• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why US liberals are now buying guns too

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Don't put "working class" in question marks. Marx actually advocated for power (1) for the working class themselves, not a small clique claiming to represent them, as was later done in the name of Marxism in the 20th century. The Soviet Union's system of governance, especially under Stalin, was antithetical to Marxism.

You ask me what guns we're allowed to carry for protection in Canada. The answer is none — self defence is not considered a valid reason to own and use a firearm in Canada (it's not even considered a valid reason to carry a knife). Do I agree with this? Absolutely not! The gun situation in Canada is horrible. We don't really have that many "gun laws" — the RCMP just makes them up as they go along. AR-15s are restricted for no reason, as they don't have any restricted features — they're just an explicit exception to the rules. AK variants are banned by name. Rifle magazines are limited to five rounds in any calibre greater than .22. If you think I'm defending Canada's gun control, you're mistaken. I'd like to see it change as much as you would.

Now, in response to the part about the queen, yes, she is the head of state in Canada. My point was not so much about the political ties between Canada and the United Kingdom, so much as cultural ties. It was argued that I see things the way I do because I'm part of a European society. As a Canadian, I feel a great sense of historical connection with Britain, but I think our culture is much more similar to that of the United States, at least in modern times. (2) Most of the television, movies, and music that Canadians are exposed to are American. We have a very large number of American immigrants. We speak a dialect of English which is much closer to American English than anything in Britain. Most of us have been to the United States many times, while fewer have been to the United Kingdom. I am not a sheltered European who just so happens to live in North America.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

(1) all working class eh...union or non-union working class? considering Marx wrote his manifesto before unions took hold...who are the 'working class' he or you are referring to? BTW, trade unions in the CCCP didn't exist until o/a 1905 so was that who Marx meant?

(2) a great deal of America's TV, etc., is nothing but a rehash of BBC creations by the way you can count em here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_television_series_based_on_British_television_series) so your point?

thank goodness English is the official language of this country...wait, Quebec's official language is French, isn't it...hummm i do believe Hollande might disagree with your perception you speak a dialect of English ~ eh?

ipse
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Don't put "working class" in question marks. Marx actually advocated for power for the working class themselves, not a small clique claiming to represent them, as was later done in the name of Marxism in the 20th century. The Soviet Union's system of governance, especially under Stalin, was antithetical to Marxism.

You ask me what guns we're allowed to carry for protection in Canada. The answer is none — self defence is not considered a valid reason to own and use a firearm in Canada (it's not even considered a valid reason to carry a knife). Do I agree with this? Absolutely not! The gun situation in Canada is horrible. We don't really have that many "gun laws" — the RCMP just makes them up as they go along. AR-15s are restricted for no reason, as they don't have any restricted features — they're just an explicit exception to the rules. AK variants are banned by name. Rifle magazines are limited to five rounds in any calibre greater than .22. If you think I'm defending Canada's gun control, you're mistaken. I'd like to see it change as much as you would.

Now, in response to the part about the queen, yes, she is the head of state in Canada. My point was not so much about the political ties between Canada and the United Kingdom, so much as cultural ties. It was argued that I see things the way I do because I'm part of a European society. As a Canadian, I feel a great sense of historical connection with Britain, but I think our culture is much more similar to that of the United States, at least in modern times. Most of the television, movies, and music that Canadians are exposed to are American. We have a very large number of American immigrants. We speak a dialect of English which is much closer to American English than anything in Britain. Most of us have been to the United States many times, while fewer have been to the United Kingdom. I am not a sheltered European who just so happens to live in North America.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
So the government of Canada does not recognize the peoples Natural God given right to protect oneself and family from plunders and villains wishing to bestow harm upon the unarmed sheep.. " I thought NJ was a communist state".. Canada is clearly in violation of God's law and therefore in violation of God..
My .02
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Karl Marx defined the working class or proletariat as individuals who sell their labor power for wages, and who do not own the means of production. The working class physically builds things with sweat and calluses, but do not own the means of production, tools, land, or factories. A subset of the proletariat, the lumpenproletariat (rag-proletariat), are the extremely poor unemployable, such as burger flippers, day laborers and homeless people.

A gun being a tool excuses the owner from the working class proletariat. Hence the vanishing working class of the US and the growing gap between the proles and bourgeois investor managers.

The vacuum-cloudy headed is not a Marxian, but perhaps a failed sophomoric Marxian-theorist.

And, again, the lie was put to Hegels and Marx by Karl Popper.

thanks didn't want to dig that far...
but wouldn't your overview also fit union workers, per se?

ipse
 

Vacuumulus

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
11
Location
Canada
Karl Marx defined the working class or proletariat as individuals who sell their labor power for wages, and who do not own the means of production. The working class physically builds things with sweat and calluses, but do not own the means of production, tools, land, or factories. A subset of the proletariat, the lumpenproletariat (rag-proletariat), are the extremely poor unemployable, such as burger flippers, day laborers and homeless people.

A gun being a tool excuses the owner from the working class proletariat. Hence the vanishing working class of the US and the growing gap between the proles and bourgeois investor managers.

The vacuum-cloudy headed is not a Marxian, but perhaps a failed sophomoric Marxian-theorist.

And, again, the lie was put to Hegels and Marx by Karl Popper.
Why do you say I'm clearly not a Marxist? Your description of the proletariat as accurate, but none of it contradicted what I said. What did I get wrong?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I use the part of the blade most effective for the purpose.

Definition of forte

1 : the part of a sword or foil blade that is between the middle and the hilt and that is the strongest part of the blade.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forte

showing the utmost, humblest, deferential, and submissive respect to the magnificent mentor and the acknowledged forum elder...

uh, ya might try using nightmare's unequivocally rightest cite: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forte (tho there are a lot of words till you get to the apropos definition but i have faith you can get there...go grape)

looking for my 5ft broadsword to go fall on...

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...


Now, in response to being challenged about my views: If you would rather debate Marxism with me than discuss how gun ownership can be made into a nonpartisan issue, and how to convince people of various political beliefs in other areas that the right to bear arms should be defended, then be my guest. I'm not afraid to defend Marxism in debate — I was just hoping that that wouldn't be what this thread would be about.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Gun ownership is a non-partisan issue until liberals/Marxists get involved in the gun ownership discussion, this should be self evident, and is self evident to those who work to restore unfettered individual liberty. Guns are what liberty centric citizens have to hold the state in check, not to change society. Liberals are buying guns for the wrong reason, self defense is a secondary benefit of gun ownership. Marxist desire the state to lord over the citizenry and thus gun ownership is a threat to the state, liberalism, and Marxism.
 

Vacuumulus

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
11
Location
Canada
Gun ownership is a non-partisan issue until liberals/Marxists get involved in the gun ownership discussion, this should be self evident, and is self evident to those who work to restore unfettered individual liberty. Guns are what liberty centric citizens have to hold the state in check, not to change society. Liberals are buying guns for the wrong reason, self defense is a secondary benefit of gun ownership. Marxist desire the state to lord over the citizenry and thus gun ownership is a threat to the state, liberalism, and Marxism.

How many times do I have to repeat that Marxism and liberalism are not the same thing? Just because you disagree with two things doesn't make them the same. I'm sure we can both agree that we disagree with rape and murder, but that doesn't make them even remotely similar. Just because you dislike them both for the same reason doesn't make the same either. Keep in mind that liberals and Marxists nearly universally dislike each other.

Second, Marxism does not call for the state to "lord over" anyone. It calls for the reduction and eventual elimination of the state. If you actually read any of Marx's writings (and not just "refutations"), you would know this. Citing the actions of those that have used Marxism as a justification for their rule proves nothing. When what they did was antithetical to Marxism, it proves nothing about Marxism. It's nonsensical to say "This is what happens when Marxism is put into practice!" when these practical examples aren't even remotely Marxist in anything but name.

Also, you can't say that gun ownership is a non-partisan issue when it's only the right that's involved, but as soon as the left shows up, it's suddenly partisan. If only the right cares about something, that makes it a partisan issue.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Top