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.

 

NRA launches effort to defeat socialism

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.


Which rights do you think socialism would automatically conflict with?




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns>>>. The NRA has to look into the very real, even very likely, possibility that its the Russians who are behind this push to have guns banned here in the US. They admit they are all over our social media and control everything, this would be right up their alley.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.


Property rights seems the obvious one but even then most forms of socialism still have a high degree of property rights. It's only really at full communism that property rights really cease to exist in a meaningful way.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
You're right. When people start protesting against MY rights, I prefer to call them the enemy.

a reply to: XAnarchistX



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
...
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.


Please spare us from your delusional socialism crap. Socialism has ALWAYS sucked, and will ALWAYS suck... BTW, worker's compensation, unemployment benefits, etc, is not socialism... Like I wrote, spare us from the "socialism is all good things in the world " BS rhetoric.


edit on 28-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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?
It's called The Hidden Hand-a concept by Adam Smith. Our Founding Fathers studied many areas of thought. They were well read. While it's not directly written into the Constitution, it IS the ideology our Founding Fathers mostly agreed with. www.forbes.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.


Property rights seems the obvious one but even then most forms of socialism still have a high degree of property rights. It's only really at full communism that property rights really cease to exist in a meaningful way.
NO .... socialism destroys personal property rights and replaces with the rights of the collective. Please read my post on the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith. I do agree with the other poster on the whole Stasi thing but one must remember all of that is cut from the same leftist/ socialist/ communist cloth regardless of the thought of many. I always have to say that Antony Sutton explains it better than anyone and Jonah Goldberg after that.
edit on 28-2-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.


Property rights seems the obvious one but even then most forms of socialism still have a high degree of property rights. It's only really at full communism that property rights really cease to exist in a meaningful way.
NO .... socialism destroys personal property rights and replaces with the rights of the collective. Please read my post on the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith. I do agree with The other poster on the whole Stasi thing but one must remember all of that is cut from the same leftist/ socialist/ communist cloth regardless of the thought of many. I always have to say that Antony Sutton explains it better than anyone and Jonah Goldberg after that.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.


Property rights seems the obvious one but even then most forms of socialism still have a high degree of property rights. It's only really at full communism that property rights really cease to exist in a meaningful way.
NO .... socialism destroys personal property rights and replaces with the rights of the collective. Please read my post on the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith. I do agree with the other poster on the whole Stasi thing but one must remember all of that is cut from the same leftist/ socialist/ communist cloth regardless of the thought of many. I always have to say that Antony Sutton explains it better than anyone and Jonah Goldberg after that.


Depends on what you mean by socialist. Most socialist countries have retained private property rights.

Sorry what page was you post on Adam Smith on, would like to read it?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think he's getting at property rights and has Chinas socialism in mind, which is a disgrace to every more decent socialist who values privacy.

It's a good question to ponder and I could imagine a few things to protect individual rights. Reform all our western secret services to prevent the Stasi crap from metastasizing and put the War on Terror to an end, that would be a start.


Property rights seems the obvious one but even then most forms of socialism still have a high degree of property rights. It's only really at full communism that property rights really cease to exist in a meaningful way.
NO .... socialism destroys personal property rights and replaces with the rights of the collective. Please read my post on the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith. I do agree with the other poster on the whole Stasi thing but one must remember all of that is cut from the same leftist/ socialist/ communist cloth regardless of the thought of many. I always have to say that Antony Sutton explains it better than anyone and Jonah Goldberg after that.


Depends on what you mean by socialist. Most socialist countries have retained private property rights.

And don't forget that the OP specifically says "new European style socialists". Those countries still have individual rights, property rights, and some even have strong gun ownership (HERE).

If you check the link, it's about the number of guns per capita in countries all over the world. Norway, one of the most popular European socialist countries, is #8. Finland is #14. And even though it's not a European country, Canada has a lot of socialist policies and is #10 in the world in guns per capita.

Oh yeah, then there's the formerly communist Serbia whose Socialist Party is one of its biggest political parties. It's #2 on the list in guns per capita, only after the US! And Cyprus, who elected its first communist Head of State in 2008, is #4 on the list! I've even pointed out in this thread that there's an entire branch of Marxism that openly promoted and engaged in violent revolutions to overthrow feudalist & capitalist govts. How can the farmers and factory workers overthrow govts without weapons and weapons rights?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Then by all means don't accept Social Security when you're eligible to receive it. lol And yes, those programs and others are definitely socialist. But if you never learned about the labor movement, you wouldn't know that. Before the labor movement, companies could fire you without compensation for getting injured on the job. There were no limits on child labor or on how many hours a day a company could force its employees to work. And there was no overtime pay, either.

I doubt you'll do it, but if you research the economic programs in the US from the "Robber Barons" to the New Deal and onwards through the 1960s, you'll see that the US progressively taxed its upper class and corporations and then used that money to boost home ownership and jobs here. In fact, many of the baby boomers first became eligible for home ownership specifically because of govt programs that used tax money to subsidize home loans.

In fact, you know that whole "Make America Great Again" mantra? Go back and look at back at the tax rates for back when America was "great" according to those people (HERE). From 1932 to 1935, the top income tax rate was a whopping 63%! And from 1936 to 1945 (during WW2), it rose to an astounding 94%! And from 1946 through 1963, it ranged from 82.13% to 92%. And from 1964 to 1981, it ranged from 69.125% to 77%.

America heavily taxed its top earners and then used those funds for programs for the rest of its population. How is that not socialism? I've paid into Social Security and Medicare for years so that my money is redistributed to the elders who are using those programs right now. How is that not socialism? Some of my taxes and business taxes go into separate funds to help unemployed workers and other citizens who need a social safety net. How is that not socialism?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustaBill

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!


I have no problem with them pushing for 2nd Amendment rights since that's what their entire nonprofit organization is supposed to be about. (Although I don't agree with a lot of what they promote.) And I have no problem with individuals affiliated with them expressing their opinions either, as long as it's constitutionally protected speech. But yes, I have a problem with them officially declaring that they'll be fighting "socialism" since that's not what their purpose is. It would be like PETA declaring that it's going to fight immigration.

Because contrary to popular belief here, there are plenty of gun owners on the left wing and plenty who are centrists. There are plenty of veterans on the left wing and plenty who are centrists, too. There are plenty of hunters and sport shooters who identify themselves politically as progressives, too.

To be fair though, I never joined the NRA because I think they're overzealous fools. One of the first things I was taught about guns was that guns and alcohol don't mix. But the NRA-backed politicians where I live have literally tried to allow guns into clubs & bars that serve alcohol. Another thing I learned about guns early on was that they should be a last resort and that it's better to walk away and/or deescalate a situation instead. So of course, the NRA-backed people where I live are pro "stand your ground", which is literally escalating a potentially lethal situation instead of deescalating it.

And even now, a lot of these people are trying to arm teachers. I've got current & former teachers all throughout my family, including both of my parents, my sister, aunts and cousins, etc. I've seen the crazy amount of off-the-clock work they do, the already underfunded facilities, etc that they already have to go through. And on top of that, we've all seen teachers who've gotten into altercations with students, molested students and/or having affairs with them, etc. And other times, security guards have left their guns out and students have gotten ahold of them.

Arming them would be absolutely foolish. It would increase the number of accidental discharges and it would likely cause "stand your ground" shootings between students and teachers. Even seasoned police miss a lot of shots when firing at suspects, so now we'd have art teachers nervously shooting stray shots into the walls to get a school shooter? Teachers who are already overworked would now be in charge of security training too? And then imagine the increased intimidation on the vulnerable students if the pedophiles and rapists like Jerry Sandusky & Larry Nassar are also in charge of those children's security.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

They are free to lobby however they want, aren't they?

I mean, you and I are both welcome to have our opinions on it...but if their membership will tolerate them making efforts, then they are free to do so, are they not?

WIthin the law, anyway?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.


Which rights do you think socialism would automatically conflict with?


How do the rights of the individual get protection when their stuff is taken away and given to someone else?

Socialism is anathema to individual rights.

Why do I have to explain this to people?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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?


What? That your only reply to me is whataboutism? The Patriot Act is not an example of how individual rights are protected under the economic system of socialism.

If you don't have an answer, just say so. But you don't have to move goalposts and start with whataboutisms that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

On a related note: the Patriot Act is an affront to liberty. If i could talk some sense into the folks i share this nation with, we'd get rid of it.



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.


What?

You are telling me that taking my stuff to give to someone else doesn't infringe on my individual rights?

???

Can you explain how you go about taking my stuff away and giving it to someone else without trampling my rights to ownership?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Communists, socialists...
NRA is a dying organisation.
The slogan tells it all.
NRA are using buzzwords that have been used from the time of Soviet Union to recruit new members in 2018?!
A girl with shaved head destroyed them and their response is rhetoric from the time of USSR?!
There won't be any NRA in 2050.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thank you for clearing things. I apologize for my comment having totally misunderstood your message. Guess that will teach me to clarify first. I initially interpreted your statement to mean the NRA should not have a political stance because of their nonprofit status. Knowing they are nonprofit, but fall into the 501(c)(4) status giving them permission as a nonprofit to engage in political lobbying and advocacy, I made my comment. Basically, to say they were in their lane. You having cleared up my misunderstanding/misinterpretation of your position I sincerely apologize.

The lessons you learned about gun safety sounds identical to my teachings. From an early age I went hunting regularly with my dad and when it came to guns and gun safety...he DID NOT play.

I don't know enough about "socialism" to even have a side in this situation so I won't pretend I do and embarrass myself. I will however stay close to this thread and continue to learn enough to have an idea where to start and educate myself to be able to form an opinion of my own.

Again, thank you clarifying and I apologize for my comment born from my misunderstanding.




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.


Which rights do you think socialism would automatically conflict with?


How do the rights of the individual get protection when their stuff is taken away and given to someone else?

Socialism is anathema to individual rights.

Why do I have to explain this to people?


That isn't what Socalism is. With the arguable exception of some property rights there is nothing inherent in Socalism that conflict with human rights.

Lets try turning your question round, what protects your rights under a capitalist system?
edit on 28-2-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.


Which rights do you think socialism would automatically conflict with?


How do the rights of the individual get protection when their stuff is taken away and given to someone else?

Socialism is anathema to individual rights.

Why do I have to explain this to people?


That isn't what Socalism is. What the arguable exception of some property rights there is nothing inherent in Socalism that conflict with human rights.

Lets try turning your question round, what protects your rights under a capitalist system?


Your question doesn't work that way.

Captialism is an economic system. It doesn't protect rights, although it can trample rights. The legal system we have, the Constitutional Republic, is what protects individual rights.

Socialism does not seem to be something that can legally fit within our constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join