• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why we must remrmber the past

RaleBulgarian said:
Don’t attempt to conflate Colonial militias with wealthy shipping company owners of the time. The two are completely unrelated.

Colonial militias were comprised of conscripted men who were responsible for providing their own weapons, at their own expense. No warships, no cannons, etc., just muskets and whatever else could be fashioned into weapons.

Marque and Reprisal letters were issued by the government to legally authorize well armed civilian ships to seize/capture enemy/privateer ships.
Click to expand...

Start with the last. Well armed ships that the United States navy had few of and the civilians had. The civilians didnt just have well armed ships, they had all the rest more so than the government did. Most of the weapons in the Revolution were either loaned by civilians, with foreign aid making up the rest. There is no conflation going on. There lots of civilians and private organizations who owed cannons and the like privately far more than the government of the time.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Start with the last. Well armed ships that the United States navy had few of and the civilians had. The civilians didnt just have well armed ships, they had all the rest more so than the government did. Most of the weapons in the Revolution were either loaned by civilians, with foreign aid making up the rest. There is no conflation going on. There lots of civilians and private organizations who owed cannons and the like privately far more than the government of the time.
Click to expand...
It is conflating.

You’re describing the Continental Army/Navy and wealthy shipping company assets, not militias.

Colonial militiamen and British regular soldier equipment
https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/education/upload/essentials.pdf

MILITIA AND CONTINENTALS
Militia and Continentals - Journal of the American Revolution
 
RaleBulgarian said:
It is conflating.

You’re describing the Continental Army/Navy and wealthy shipping company assets, not militias.

Colonial militiamen and British regular soldier equipment
https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/education/upload/essentials.pdf

MILITIA AND CONTINENTALS
Militia and Continentals - Journal of the American Revolution
Click to expand...

I am describing everyone in the country not just the militia thats what you dont get. The Continental Army/Navy was NOT representative of the population at large. The wealthier and the more organized communities, companies, and organizations and town communities often times had heavy arms and cannons at their disposal. At the start of the revolution only about 1/3 of the population supported it. Yet the whole population had a large amounts of heavy weaponry about to defend towns and assets of the time. Cannons were so prevalent that they were used as road signs on occasion.
 
Logical1 said:
We absolutely must remember the past and not re-write it.

An on going example is what is happening right now. A good percentage of young people say they like socialism. Yet past history tells us when only the government has guns which always seems to happen in countries with socialism, look what happened last century. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 MILLION people were killed.

There are two really true facts here that history teaches us, don't turn socialist and don't give up your guns.
Click to expand...

That so many young people favor socialism is a testament to the failure of so many old people with capitalism.
 
Re: Call the question

Logical1 said:
So tell me what does the S in NSDAP stand for in the party name?

Communist is socialist with guns.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself.
Here, I'll get you started. Hitler and his cronies got their start in the Freikorps, extreme right-wing organisations of war vets, literally fighting in the streets against socialists and communists.They hijacked the NSDAP as an easy route to seats in the Reichstag and convinced a weak von Hindenburg to name him Chancellor. Socialists were among the first people sent to the concentration camps.
You guys need to learn some history and stop with the knee-jerk reaction to the word 'socialist'. Or not. Ignorance, I've been told, is bliss.
 
Re: Call the question

Grand Mal said:
Socialists were among the first people sent to the concentration camps.
Click to expand...

That the Nazis killed some socialists is not an argument that Nazis weren't socialist as well. Socialists often murder each other. For example, Stalin murdered lots of commies. Leftists are always murdering each other over trivial differences, going all the way back to the Bolsheviks murdering the Mensheviks.

Furthermore, thousands of socialists were welcomed into the Nazi Party, because fascism is just a different form of socialism. From that link:

As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and National Socialism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA".[15] Goebbels expressed that sentiment in a 1925 public speech, declaring that "the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight".
Click to expand...

And of course, Mussolini was also a life-long socialist, and admired by progressive hero FDR.
 
Re: Call the question

aociswundumho said:
That the Nazis killed some socialists is not an argument that Nazis weren't socialist as well. Socialists often murder each other. For example, Stalin murdered lots of commies. Leftists are always murdering each other over trivial differences, going all the way back to the Bolsheviks murdering the Mensheviks.

Furthermore, thousands of socialists were welcomed into the Nazi Party, because fascism is just a different form of socialism. From that link:



And of course, Mussolini was also a life-long socialist, and admired by progressive hero FDR.
Click to expand...
Hitler and Mussolini were fascists.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I am describing everyone in the country not just the militia thats what you dont get. The Continental Army/Navy was NOT representative of the population at large. The wealthier and the more organized communities, companies, and organizations and town communities often times had heavy arms and cannons at their disposal. At the start of the revolution only about 1/3 of the population supported it. Yet the whole population had a large amounts of heavy weaponry about to defend towns and assets of the time. Cannons were so prevalent that they were used as road signs on occasion.
Click to expand...
A real exaggeration.

Back to the original discussion Felis Leo and me were engaged in: Using the 2nd Amendment’s direction to maintain “a well regulated militia” as an argument for civilian citizens to own “weapons of war” (Felis Leo’s description).

In addition to the obvious common sense reasons for disallowing civilian citizens to own weapons of mass destruction, armed civilian militias are obsolete. Due to those facts, I believe that using the militia argument to support an argument to own virtually any weapon is completely without merit.
 
Re: Call the question

aociswundumho said:
Yes, and Guevara was a Marxist. But all three were socialists.
Click to expand...
Socialism includes a broad spectrum of “communal” belief systems. Hitler and Mussolini are more correctly identified as fascists, as Guevara is a Marxist.
 
Re: Call the question

RaleBulgarian said:
Socialism includes a broad spectrum of “communal” belief systems.
Click to expand...

No. Socialism is defined as public ownership/control of the means of production. That is the quintessential characteristic of socialism.


Hitler and Mussolini are more correctly identified as fascists, as Guevara is a Marxist.
Click to expand...

Fascism is a branch of socialism, just like Marxism. Both Hitler and Mussolini controlled the German and Italian economies to the same extent Stalin and Mao controlled the economies of Russia and China.


I'm going to do a post on this soon providing lots and lots of evidence that Fascism is on the left of the political spectrum. It would be better to discuss it there, as it is very off topic here.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
A real exaggeration.

Back to the original discussion Felis Leo and me were engaged in: Using the 2nd Amendment’s direction to maintain “a well regulated militia” as an argument for civilian citizens to own “weapons of war” (Felis Leo’s description).

In addition to the obvious common sense reasons for disallowing civilian citizens to own weapons of mass destruction, armed civilian militias are obsolete. Due to those facts, I believe that using the militia argument to support an argument to own virtually any weapon is completely without merit.
Click to expand...

Actually if anything I underestimate. Many cannon were not in the best condition because a lot of them were kept in the elements and the carriages and related parts would deteriorate. Like I said some were used as road signs.

I dont use the militia argument, could careless in fact, as the only relevance for the militia phrase, is as a justification for the 2nd. No more, no less.

The phrase was not a direction it was a statement of justification, preamble to the command. You can replace the word militia with any other word and the phrase still retains its meaning. The command is absolute. So is the command in the first amendment, by the by. There are no loop holes in those, no wiggle room. None. There is only ONE correct interpretation. That is it. The founders were not stupid, they didnt want in the amendments any wiggle room which somehow has been found anyhow. For instance the Fourth Amendment requiring warrants for search and seizure which again makes no exceptions anywhere in the body of its text.
 
Re: Call the question

aociswundumho said:
No. Socialism is defined as public ownership/control of the means of production. That is the quintessential characteristic of socialism.
Click to expand...
You’re repeating what I just said.

aociswundumho said:
Fascism is a branch of socialism, just like Marxism. Both Hitler and Mussolini controlled the German and Italian economies to the same extent Stalin and Mao controlled the economies of Russia and China.
Click to expand...
Again, trying to tell me what I already know, which is why I said that Hitler and Mussolini are more correctly identified as fascists.
 
BWG said:
Maybe it's YOUR bad memory that needs a little refreshing.

It's hell to get old. :mrgreen:



Further
Click to expand...


yes they aren't talking about Cuba and Venezuela until they are talking about it, because the people of the soviet union WANTED stalinist communism right? all Germans WANTED naziism, right?

without a way to defend yourself or scare would be tyrants, because so many could assault them, what you WANT and what you get aren't for YOU to have any say in at all when it comes down to it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I dont use the militia argument, could careless in fact, as the only relevance for the militia phrase, is as a justification for the 2nd. No more, no less.
Click to expand...
So, you think that, but not for inclusion of the need for “a well regulated militia”, there wouldn’t be a 2nd Amendment? Madison would disagree with you.

PirateMk1 said:
The phrase was not a direction it was a statement of justification, preamble to the command. You can replace the word militia with any other word and the phrase still retains its meaning. The command is absolute. So is the command in the first amendment, by the by. There are no loop holes in those, no wiggle room. None. There is only ONE correct interpretation. That is it. The founders were not stupid, they didnt want in the amendments any wiggle room which somehow has been found anyhow. For instance the Fourth Amendment requiring warrants for search and seizure which again makes no exceptions anywhere in the body of its text.
Click to expand...
As you weren’t involved with the drafting of our Constitution (or it's amendments), you don’t know for certain what all of the founders intentions were.

Our Constitution is a living document, and as such is open to interpretation, and change as needed based on the changing needs of our country. It is the primary reason why we have the Supreme Court, who’s job it is to interpret the Constitution.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
So, you think that, but not for inclusion of the need for “a well regulated militia”, there wouldn’t be a 2nd Amendment? Madison would disagree with you.


As you weren’t involved with the drafting of our Constitution (or it's amendments), you don’t know for certain what all of the founders intentions were.

Our Constitution is a living document, and as such is open to interpretation, and change as needed based on the changing needs of our country. It is the primary reason why we have the Supreme Court, who’s job it is to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Contrary to what those on the left say it is NOT a living document, it is a written down set of laws that need to be obeyed. It is NOT to be "interpreted" it is to be applied. We do NOT need activist judges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Logical1 said:
Contrary to what those on the left say it is NOT a living document, it is a written down set of laws that need to be obeyed. It is NOT to be "interpreted" it is to be applied. We do NOT need activist judges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Legal scholars of all political leanings say you’re wrong. Deal with it.
 
Logical1 said:
We absolutely must remember the past and not re-write it.

An on going example is what is happening right now. A good percentage of young people say they like socialism. Yet past history tells us when only the government has guns which always seems to happen in countries with socialism, look what happened last century. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 MILLION people were killed.

There are two really true facts here that history teaches us, don't turn socialist and don't give up your guns.
Click to expand...

67252309d1552286687-political-photos-cartoon-thread-x-w-1-w-386-2856-a-52776042_10157514567196393_7237967105847459840_n-jpg
 
Re: Call the question

snakestretcher said:
You have absolutely no idea. Fascism and socialism are polar opposites.
Click to expand...

No, that's a myth spread by western leftist history professors.

On the far right we've got conservatives, classic liberals, libertarians, and at the extreme right - ancaps. People on the right support individualism, capitalism, free markets, small to no government, and small to no welfare state.

On the left you've got American liberals, progressives, assorted socialists, and communists. They're all collectivist, all support substantial to total public ownership/control of the means of production, and all support a large welfare state.


Fascism is on the political left. Both in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy there was a very high degree of state control over the economy. Both were extremely collectivist. Both Hitler and Mussolini supported expansive welfare states. Mussolini was a life long socialist after all.

Like it or not, fascism is on the political left.
 
Re: Call the question

aociswundumho said:
…

Fascism is on the political left. Both in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy there was a very high degree of state control over the economy. Both were extremely collectivist. Both Hitler and Mussolini supported expansive welfare states. Mussolini was a life long socialist after all.

Like it or not, fascism is on the political left.
Click to expand...

Hitler wasn't concerned about the German nation; he was obsessed with returning (his phrase) the Aryan people (however defined) to glory. He set out to annihilate the Jews, Roma, homosexuals, Slavs, Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats & any political opposition. He also favored murdering any permanently injured Germans, deformed German babies/citizens, whether their injuries were mental, physical, what-have-you. & of course Hitler himself wasn't even German, he was Austrian.

That's not any variety of Socialism I've ever heard of - it's murder by the numbers, in an attempt to serve only the deserving - read Aryan - members of the polity. That's what disqualifies Nazism from being any kind of Socialism - the party nor Hitler cared the least little bit about anyone but their fellow Aryan-besotted believers. Socialism @ its best doesn't murder segments of society merely to appropriate their material wealth & share it around with their political cronies & possibly some trickle down to the common Aryans in the street. That's some kind of Ponzi scheme, & like the fable about the goose who laid the golden eggs, it's only sustainable as long as there's an endless supply of geese.
 
Re: Call the question

southwest88 said:
That's not any variety of Socialism I've ever heard of - it's murder by the numbers, in an attempt to serve only the deserving - read Aryan - members of the polity. That's what disqualifies Nazism from being any kind of Socialism - the party nor Hitler cared the least little bit about anyone but their fellow Aryan-besotted believers.
Click to expand...

Hilter's racism has nothing to do with it either way. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems, there are racist socialists and racist capitalists. Pol Pot leading the Khmer Rouge attempted the purest implementation of Marxism ever tried, and he was just as racist as Hitler. Furthermore, Mussolini was definitely not a racist.

Socialism @ its best doesn't murder segments of society merely to appropriate their material wealth & share it around with their political cronies &
Click to expand...

Uh, yea they do. For just one example of many, Lenin:

Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts [regions] must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this because we have now before us our final decisive battle with the kulaks.

We need to set an example. You need to hang – hang without fail, and do it so that the public sees – at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Take away all of their grain. Execute the hostages – in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.

This needs to be accomplished in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let’s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.”

Lenin

P.S. Use your toughest people for this
Click to expand...

Oh wait, you wrote "socialism @ its best", so the endless atrocities committed by socialists don't count, right?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
So, you think that, but not for inclusion of the need for “a well regulated militia”, there wouldn’t be a 2nd Amendment? Madison would disagree with you.


As you weren’t involved with the drafting of our Constitution (or it's amendments), you don’t know for certain what all of the founders intentions were.

Our Constitution is a living document, and as such is open to interpretation, and change as needed based on the changing needs of our country. It is the primary reason why we have the Supreme Court, who’s job it is to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Then I invite you to play poker with me. I love playing with living rules it brings out my creative side. :lol:

What you just said is heads you win, tails you win. Thats what living rules means.

The Constitution as a living document, is bunk, the only reason your pulling that out your hiney is because you know damn well what says and means and you are desperate to make it fit what you want. Just like every stupid judge who thinks the same way. The law is MENT to be static. Everyone has to know what it says and means and that meaning must be consistent amongst those it applies to. Otherwise as a tool it is utterly useless. The law is a tool, no more no less. Apparently they dont teach this particular concept in law school. Living documents are an anathema to that concept and the law itself.

We know exactly what the founders wanted. They wrote it down. Duh. Not to also mention, they wrote bunch of side materials on the subject.

A well regulated militia is simply a reason stated for the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. No more no less. The second can exist just fine and mean the same exact thing with out the preamble phase.
 
Re: Call the question

aociswundumho said:
No, that's a myth spread by western leftist history professors.

On the far right we've got conservatives, classic liberals, libertarians, and at the extreme right - ancaps. People on the right support individualism, capitalism, free markets, small to no government, and small to no welfare state.

On the left you've got American liberals, progressives, assorted socialists, and communists. They're all collectivist, all support substantial to total public ownership/control of the means of production, and all support a large welfare state.


Fascism is on the political left. Both in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy there was a very high degree of state control over the economy. Both were extremely collectivist. Both Hitler and Mussolini supported expansive welfare states. Mussolini was a life long socialist after all.


Like it or not, fascism is on the political left.
Click to expand...

Well, you will excuse me if I prefer to listen to the wisdom of the vast majority of historians rather than an anonymous right-winger who clearly wants to disassociate himself from the deeply unpleasant reality of far-right history. You have no idea what you're talking about. And no, Mussolini abandoned socialism at an early age before forming the Fascist Party and embracing the fascist ideal, which Hitler both admired and subsequently followed. Nothing remotely "life long" about it.

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail" Benito Mussolini.

Fascism - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Re: Call the question

PirateMk1 said:
Then I invite you to play poker with me. I love playing with living rules it brings out my creative side. :lol:

What you just said is heads you win, tails you win. Thats what living rules means.

The Constitution as a living document, is bunk, the only reason your pulling that out your hiney is because you know damn well what says and means and you are desperate to make it fit what you want. Just like every stupid judge who thinks the same way. The law is MENT to be static. Everyone has to know what it says and means and that meaning must be consistent amongst those it applies to. Otherwise as a tool it is utterly useless. The law is a tool, no more no less. Apparently they dont teach this particular concept in law school. Living documents are an anathema to that concept and the law itself.

We know exactly what the founders wanted. They wrote it down. Duh. Not to also mention, they wrote bunch of side materials on the subject.

A well regulated militia is simply a reason stated for the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. No more no less. The second can exist just fine and mean the same exact thing with out the preamble phase.
Click to expand...
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of the fact that it is a function of SCOTUS to interpret the (often broad) language of our Constitution.

We know what many of the founders wanted in and from our Constitution, but not all. And not all wanted the same things.

Removing the militia requirement from the 2nd Amendment would eliminate any argument from NRA and others who want to be able to any weapon they want, from pistols to cruise missiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom