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.

 

A new American civil war

page: 13
57
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The amount of mental gymnastics required to turn the Constitution of the United States of America into a socialist document, when the entire intent of it is to favor individual rights over collective rights is immeasurable. It's very existence, and all the collaborative writings by those instrumental in it's adoption, is the antithesis of Socialism.




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Word choice doesn't change how things actually work. "Representative Democracy" by any other name....


I fundamentally oppose the idea that a majority of any size should be permitted to exceed limits placed by the Constitution. For example, if 99% of the population wants to ban all firearms, they would be enacting an agenda tyrannical to the remaining 1% who do not.

You have it worse now. There have been bans on certain firearms and it didn't take 99% of the population to pass those laws.

My point is that you are arguing to keep/bring back something that has never existed.


edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

The Constitution is built upon concepts of social responsibility, equality under the law and human rights.

I mean, look at your whole Bill of Rights (one of your three Constitutional documents)! If there ever was an all-encompassing socialist manifesto, that's it.

No, the ones who are trying to destroy the Constitution are right wing, selfish and greedy capitalists. There's almost nothing in the Constitution for them.

But it's funny how the 'propaganda arm' are constantly suggesting that "the left" are trying to undermine the Constitution.

The truth is that the Constitution is neither explicitly Left or Right. Their is such a thing as middle America, where the vast population sits. They are the true power and the true economy and the true country.


Have you ever heard of the electoral vote process? The right to bear arms? The right to freedom of speech? Democrats aim to rid us of all of those. Thanks for setting another example of those who are dangerous and don't realize it, so much so that you push blame to the other side with psychological projection.


Really? Then consider these:

In regard to electoral process: In 2013-2014, Republicans introduced nearly 200 bills in 41 states that restrict the right to vote, things like the requirement for photo ID's (which not all citizens have) and reduction to early voting. Additionally, where voter registration is concerned, Republicans in the past, consistently opposed online registration, which is cheaper, easily available and encourages more Americans to register. Republicans aren't about supporting the electoral voting system as it stands and seem to only oppose anything that specifically disadvantages their party.

In regard to the 2nd amendment: The DOJ, under the Trump administration has banned bump stocks, giving only 90 days for owners to surrender them. As of March 26, 2019, owners who have not surrendered them are now criminals.

In regard to freedom of speech: What of the Republicans reaction to those sportsmen who chose not to kneel during the national anthem? Surely the kneeling sportsmen are protected by freedom of speech defined in the 1st amendment. But there are other Republican efforts to damage the 1st amendment, namely:
- Support for restrictions of First Amendment rights of nonprofit organizations receiving federal grants.
- Federal legislation to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts and a call to require reconfirmation of federal judges. These proposals would reverse a basic principle, the separation of powers, and threaten the First Amendment by undermining the independence of the judiciary.
- Defunding of the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
- An amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing elected officials to restrict First Amendment rights in order to protect the flag from "desecration."
- Vice President Pence signed a law in Indiana that allowed any company to use "religion" as excuse for discrimination. The Republican position is to use "religious freedom" as an excuse for the state to recognize their form of Christianity as acceptable law.

Other things in the Constitution that the Republicans oppose:

- The 4th amendment, where Republicans, and specifically Trump, are seeking to oppose the FISA court process. Jeff Sessions modified forfeiture laws which allow the Police unreasonable searches followed by seizure of property with no recourse, even without any hint of a crime!

- The 5th amendment, where Trump has specifically used eminent domain to oppose the rights of tenants of his tenants that he wanted to remove so he could redevelop properties. Trump has also spoken out against the Judicial branch on several occasions, has removed people from office who oppose him and has attempted to bypass due legal process in the case of Jared Kutcher's appearance before the courts by writing up a 'statement' for Jared to use in court. Not to mention Trump's use of public broadcast to oppose legal process.

- The 6th amendment, just look at the Republican support for retaining prisoners in Guantanamo bay without right for trial.

- The 8th amendment, where Republicans call for harsher sentencing, opposing this amendment.

- The 14th amendment, where Trump has removed citizenship by birth in America (the so called 'anchor babies').

- The 15th amendment, where several Republicans have suggested that some people should not have voting rights based upon racial grounds.

- The 16th amendment, Republicans have called for the repeal of this.

- The 17th amendment, Republicans are implementing rules to restrict the popular vote in state election.

- The 19th amendment, remember the popular Republican hashtag from 2016 #RepealThe19th?

- The 23rd amendment, Republicans don't want the District of Columbia to be granted entrance into the Electoral College because it is full of Democrat voters (despite it being otherwise, a legitimate EC candidate district).

- The 24th amendment, Republicans have fought hard to implement ID laws, move polling places away from constituent populations, reduce polling time periods and, therefore, creating longer lines waiting to vote.

- The 26th amendment, Republicans have sought to limit those who can vote, especially younger voters (older than 18) who may be attending universities and therefore 'radicalized' by Democratic ideas.

I don't know why anyone would believe that Republicans are actually pro-Constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There are no banned firearms.

Machinguns, tanks, missiles and jets can be owned privately. They require a $200 tax paid to the ATF, but under the NFA you can absolutely own these weapons still. Bans are not constitutional.

I understand the point you are making, and to some extent I do agree with your sentiment here. I just believe that any society where the rights of the one can be overrode by the desire of everybody else is not one worth living in. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the individual, against government encroachment or outright oppression

Many folks are not aware of the NFA, which they use as a starting point for their gun control argument. But I always like to point out that weapons like machineguns and destructive devices such as missiles and grenade are not unlawful to privately own. And of course prior to this law, these weapons were perfectly legal to own or make. The default position in this country is one of liberty, freedom and individual decision making (not substituting group think or the desires of the many for personal choices)

My right to own any weapon I want to own (or think I need to own) has nothing to do with the rights of others, so why do anti-gunners still attempt to infringe on these rights? If they don't want to own firearms, great. But I do. And I am not alone on this
The point is "Leave our rights alone" or you may just find there is nobody left to stick up for your rights when they too are threatened

Of course as a Constitution loving American, I would be there for any person or group who's rights are threatened
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: chr0naut

The amount of mental gymnastics required to turn the Constitution of the United States of America into a socialist document, when the entire intent of it is to favor individual rights over collective rights is immeasurable. It's very existence, and all the collaborative writings by those instrumental in it's adoption, is the antithesis of Socialism.


Socialism does not remove individual rights. It instead assures that all human beings have an equality of rights and that no one has no rights and no one has more rights. Socialism seeks to enforce individual rights through weight of numbers. If you were to remove individual rights, then collectivism could not make the claim for those accumulated rights. Your misunderstanding of socialism is the problem, not the aims of socialism.

It is the right wing that discriminates on nationality, religion, race and any number of other criteria. That is the basis of their entire platform.

As I said in my previous summation, the Constitution is not explicitly right or left wing. It clearly walks a line, or, perhaps more accurately, is agnostic to the difference between the two.

The inability to see that the true majority sits between either 'wing' is quite sad.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever heard the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

It's from Orwell's Animal Farm, which, according to Orwell, was a satire on the Russian revolution and Stalinism.
Of course, the Soviet Union assured much of the same equality that you claim socialism does, and used those promises to garner more power. That sort of equality led to a reign of terror and murder.

And yes, socialism prioritizes the collective over the individual. This was made explicit by socialist leaders and intellectuals, for instance in the archetype of The New Soviet Man, who had to be selfless and willing to sacrifice himself for the socialist revolution.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
In what World does that make sense? Do you think Republican Women would agree with this statement?

If they're being honest. It's just that there are a lot of Republican women who take the man's side, for personal or religious reasons. Just like some Americans thought Hitler and the Nazis were on the right track (so to speak).



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever heard the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

It's from Orwell's Animal Farm, which, according to Orwell, was a satire on the Russian revolution and Stalinism.
Of course, the Soviet Union assured much of the same equality that you claim socialism does, and used those promises to garner more power. That sort of equality led to a reign of terror and murder.

And yes, socialism prioritizes the collective over the individual. This was made explicit by socialist leaders and intellectuals, for instance in the archetype of The New Soviet Man, who had to be selfless and willing to sacrifice himself for the socialist revolution.


I totally agree, but at least they pay some lip service to equality.

Imagine a political movement who explicitly states their rejection of the rights of all.




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Socialism seeks to enforce individual rights through weight of numbers


The Collective have always, under such systems throughout history have demonstrated the opposite.

The "Collective" trampled individual rights in the end.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
I understand the point you are making, and to some extent I do agree with your sentiment here. I just believe that any society where the rights of the one can be overrode by the desire of everybody else is not one worth living in.


I don't think you do because that is exactly the type of society the Constitution created.

The AWB did in fact exist. Felons are unable to own firearms in many cases but it isn't just about guns.

I really don't understand how you can say 99% choosing something is tyranny when all you need is 2/3 of 0.0001% to change the constitution. That is one hell of a disconnect.
edit on 5-4-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever heard the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

It's from Orwell's Animal Farm, which, according to Orwell, was a satire on the Russian revolution and Stalinism.
Of course, the Soviet Union assured much of the same equality that you claim socialism does, and used those promises to garner more power. That sort of equality led to a reign of terror and murder.

And yes, socialism prioritizes the collective over the individual. This was made explicit by socialist leaders and intellectuals, for instance in the archetype of The New Soviet Man, who had to be selfless and willing to sacrifice himself for the socialist revolution.


I totally agree, but at least they pay some lip service to equality.

Imagine a political movement who explicitly states their rejection of the rights of all.



Which one would that be?

Because Karl Marx considered human rights "the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest".



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I've often thought about this... What exactly would a civil was look like? I imaginge cities being surrounded. Firepower being overcome by ingenuity. Bottlenecking. Ground forces would be overwhelmed. Air power would be the saving grace, but from where? The positions are compromised before they're utilised. The socialists have such little ground and such little support. In a civil war situation, it's over before it begins. There's too much ground to cover with minimal support.
edit on 5-4-2019 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: chr0naut
Socialism seeks to enforce individual rights through weight of numbers


The Collective have always, under such systems throughout history have demonstrated the opposite.

The "Collective" trampled individual rights in the end.


There have been a couple of cases of this happening but it isn't inevitable and nor has it always been the case.

Consider Portugal, Sri Lanka, India, the Seychelles, Egypt, Greece, Mexico, Finland and a hundred other states that are or once were socialist where this didn't occur.

Yet consider the many thousands of non-socialist states that have, and still do, oppress human rights.

No country is entirely without blame.

Pretending it is someone else's fault and not mentioning or doing anything about it would make us culpable by association.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
I've often thought about this... What exactly would a civil was look like? I imaginge cities being surrounded. Firepower being overcome by ingenuity. Bottlenecking. Ground forces would be overwhelmed. Air power would be the saving grace, but from where? The positions are compromised before they're utilised. The socialists have such little ground and such little support. In a civil war situation, it's over before it begins. There's too much ground to cover with minimal support.


You are right. Which I believe largely explains their tendency to remain "under ground" so to speak. To engage in light hit and run tactics, small scale violence and of course the battlefield of the Internet/information space

It is very possible this is what such a conflict looks like. However, the impact of information/cyberspace should not be overlooked. Not only is it recognized as a legitimate domain of warfare, it has the power to influence elections, cause unrest (in some cases revolution, such as the M/E examples) and inspire those to commit violent acts

It is safe to say I am speculating here... we are in entirely uncharted territory. Sure, civil wars happen in the 21st century but never in a 1st World Superpower. It is totally without historical precedent

One thing I do know for sure is that those (in the media for instance) trying to compare today's strife to the 1860's are making a very serious mistake. Trying to attribute 19th century attitudes, prevailing opinions/morality and motivations to a multi-faceted 21st century conflict is just asking to get a whole heck of a lot wrong, at least in my personal opinion!



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

No animal may sleep in a bed, with sheets.

Everyone was so worried about Big Brother from 1984 that they completely forgot that Animal Farm is the playbook at hand and a much better story honestly. Took two years to be published too and was banned in the USSR, for reasons. Still banned in NK and heavily censored in Vietnam today. Banned from schools in UAE because of talking pigs, but that is a different issue.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: sine.nomine
I've often thought about this... What exactly would a civil was look like? I imaginge cities being surrounded. Firepower being overcome by ingenuity. Bottlenecking. Ground forces would be overwhelmed. Air power would be the saving grace, but from where? The positions are compromised before they're utilised. The socialists have such little ground and such little support. In a civil war situation, it's over before it begins. There's too much ground to cover with minimal support.


You are right. Which I believe largely explains their tendency to remain "under ground" so to speak. To engage in light hit and run tactics, small scale violence and of course the battlefield of the Internet/information space

It is very possible this is what such a conflict looks like. However, the impact of information/cyberspace should not be overlooked. Not only is it recognized as a legitimate domain of warfare, it has the power to influence elections, cause unrest (in some cases revolution, such as the M/E examples) and inspire those to commit violent acts

It is safe to say I am speculating here... we are in entirely uncharted territory. Sure, civil wars happen in the 21st century but never in a 1st World Superpower. It is totally without historical precedent

One thing I do know for sure is that those (in the media for instance) trying to compare today's strife to the 1860's are making a very serious mistake. Trying to attribute 19th century attitudes, prevailing opinions/morality and motivations to a multi-faceted 21st century conflict is just asking to get a whole heck of a lot wrong, at least in my personal opinion!

This is a great point, but one that warrants discussion. A guerrilla war against a nation, if successful, also warrants a "who's in charge?" scenario. This creates a power vacuum. Very dangerous. But I highly doubt there wouldn't be guerilla warriors throughout the country. Either way, I find it near impossible to recreate a government for such a large area in which the freedoms we are granted are no longer granted.

ETA: it is so f'd up we have to talk about this.
edit on 5-4-2019 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But changing the Constitution doesn't revoke any rights. Repealing 2A would not take away our unalienable right to own firearms. The founders made this clear, the BOR itself was hotly debated as unneeded because it was a given that powers not granted to government didn't exist, and couldn't be merely assumed by said government

But in their great wisdom, those 10 amendments were considered "so important" that extra special protections had to be in place

Without the BOR (or 2A), our right to own firearms would still be unalienable because the Constitution doesn't grant government the power to ban or regulate them. It gives them the authority to regulate the militias (both organized and unorganized) during times of declared war or emergency, and to suppress domestic violence, but never to ban them. If Government had the authority to do this, the power would have been granted to it.

Hence why we say that such actions would absolutely kick off a hot civil war, because I know (just speaking for myself) I am not willing to budge one inch on the gun issue. There is only one reason to disarm American citizens - to facilitate subjugation and atrocity. In any case, that isn't a gamble I'm personally willing to take.

And I do not agree with barring felons (who served their time and paid their debt to society) from owning firearms. They can have restored voting rights, can they not? Voting is infinitely more dangerous than any firearm could ever be. And I believe they can have restored gun rights as well, which still does not constitute an outright ban.

What part about "Shall not be infringed" are you not understanding? "Shall not" means will not under any circumstance infringe. That is a line in the sand, NOT an invitation to interpret, regulate or ban. There can be no valid reason for disarming Americans, no overriding concern important enough to warrant the subversion of an unalienable Constitutional right.

All I know is that gun grabbers do not want to come here.... or anywhere else in rural communities for that fact. You haven't seen unrest until you've seen tens of millions+ of freshly minted "criminals" whose only crime would be refusing a blatantly malicious and unconstitutional gun grab. Those advocating for this position obviously don't realize how perilous what they're suggesting actually is
edit on 4/5/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Yeah. No. You'll need more nuance to understand the ongoing struggle between different socialists.
Try Rosa Luxemburg for starters:


Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege

[...]

The contradiction between the powerful, decisive, aggressive offensive of the Berlin masses on the one hand and the indecisive, half-hearted vacillation of the Berlin leadership on the other is the mark of this latest episode. The leadership failed. But a new leadership can and must be created by the masses and from the masses. The masses are the crucial factor. They are the rock on which the ultimate victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were up to the challenge, and out of this "defeat" they have forged a link in the chain of historic defeats, which is the pride and strength of international socialism. That is why future victories will spring from this "defeat."

"Order prevails in Berlin!" You foolish lackeys! Your "order" is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will "rise up again, clashing its weapons," and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing:

I was, I am, I shall be!



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever heard the phrase "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

It's from Orwell's Animal Farm, which, according to Orwell, was a satire on the Russian revolution and Stalinism.
Of course, the Soviet Union assured much of the same equality that you claim socialism does, and used those promises to garner more power. That sort of equality led to a reign of terror and murder.

And yes, socialism prioritizes the collective over the individual. This was made explicit by socialist leaders and intellectuals, for instance in the archetype of The New Soviet Man, who had to be selfless and willing to sacrifice himself for the socialist revolution.


I totally agree, but at least they pay some lip service to equality.

Imagine a political movement who explicitly states their rejection of the rights of all.



Which one would that be?


Ones, not "one", the nationalist and political right wing. There are hundreds of examples, probably the most notably bad would be Fascist and Nazi governments.


Because Karl Marx considered human rights "the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest".


And the context of the quote from Marx?

He was pointing out, to radical Communists, about the tension between rights and policing those rights, and specifically in regards to anti Semitic racism (Marx himself was of Jewish descent) and specifically in regard to religious freedoms.

Of course policing rights implies that the rights of the malefactors must be impinged and so those rights are once again not universal human rights. Marx was implying that systematized rights are their own downfall and ultimately reduce true freedom.

edit on 5/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


I agree that something is indeed going on, but is it possible that the forces behind it want to create so much civil unrest and strife that they are able to install a draconian police state to "control" the troublemakers? Maybe the 1 percent knows at some point the 99 percent is going to figure out that theyve been had and that the government is privatized for the benefit of the ruling class only, and to prevent the real revolt that may come as a result, they create this situation to have an excuse to clamp down on ALL of us, left and right.




top topics



 
57
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join