NRA launches effort to defeat socialism

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

That was my question. What rights under the US Constitution are incompatible with Socalism? Why not a socialist democratic republic? (Admittedly not a name with good history).

a reply to: JustaBill

No worries.


I've got a 9yr old nephew and I'm slowly exposing him to self defense. I've taught him some very basic boxing, workouts, and fighting strategies, but I'm way too worried to introduce him to guns yet. I have a decent sized sword and knife collection and I've let him hold some of them, but that's only w/close supervision. I suspected that he'd start swinging them wildly because we both love superhero movies, but he was surprisingly delicate with them.

But guns are a completely different ball game. His dad & a family friend (both ex-defense contractors) are already wanting to take him deer hunting. I personally want them to wait until he's around 13 for that, but he's not my child so...

I used to be a gun nut when I was younger but now I'm morphing into a "guns as a last resort" person like I was originally taught. It's complicated lol.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Complicated, but wise. I have always been taught they are a last resort, but admit I went through a phase where that wasn't a concern. I grew up in Baltimore City and in my teen years...well let's just say you better not be without "something." Looking back now I realize how fortunate I was/am that nothing went off.

I think your nephew was delicate because he clearly has a remarkable foundation with you, his dad, and other family members. Children have always seemed more mature with a foundation like he is exposed to. That doesn't mean kids won't be kids or have their moments, but most seem to behave more mature overall IMO.

I first went deer hunting with my dad and his friend when I was about 9-10, but wasn't allowed to have my own gun during that time. He would let me load it and unload it and when it was time to wrap things up he would let me shoot one or two into a felled tree. I did have my own .410 for squirrel and rabbit. The .410 was his initially and for an xmas gift one year he gave it to me with the stock cut for a better fit. Yeah, I cried for hours, lol. Damn good memories that's for sure.

Your nephew is very lucky!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?

Did they ask their membership before declaring this on their website? And does this mean they'll be fighting all socialist programs in America as well? Because those would include the programs and policies that I've already mentioned in this thread. That would make the NRA's against Social Security & Medicare.

And someone on the first page of this thread tried to tell me the debt was killing the country, as if the NRA's supposed to be against the rising national debt too. What does the national debt have to do with the NRA's supposed purpose of defending 2nd Amendment rights?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

The NRA should get out of politics and go back to showing people the proper way to use and safely lock up guns. But I don't think they will.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

Which ones?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

Which ones?

I would say all of them, give or take.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?

Did they ask their membership before declaring this on their website? And does this mean they'll be fighting all socialist programs in America as well? Because those would include the programs and policies that I've already mentioned in this thread. That would make the NRA's against Social Security & Medicare.

And someone on the first page of this thread tried to tell me the debt was killing the country, as if the NRA's supposed to be against the rising national debt too. What does the national debt have to do with the NRA's supposed purpose of defending 2nd Amendment rights?

Being an independant organization, I believe they are free to operate however they want. Logical or not.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

That was my question. What rights under the US Constitution are incompatible with Socalism? Why not a socialist democratic republic? (Admittedly not a name with good history).

Property rights are the major one.

If the government can take my crap and give it to someone they deem more worthy, then it was never my crap to begin with.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

That was my question. What rights under the US Constitution are incompatible with Socalism? Why not a socialist democratic republic? (Admittedly not a name with good history).

Property rights are the major one.

If the government can take my crap and give it to someone they deem more worthy, then it was never my crap to begin with.

Socalism isn't really about giving your crap to anyone else.

That said the US as it stands has at least a partially progressive tax system and is hardly a socialist nation.

There isn't anything inherent in a socialist system that conflicts with human rights anymore than I a capitalist system.

It's the system of government that's important not the economic model.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

Which ones?

I would say all of them, give or take.

There plenty of exampled of human rights violations by capitalist countries. It's the system of government and the protection of those rights that matters. Not the economic system.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If you can explain how socialism would fit within a political system protecting individual rights, im all ears. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and have talked about this several times in my 45 years. I've never once heard someone claim that they could mesh socialism into a system where individual rights are protected.

Note: im not saying "human rights". Im saying "individual rights". There are differences in the two phrases.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There plenty of exampled of human rights violations by capitalist countries. It's the system of government and the protection of those rights that matters. Not the economic system.

Sure there are. When the collective or the government own the means of production, it means that an individual cannot. We can throw the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to property, to self-determination right out the window.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

Which ones?

I would say all of them, give or take.

There plenty of exampled of human rights violations by capitalist countries. It's the system of government and the protection of those rights that matters. Not the economic system.

I see the issue, and mentioned it in my prior post: we are saying individual rights, not human rights

Major difference in concepts there.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

It can't. In fact, socialism in practice ensures the abolition of individual rights.

Which ones?

I would say all of them, give or take.

There plenty of exampled of human rights violations by capitalist countries. It's the system of government and the protection of those rights that matters. Not the economic system.

I see the issue, and mentioned it in my prior post: we are saying individual rights, not human rights

Major difference in concepts there.

Not sure I agree there is a major difference however happy to consider if you would like to elaborate?

Also changing from human to individual does not alter or invalidate my statement. Still plenty of examples.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

There plenty of exampled of human rights violations by capitalist countries. It's the system of government and the protection of those rights that matters. Not the economic system.

Sure there are. When the collective or the government own the means of production, it means that an individual cannot. We can throw the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to property, to self-determination right out the window.

Property rights can and do exist in socialist countries. Only in true communist country's is there no individual property.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Property rights can and do exist in socialist countries. Only in true communist country's is there no individual property.

For instance?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Individual rights: As an individual, i have rights that supercede that of the society I live in. Mob rule is forbidden. Its what protects the single lamb when 7 wolves vote to eat it. Cannot exist in a true democracy or with socialism as an economic system due to fundamental issues (i.e., a group cannot vote to take away from someone else)

Human Rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person and would include rights to speak, protect oneself, etc.

The former deals with how an individual can be treated by a mob. THe latter deals with how all people are treated regardless.

a reply to: JBurns

Dems adopted socialism in the 1920s with the Rise of Hitler and Stalin, they thought it was cool and became statist ever sense.