Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by Daryl Hunt, Mar 24, 2018.
Fortunately the problem has been corrected
You have no idea what you are talking about. But then, from the way you have bounced around on this topic, I am not surprised.
The militia referred to in the 2nd amendment is not a standing army. It is called up when needed. That is why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.
You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.
You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.
If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.
In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?
Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.
Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government. A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).
Sure am glad you brought those three up. Yes, they call themselves Socialist. But they aren't.
Venezuela is a Dictatorship that masquerades as a Socialist state.
Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.
In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else. None of the 3 you mentioned has that. In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all. And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win. The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way. It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name. The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well. So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.
Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it. But it can't be done by countries the size of the US. Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either. Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people. So we use parts of them in our Government. Any real successful government does this. We should do the same for Capitalism. We borrow from all three. What you end up with is a Federal Republic. But beware, it's a tight rope act. Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations. In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center. But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today. The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance. And we are quickly headed that way again. Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.
We need a bit of Socialism for some things. We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others. Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today. And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now. We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government. You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.
To quote Vladimir Lenin: "Democracy is essential for Socialism to exist."
We are a Capitalist "Republic" and this is what we must stay. If this nation becomes Socialist, I will take up arms against it.
You honestly believe that Lenin believed what he said? He said so the Rubes would believe him. He didn't believe in Democracy or that every person had the right to vote. He set up a system that was the end result was for world domination, nothing more. It was a Oligarch Government where only Party Members in Good Standings had the right to vote. All others served the Party. There wasn't one bit of Democracy in his form of Marxism. In fact, there was very little Communism nor Marxism in it as well. It had more in common with the Tzar Ruling system than anything else. In fact, the Romonofs were a far better ruler than the Lenins. But Lenin was a better Bull Shit Artist.
We were founded on Democratic Principles, not Capitalist principles. When you have a Capilalist Governed Country you have a ruling class of Oligarchs and all others serve the masters. We don't need Capitalism for Ruling purposes, we need it for economic purposes. Without it, things get mess up real fast and a community can't grow. But you really don't want it as a Ruling Class. It works out real well if you are one of the Masters but not everyone can be a master.
Under a government that is controlled by Capitalists only a Rube actually believes their vote counts. When was the last time you actually got to pick the major candidates in either party? A good case in point is how in hell did we get down to the choice of Trump V Clinton? Satan V Lucifer. There were hundreds of better choices available but we ended up having to choose between those two. You don't even have a real voice in your House and Senate choices. I was offered support to run for City Council just to see if I was cut out for it. But along with it came the grooming by the party. And that party was the Republican Party which I lean towards but am not part of. In the end, I would be programmed in Party thinking and would be influenced by the Party where I would vote along Party Lines. And it would be a small group of old white dudes in a back room that decides those policies. This also applies to the Democrat Party. And what is the driving factor of both? Serving the Corporate Masters in the end. We are screwed.
Separate names with a comma.