


Ultimately, our freedoms are ours to keep or give away.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ultimately, our freedoms are ours to keep or give away.

Or traded. Ironically for the illusion of freedom.

a reply to: JinMI

Freedom requires work, effort.

It calls for responsibility.


In other words, freedom is hard.


People want life to be easy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

Freedom requires work, effort.

It calls for responsibility.


In other words, freedom is hard.


People want life to be easy.

Freedom is much like a relationship, lots of work to maintain.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Freedom is like being in a successful relationship and everyone wants you to break up.

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.

In Other Words , SLAVERY ............Worthless Eaters Begging for their Lives .No Thanks.......

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

LOL So the citizens in Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland are slaves? Profit sharing at companies is slavery? Workers jointly owning the company they work for is slavery? Are you sure you even know what "slavery" means?

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?

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's mainly the people that want to sleep with your partner.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Is socialism Constitutional?

That is the question.

"General Welfare" is mentioned twice in the US Constitution, once in the Preamble and once in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

Preamble (HERE):

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.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (HERE):

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;

And here's a legal definition of "general welfare" (HERE):

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

That article also goes on to say the following:

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.

So yes, it's literally constitutional for Congress to collect taxes and then use that tax money to provide for the health, peace, morality, and safety of US citizens.

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.

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

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?

OK, so that I am clear on your position. You have no problem with the NRA being involved with political issues. You have a problem with them fighting this claim of "socialism," am I correct? If I am misunderstanding you please clarify. Thanks!

a reply to: enlightenedservant perhaps you and your socialist Komrades have misunderstood the actual intent of the words to promote the general welfare. Considering the freedom loving nature of our Founding Fathers, it's quite doubtful they meant the welfare state.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Blah blah blah blah

That's what I thought about the OP.

Interesting development though. How many of you thought that this crony capitalism of yours (ours) is written into stone with the constitution?

Did we just witness some progress?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Id need it explained how the economic system of socialism can ensure the protection of individual rights.

Without that it cannot be constitutional.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe you guys should've asked that as the Patriot Act was installed? Or after the other updates to your Stasillance State? The neocons War with Terror ruined the last bastions of freedom but here you are, complaining about the potential loss of privacy in a socialist utopia.
How am I supposed to take this even serious?

Anyway. Redistribution of wealth and free healthcare for everyone doesn't necessarily infringe on any private rights whatsoever. The question would be how to finance this transformation. But in times of quantitative easing and financial dictatorship the point is a rather moot one. Big Corp isn't even going to notice their losses due to a little tax on derivative trading, for example.