Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Socialism Socialism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree102Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2015, 04:51 PM   #1
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Democratic Socialist of America

one is easy. It is also one of the few things that they tell the truth about in regards to what they believe. Bernie us to not approve of this. But, just watch, he will shift his view. As you see demonstrated time and time again, none of the socialist will tell you how they want to achieve their goal. This article is very plain in what their goal is. Kudos to the socialist for at least being honest about your misguided point on this subject.


Quote:
There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Gun

Posted by Duane Campbell on 12.14.13
Share

Steve Max

We are posting this commentary in the wake of yet another school shooting, at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Col. and in memory of the Sandy Hook tragedy. – Editors

I have long admired abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass and his colleagues in the Liberty Party for their clear-sighted view that the US Constitution was a “glorious liberty document,” that did not condone slavery. William Lloyd Garrison had condemned the Constitution as an “agreement with Hell,” going so far as to publically burn a copy. Douglass, to the contrary, understood the importance of basing abolitionist principles on the Constitution, and of not conferring its legitimacy upon the enemies of liberty. Today, progressives must claim the legitimacy of the Constitution in advocating gun control, and not let it be further hijacked by the Right.

Everyone agrees with the gun lobby that the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. Having given away the argument, we then ask, “But must there be quite so many bullets in the magazine?” It is time to take the strongest position. There is no individual right to own a gun. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right to have state militias. The gun ownership clause was there to make the militia possible. There have been no state militias since 1903, and there is no longer a constitutional right to gun ownership. It doesn’t exist!

The congressional debate over the Second Amendment is most instructive. The overall context was this: The Constitution (1787) had created two institutions new to the United States, a standing army and a president who was also commander in chief. In this combination, many feared European despotism. What if the president made himself a king and used the army against the people? The answer was close at hand. The governors of the states would call out the militia to restore democracy. But in those days, every militiaman was required to bring his own gun. The states didn’t have any. What if the president first took away all the guns? Well, the Constitution would have to say that he can’t, hence the Second Amendment.

As always, nothing is simple. The Federalists (Hamilton) wanted a strong national standing army and hoped that by guaranteeing the state militias they could overcome popular objection. Many among the Jeffersonian Republicans didn’t even trust the militia, and wanted to guarantee individual gun ownership without reference to militia service. Both sides agreed that the main threat in contention was the army of the United States, and the debate was over how citizens could best defeat the army.

Here is Madison’s first draft of what became the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.“

To get his provision through Congress, Madison had linked together both concepts – armed citizens and militia service. Note that because of that linkage, the amendment ends with a contentious objector clause for Quakers, Moravians and others. The bill was sent to committee and came back with an interesting addition:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

The phrase “composed of the body of the people,” (which in 1789 meant white men) reflected another debate of that era. Some thought that militia service should be a universal requirement. This language paralleled existing militia laws in many states, and was in keeping with colonial tradition that had required all able-bodied men to serve and to bring their own guns. Alexander Hamilton had argued against this view in Federalist Paper 29, saying that so large a body could not possibly be “well regulated,” meaning well drilled and disciplined. Federalists tended to support a smaller “select” militia. These two views were reflected in the congressional debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists over this clause.

The bill went back and fourth between the two houses of Congress. The Federalist Senate took out the universal service clause along with the conscientious objection. In those days it was well remembered that England had tried to use colonial era conscientious objection provisions as an excuse to disband the revolutionary militias. (All religions oppose war, therefore go home.) During the debate, the anti-Federalists attempted to add amendments abolishing a peace-time standing army, but these were defeated..* The final version read:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Clearly, the right to bear arms was connected to militia service. There were not the votes in either house to pass a stand-alone right to gun ownership.

The year after ratification, Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. We need not go into the wicked purposes to which the militia was put under federal direction. For the sake of this argument it is sufficient to note that once again the idea of universal gun ownership was linked to universal military service. Under the Second Militia Act, all (free white) men of military age were conscripted into the militia, and every such man was required, at his own expense, to go out and buy a gun along with prescribed quantities of shot and powder, a bayonet and other equipment.

In asserting the link between the right to bear arms and military service, we should not be distracted by the 2008 Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that discounted the militia clause of the Second Amendment. The five justices who voted for it were all Reagan and George Bush appointees, and the decision is no more worthy of respect than such subsequently repudiated decisions as those declaring African Americans ineligible for citizenship, or upholding the Japanese Internment Act.

The lesson of this history is clear. The Second Amendment was rooted in the then living memory of the militia-fought battles of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill. A modern day equivalent of those battles would turn America into Syria or worse. We need to start saying loudly and strongly that if you want a military gun, go join the National Guard – they have one for you to use. Otherwise, government at all levels has the right to limit guns just as it does drugs, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, tainted meat and a host of other evils. There is simply no constitutional right to individual gun ownership.

______________________

*Strictly speaking, the terms Federalist and Republican weren’t organized parties until 1795. At this time (1789) they were less formal points of view in Congress, and were known as the pro- and anti-administration factions.

Steve Max is a vice-chair of DSA, a life-long community organizer and a founder of the Midwest Academy and the Campaign for America’s Future.
http://www.dsausa.org/there_is_no_se...right_to_a_gun

Last edited by coke; October 19th, 2015 at 04:54 PM.
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 04:54 PM   #2
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
From Cspan. This video features Maria Svart. She is the National Director for the Democratic Socialists of America. She hammers on about democratic control and decisions. What most sane people call mob rule. Unfortunately, she doesn't say what their plan is to implement their ideas. But, she does demand that all work places be union or employee controlled. She also demands a end to management because people do not need bosses. It is amusing. Enjoy!

http://www.c-span.org/video/?328682-...alists-america
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:06 PM   #3
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
A sustainable economy requires a system in which production is democratically planned and controlled by well-informed people. The environment can be sustained by collective stewardship as
our material needs are securely met by a fair distribution and sharing of resources, and our psychological needs are met through an ethos fostering cooperation rather than acquisition and competition. We call such a system democratic socialism.
Wow, what a statement. Lets have fun with this steaming turd!
Quote:
A sustainable economy requires a system in which production is democratically planned and controlled by well-informed people.
Democratically planned by well informed people. A test before you can vote? They mean the workers who decide on how the business that was stolen and gave to them now runs.


Quote:
our material needs are securely met by a fair distribution and sharing of resources, and our psychological needs are met through an ethos fostering cooperation rather than acquisition and competition. We call such a system democratic socialism
.
To each according their need. Strict Marxism. Work hard, get ahead, give away what you made so you do not have more than anyone else. Competition is dumb. No winners and losers. Just winners. Everyone is a winner. Fair and equal. No, nothing Marxist here at all nope not one bit.
Quote:
Popular struggles have achieved partial socialization on many levels. Local public enterprises like sanitation were won by “sewer socialist” mayors; generations of labor organizing lifted millions from poverty to comfort. We share public parks designed by 19thC. Christian socialist and abolitionist Frederic Law Olmsted. Many benefit from islands of direct democracy like food coops and worker managed businesses. National programs from Social Security and Medicare to EPA and OSHA improve our lives, as do such international agreements as the Ozone Treaty and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All these embody the principle of production for common need, not private profit.
Look government programs is the same as socialism! See I told you. Well, were going to leave out the part about seizing property and businesses but hey errr yeah its the same thing right!
Quote:
System change can only be achieved by uniting movements for social justice, peace, and human rights as well as environmental justice and stewardship. So we work toward racial and gender equality, civil rights and liberties, labor organizing, universal health care, quality education and child care for all, free higher education, livable communities, full employment at living wages to abolish poverty, and the progressive redistribution of wealth.
Dont worry, once we spend all of the uber riches funds, we will move on down to the kind of rich and spend all their money, then once that is gone we will just keep on moving down. So, sit back and relax. We got your earnings spent already. But hey the trade off is, at the work place you probably get to vote on when your coffee break time is!
Quote:
Green Jobs: replacing transportation, building and electric generation systems to use renewable energy can create millions of domestic jobs. Those should be living wage, union jobs hiring and training disadvantaged workers. Publicly owned or cooperative utilities would be more accountable, affordable and sustainable.
Of course were going to nationalize all the industry first.

Quote:
Fair trade: we need rules for the world economy that reverse the priorities of so-called “free trade” agreements which privilege the property rights of corporations, investors and speculators over human rights and nature. Environmental health, economic justice, sustainable development and political democracy should prevail over commercial values wherever they conflict.
Now the leftards wake up about NAFTA. Better late than never I guess.

Quote:
Uprooting environmental racism: the worst hazards are imposed on minority and low-income communities. Workers of color are typically given the dirtiest jobs; vulnerable people are denied a voice in decisions that affect their health and survival. Toxic production will end only when all communities have the power to defend themselves against becoming dumping grounds.
The race card. It can be played at anytime for any reason. Absolutely no proof or statistic to prove that minorities face toxic jobs more than anyone else. In short this is unfounded hyperbole bullshit, whose main reason was an excuse to sling a race card.

Quote:
Reproductive choice and family planning: women have a right to control their fertility, in both developed and developing countries; education of girls is also vital. Unmet demand for birth control is about equal to net global population growth.
We should be giving out free condoms in every school and hospital. So, I somewhat agree. I don't agree we should offer free birth control pills. Just because I don't want to buy you something doesn't mean I don't want you to have it. I just want you to pay for it yourself. I support free condoms, not free birth control pills.
Quote:
Healthy workplace environments: pollutants typically originate in factories where workers are often exposed to high levels of toxic substances, serving as human guinea pigs. Workers are fighting for the right to know and decide what hazards they are exposed to, and the right to refuse unsafe work. When polluting plants are shut, workers must be guaranteed a fair livelihood.
Wait! I have heard how great socialism is and how government programs are great socialist programs. So, with OSHA and the EPA and all these great government entities you mean that there are human guinea pigs working in toxic factories in the United States? But, how can that be with your government programs in place? But it gets better than that. Workers must be guaranteed a fair livelihood, after we shut down there place of employment. So, there you have it. Thanks for supporting us. Now don't worry. Someone will pay you to not work now.


Quote:
Reducing the working week and year: more free time would facilitate full employment and reduce stress. As Juliet Schor points out, people are happier in societies where wealth and income are more equal and productivity gains are taken as leisure time for recreation and social interaction rather than throughput of disposable stuff. Products should be designed for durability, not planned obsolescence. In Bill McKibben’s words, “we need not more belongings, but more belonging.”
Anyone who can read this must realize what it says. It says were not really going to allow private ownership of stuff, but hey we will let you spend more time with your family and friends. I mean you cant own and buy things like before but...look at the family time!!

Quote:
Democratic local and regional planning: we can use public visioning and participatory budgeting to invest in existing communities, instead of subsidizing developers to destroy communities and landscapes by suburban sprawl. We can increase public parks and community gardens, use intensive recycling, and require strict energy standards for new buildings. Programs enabling households to install efficiency retrofits and solar systems and “pay as you save” on utility bills would speed renewable deployment.
Cool! So does that mean your going to get the fed and the state out of what I do on my own property? Oh, well back when I use to be able to own property. So does that also mean your not going to triple my electric bill? Instead your going to give me free solar and wind power! Yayyy.

Quote:
Expanding and improving public transit: transit-oriented development and walkable neighborhoods can reduce energy use and enhance safety and fair access to jobs and recreation.
Because providing your own transportation is so unfair if someone else isn't able to do the same.

Quote:
Diverse forms of economic democracy: organize worker and consumer cooperatives, credit unions, community-supported agriculture and cohousing. Local and state public enterprises can serve common needs accountably, for example public broadband internet, public banks and loan funds, land trusts and green banks to finance the initial costs of renewable energy.
I have no problem with any of this. As long as its done as a free choice. So, are you going to guarantee peoples choice on rather or not to participate in this or organize this? Probably not huh

Quote:
Impoving public education: guarantee quality education for everyone from universal pre-K and afterschool programs to graduate school and lifetime continuing education. Science education should highlight the challenges of this century, applying the progressive principle of learning by doing. Students can learn biology by growing food, and learn physics and chemistry by making renewable energy and recycling systems.
Yayyy more charter schools then. They seem to work rather well!!

Quote:
Grass roots campaigns to stop hazardous technologies: fighting pipelines, hydrofracking and other fossil fuel infrastructure, toxic dumps, incinerators and nuclear plants can all be starting points for coalitions to demand systemic alternatives. "Not In My Back Yard" attitudes can be reactionary and divisive when opposing socially progressive facilities like drug treatment centers, but are the beginning of democratic accountability when resisting what shouldn't be in anyone's backyard.
Or, as we shall see further on. No one will actually have a back yard. You know, that common stewardship thing.
Quote:
Divestiture campaigns against fossil fuel corporations: switch investments to renewable energy. Energy corporations claim as assets trillions of dollars in coal, oil and gas reserves which if burned would push the atmosphere past the point of no return. We must avoid runaway positive feedbacks inexorably melting the icecaps and inundating coasts for miles inland, but causing catastrophic floods, droughts and crop failures long before.
Investments?? How very capitalist of the author! Anyway, this point is getting beat to death. Everyone gets it by now. No private ownership, no private transportation. And your going to use the peoples earnings to invest in stuff for the good of the people instead of actually paying the people. Well, I mean paying them in family time. Not like letting them own stuff. Anyway moving on.

Quote:
Permanently protecting vital ecosystems as commons: the natural world should be accessible for public enjoyment by all, but not for commercial exploitation. Private enterprise has already cut down 97% of the old growth forest in the United States--practice sustainable forestry there.
Private enterprise? Oh, people owning their own stuff like houses and such. And lets not forget about those crops that are going to fail from global warming. You know the crops that should have never been planted in the first place because of the forest an stuff. Well, I mean you could farm the desert.

Quote:
Reversing subsidies to corporate agribusiness and junk food: use extension programs to promote sustainable agriculture. End food deserts and the hustling of junk food to children, to improve the health of people and the planet.
Don't take this as being told what you can and cant eat. Nope, don't read into that narrative at all.

Quote:
Public financing of political campaigns: concentrated private wealth should not buy elections, drowning out the voice of the 99% in making public policy. Instead enable leadership of, by and for the people to set the agenda, as part of a broader progressive movement to expand voting rights and democracy.
Enable leadership, of, by and for the people to set the agenda, as part of a broader progressive movement to expand voting rights and democracy. In other words, silence the opposition and call it fair.

Quote:
When we work in local protest and organizing movements, we strive to unite diverse communities, to promote a global perspective and democratic participation, and an understanding of the need for systemic change. The next decade may be the last chance to turn the ship of state around before it hits an iceberg calved off from a melting polar glacier. Martin Luther King warned, “Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words ‘too late.’”
As long as your willing to sacrifice earnings, private ownership and trust government leadership to set the agenda without any political opposition then this is a wonderful thing!
Capitalism, Socialism, and Sustainability - Democratic Socialists of America
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:16 PM   #4
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
one is easy. It is also one of the few things that they tell the truth about in regards to what they believe. Bernie us to not approve of this. But, just watch, he will shift his view. As you see demonstrated time and time again, none of the socialist will tell you how they want to achieve their goal. This article is very plain in what their goal is. Kudos to the socialist for at least being honest about your misguided point on this subject.



There is No Second Amendment Right To A Gun - Democratic Socialists of America
This may be one of the most stupid Second Amendment pieces I have read. Max lied with the headline and it only went downhill from there. It read like someone with only a high school degree writing about history and the law, which is what it is.
Thanks from coke
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:17 PM   #5
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,766
I am a democratic socialist. And you proved that you're a socialist too. Why are you making a new thread for this? What was wrong with our last 2 thread which was on the same topic?
Thanks from coke
Fayt is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:33 PM   #6
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
I am a democratic socialist. And you proved that you're a socialist too. Why are you making a new thread for this? What was wrong with our last 2 thread which was on the same topic?
I decided to move it. That was actually a good idea on your part. Yes, you are a democratic socialist. Which I hope you will attempt to shed some light on its ideology and why it is different than Marxist socialism. Meanwhile I will keep on demonstrating that it is no different and its a lie and a facade. Oh, good luck with your making everyone a socialist narrative. By the way did you purchase anything today? Did you buy the most expensive thing you could find? Oh, you silly capitalist
coke is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:43 PM   #7
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,766
So you made a new thread to post the same argument that I rebuttal within 2 other threads. Why again?

And guess what. Most American and I believe even most republicans, agree that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. Most Americans also agree with me that we should have a national healthcare system. I have a list proving that MOST AMERICANS agree with my ideology.

That doesn't make us Nazis, Marxist or whatever silly hyperbole names you like to throw out.

And guess what. You believe that out socialist traffic signs are a good thing.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 05:50 PM   #8
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
I decided to move it. That was actually a good idea on your part. Yes, you are a democratic socialist. Which I hope you will attempt to shed some light on its ideology and why it is different than Marxist socialism. Meanwhile I will keep on demonstrating that it is no different and its a lie and a facade. Oh, good luck with your making everyone a socialist narrative. By the way did you purchase anything today? Did you buy the most expensive thing you could find? Oh, you silly capitalist
Marxism does not require strict gun control. Why do you have to misrepresent ideologies?
Thanks from coke
Beasty is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 06:02 PM   #9
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,813
Most Americans do not want a national healthcare or to raise taxes on the rich.
Thanks from coke and Patriot66
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 06:06 PM   #10
Banned
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Most Americans do not want a national healthcare or to raise taxes on the rich.
Most Americans can not make choices in their own best interest.
Thanks from coke
Beasty is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Tags
america, democratic, socialist



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From the Democratic Socialist of America coke Current Events 2 October 19th, 2015 02:52 PM
America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of "Socialist" Bernie Sanders So LongWinded Current Events 13 May 27th, 2015 01:36 PM
Socialist desperation coke Americas 6 October 18th, 2014 04:26 PM
Is Obama a Socialist? baloney_detector Socialism 17 December 7th, 2012 10:57 AM
Giuliani: Democratic health plans 'socialist' CNN Current Events 45 August 20th, 2007 02:19 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.