The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[Rigby5]

It is impossible to separate socialism from authoritarianism. When the government enforces by force, by guns, and by the threat of imprisonment, the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work, then the government is authoritarian. If the government does not enforce, by all those means specified, the payment of taxes then they would have absolutely no revenue or means of redistributing the wealth. All that would remain would be charity - that help given to those who have less out of the kindness of the hearts of those who have more.

The only other way, many would claim, is full communism - where the state owns the means of production, therefore there is no tax. The government takes the fruits of all labor and doles it out according to the government's opinion of need. But that doesn't work without the authoritarianism, either. When someone who works sees those who do not work getting equal share of the fruit, those who once worked would quit working. Communism, of course, cannot stand that. As the owner of the means of production, they own the people and must use force to make at least some of the people work else there would be no fruits to dole out.

Socialism must be authoritarian. They are two sides of the same coin.

Socialism has NOTHING at all to do with redistribution of wealth, which is what you described, "the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work".
Whether or not a society decided to support those unable or unwilling to support themselves is a welfare aspect totally separate from socialism.
Socialism is just when some community decides to finance or regulate something collectively.
I have relatives in Kansas who got their community to collectively invest in and build grain elevators for the benefit of the entire community.
THAT is all socialism is, and it can NEVER be authoritarian.
If anything is authoritarian, that would automatically preclude it from being socialist, because then it would not be communal, collective, or collaborative.
It is capitalism that is for an elite minority, so then anything authoritarian pretty much has to be capitalism.
Authoritarian means by a minority and is capitalist, while socialism means by the majority.
And in the US, instead of investing in socialist enterprise, we implement socialism just by regulation.
Like laws against child labor is sufficient for socialism.
It does not require collective ownership.

And by the way, full communism does not mean the state owns everything, but that means of production involving more than a family, would be collectively owned, not by the state, but by the people. But communism is a theoretical that no one but families and religious communes have ever tried.

 

[Rigby5]

I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.

The point of socialism is the government controls the means of production...that requires the power to force people to do what the government wants.....that leads to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.....putting power in the hands of a few people...who then refuse to give up that power.

I never said socialists were actually capitalists, but that Stalin and Lenin were never socialists, but always extreme capitalists.
Lenin was a German agent paid to go into Russia and take them out of WWI, and Stalin was a bank robber hired by Lenin.

All decent societies enforce regulation and restrictions on business.
Like anti trust laws, child labor law, OSHA, etc.
But they are not authoritarian because they are based on the protection of individual rights, so are not authoritarian, totalitarian, abusive, etc.

Any society that did not control or restrict the means of production would eventually turn into an abusive authoritarian and totalitarian state because it is easy to enforce feudalism and slavery through economic means. You just create company towns where those who do not submit are prevented from being able to earn a survivable means of support.

 

[Rigby5]

There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
Inherent limit: You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
Restriction: Background check for purchase of a firearm

Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.

Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.
But that a "restriction" is more of an arbitrary choice by government, with the intent to protect rights, but not necessarily always completely justified or effective?

 

[Rigby5]

Why are there Congressional laws?

Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.

Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.

Not so much.
"Free speech" has a specific definition. The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech

Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.

Inherent limits never infringe upon a right, while restrictions sometimes do.

 

[Rigby5]

Not so much.
"Free speech" has a specific definition. The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech

Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.

Inherent limits never infringe upon a right, while restrictions sometimes do.

Ok, fine, but it seems likely those restrictions can be abused in order to deliberately infringe if the system is corrupt enough.
Any restriction has to have a test for reasonable need, based upon protecting the rights of others.
For example, when the bus company went on strike, people started parking in bus loading zones.
Police still wrote tickets, but they were all beaten in court because with the bus strike, there was no longer any need to prohibit parking there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, fine, but it seems likely those restrictions can be abused in order to deliberately infringe if the system is corrupt enough.

Always possible.

 

[2aguy]

There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
Inherent limit: You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
Restriction: Background check for purchase of a firearm

Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.

Thank you....that is the best, concise explanation.....

 

[2aguy]

Not so much.
"Free speech" has a specific definition. The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech

Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.

Inherent limits never infringe upon a right, while restrictions sometimes do.

I am going to keep that for later use...thanks....

 

[danielpalos]

Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.

Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.

I only agree to the extent the general government of the Union is supposed to be fixing Standards for the Union.

 

[woodwork201]

Socialism has NOTHING at all to do with redistribution of wealth, which is what you described, "the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work".
Whether or not a society decided to support those unable or unwilling to support themselves is a welfare aspect totally separate from socialism.
Socialism is just when some community decides to finance or regulate something collectively.
I have relatives in Kansas who got their community to collectively invest in and build grain elevators for the benefit of the entire community.
THAT is all socialism is, and it can NEVER be authoritarian.
If anything is authoritarian, that would automatically preclude it from being socialist, because then it would not be communal, collective, or collaborative.
It is capitalism that is for an elite minority, so then anything authoritarian pretty much has to be capitalism.
Authoritarian means by a minority and is capitalist, while socialism means by the majority.
And in the US, instead of investing in socialist enterprise, we implement socialism just by regulation.
Like laws against child labor is sufficient for socialism.
It does not require collective ownership.

And by the way, full communism does not mean the state owns everything, but that means of production involving more than a family, would be collectively owned, not by the state, but by the people. But communism is a theoretical that no one but families and religious communes have ever tried.

Of course socialism is redistribution of wealth. It is taking my taxes to feed and clothe those who have done less to earn their own keep and so have less that what the government thinks they need.

Your idea of socialism is not at all socialism. Rural communities have farm coops where members join together for, just as you say, building grain elevators or combining their buying power for greater price negotiations. Those are all voluntary. That's not socialism. Socialism is when the government takes taxes or product from those who earn or create and redistribute it to those who the government believes have less or need more than they have.

Marx describes socialism as a system where you work for, essentially the state, whatever means of production, and get a certificate showing your labor. Sort of like a pay check. Then you go to the means of distribution (like Walmart?) and, after some deduction (taxes?) you get to draw according to the amount of labor you put in. Hardly at all different from capitalism except that the government owns the production instead of the people who designed and built the systems. Then, in Marx's view of socialism, the individual is "free" - free of the need to engage in specific personal labor just to survive. If they'd rather create, or write, or engage in art, or any thing else, they're free to do that - sort of like with Obama Care you can choose not to work.

Marx describes lower communism as the people overturning the state and then the state owning the means of production. In upper or later communism, he dreamed of the state dissolving as ownership of production devolves to the people with absolutely no one in authority over anyone else. That would be the end of civilization and we'd have tribalism as seen in pre-Columbus Americas or in pre-European-influenced Africa - except that even those societies have tribal leaders. But that is how life would look within a hundred years or so of Marx's view of upper stage communism. But we'd never get to that stage because the government will never devolve itself by surrendering the means of production to the people. It's never happened and it never will happen.

You're just one more idiotic dreamer thinking that if only we'd do it your way, communism would work. You're clearly smarter than everyone who's ever tried it before and if we'd only let you run it we'd be so happy...

 

[woodwork201]

Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.
But that a "restriction" is more of an arbitrary choice by government, with the intent to protect rights, but not necessarily always completely justified or effective?

You totally misunderstand the point. The right is to keep and bear arms. There's no right to shoot someone except in self-defense or, debatably, defense of property. That you can't commit murder is not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.

Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.

huh?

We don't have federal laws or a Congress to pass uniform laws so the states don't have to do it 50 times..... We have a Congress to pass laws within the authority of the federal powers explicitly granted in the Constitution. Everything else intentionally and explicitly goes to the states for the very purpose that we absolutely SHOULD have 50 different variations. Each state decides what to do for that state.

 

[woodwork201]

I only agree to the extent the general government of the Union is supposed to be fixing Standards for the Union.

There are no cases where the government is supposed to be fixing standards for the union. The Federal Government has a set of responsibilities and authorities clearly defined in the Constitution. They own those. They don't set standards for the States in those; they write the laws.

For everything not clearly authorized to the Federal Government, the authority is retained by the States or the People - read the 10th Amendment. The Federal government has no authority to interfere or set standards or anything else in anything not given to them in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

huh?

We don't have federal laws or a Congress to pass uniform laws so the states don't have to do it 50 times..... We have a Congress to pass laws within the authority of the federal powers explicitly granted in the Constitution. Everything else intentionally and explicitly goes to the states for the very purpose that we absolutely SHOULD have 50 different variations. Each state decides what to do for that state.

What is your opinion of the Congressional power to fix Standards for the Union?

 

[danielpalos]

There are no cases where the government is supposed to be fixing standards for the union. The Federal Government has a set of responsibilities and authorities clearly defined in the Constitution. They own those. They don't set standards for the States in those; they write the laws.

For everything not clearly authorized to the Federal Government, the authority is retained by the States or the People - read the 10th Amendment. The Federal government has no authority to interfere or set standards or anything else in anything not given to them in the Constitution.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

If rogue troops tried to violate the 3rd Amendment, wouldn't it be self defense to protect your home?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

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.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[woodwork201]

What is your opinion of the Congressional power to fix Standards for the Union?

My opinion is that the Congress has the power given to it explicitly in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. Can you show me there the power to fix standards for the Union?

 

[woodwork201]

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Weights and Measures.... Not standard laws across the 50 states. They can tell us to use the English foot-pound system or they can switch us to Metric.. if they dare. They cannot create standards for laws across the states.