Socialism and the Second Amendment

Wayne LaPierre spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The NRA’s Executive Vice President warned Americans about the rising tide of socialism. “Socialism is a movement that loves a smear. Racists, misogynists, sexists, xenophobe and more,” he asserted. “These are the weapons and vitriol these character assassinations permanently hang on their targets because socialism feeds off manipulated victims.” . . .

True. As the first child born in the US of a family that fled the “wonders” of Socialist Cuba, I can say without doubt that Socialism loves to demonize its enemies. They need enemies, so they can divert attention from their failures. Just as they need to disarm their populations to control them.

Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and others have all gone the path of gun control. Where it leads isn’t pretty. My family suffered under the despotic rule of Socialism. Our property was stolen and wealth confiscated. Some of my family were murdered by government agents. Others had to flee their homeland with nothing but the shirts on their backs.


In the absence of an armed citizenry, individual liberty disappears. I’m not just talking about distant lands or ancient history.

America’s worst mass shooting? Wounded Knee, where U.S. troops opened fire on unarmed native Americans, killing 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota tribe. What of decades of racist lynchings of unarmed blacks in the South? And would President Roosevelt been able to literally imprison Japanese Americans if they’d been armed against government agents?

The Second Amendment protects all the other rights. It gives our Constitution teeth. It gives us the ability to protect our loved ones and, more importantly, our civil liberties.

Gun owners aren’t anything like the Left paints us to be. We’re hard working, honest, law abiding, caring people. The real bigots and haters are the “progressives” who want to demonize and disarm their fellow Americans. They can’t even show respect and politeness at their own rigged Town Hall Debate.

Vladimir Lenin pronounced that “the goal of socialism is communism.” To which author Kevin D. Williamson adds “The difference between communism and socialism is that under socialism central planning ends with a gun in your face, whereas under communism central planning begins with a gun in your face.”

You have been warned.


  1. avatar KenW says:

    I wonder how this shunning and divestment of the NRA and gun owners is going to play out.
    Will these companies find they now shrunk into coastal state companies? No longer able to do meaningful business in interior and southern states? I wonder who will step in an replace Hertz and Avis and others if they find they are not welcome to do business. Why would I support someone who spits on me?

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      For the NRA it won’t mean much. There is a commercial incentive for companies to do buisness with a large block of millions of like minded people and the void will be filled. The same can be said for the companies who are pulling away from the NRA. They wouldn’t do it unless there was a financial incentive i.e. their share holders and political backers screaming at them…… in the end financial incentives will also bring these companies quietly back in to the fold (think S&W, Springfield, Ruger, etc).

      1. avatar KenW says:

        How about a Bank like the Nebraska bank that does most of it’s business in conservative states?
        To me that does not sound like it was a smart move.

      2. avatar Stereodude says:

        Nah, they’re on the receiving end of a bunch of bots programmed by a few leftists. The bots overwhelm their social media accounts and e-mail with messages that lead the company to think the vast majority of the public is against them, so they capitulate not realizing they’ve been duped.

        Why any company still falls for this well worn routine after so many years is beyond me.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        Is it really necessary to point back to the precipitous decline of J.C. Penney after their new CEO (some years ago) thought there was a groundswell of JCP customers demanding a more politically correct company and so hired Ellen Degenerous as a spokesperson hoping her 3 million Twitter followers would come and shop? An awful lot more than that conservatives have never darkened their doorways again.

        And then their was Rosie O’Donnel refusing to work for Walmart so long as they kept selling guns. They are still selling guns and people are now asking, “Rosie who?”

        Setting corporate policies based on transient public opinion swings does not seem wise. I for one will not willingly patronize such companies.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Gotta start drawing geographic lines somehow if we’re ever gonna kick this thing off.

      I, for one, am glad the NRA is severing its ties to groups that would blackmail it. Think about it, next time there’s a ‘crisis,’ that much pressure for the NRA to cave like they did on bump stocks won’t be brought to bear.

      Partnering can make you more popular, but eventually you lose control of yourself and others’ motives overtake your own

    3. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      Picking sides is bad business for businesses.

      Reminds me of the Josie Wales scene where the ferry operater stopped whistling Dixie and started whistling the Battle Hymn of the Republic when Josie Wales’ pursuers approached the ferry.

  2. avatar Hank says:

    Having been disappointed by the NRA lately, after yesterday’s speech I’m feeling better about them. Depending on the next few weeks I may rejoin them after a temporary hiatus that started after Vegas. Either way, the speech about the left and socialism was absolutely spot on.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      +1 but I’m a member of the NRA the same way I’m a registered republican; for the sole purpose of instantly pissing off the left and triggering them in to voicing their bigotry and prejudice. Saying I’m “gun owning, non-NRA member and independent conservative” doesn’t have the same effect.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      BS, The NRA is baldly just trying to raise money, that’s their complete MO. They will compromise ASAP, then run more ads to say they are your only hope, so they then raise more money. Wayne wants his payday. F the NRA.

    3. avatar Joe Brown says:

      Why is the NRA talking about socialism when there has been a multi-front assault on the 2nd Amendment in recent months that they had a part in instigating? The NRA is great at spreading fear in order to stir up donations but they are actually just a weak-willed walking compromise that will sell everyone out to save their paychecks for just a little longer… Let others worry about encroaching socialist ideas, let’s have this supposed pro-gun organization worry about defending our gun rights.

  3. avatar Waffensammler98 says:

    Educate yourselves. Read 4,000 book pages on the detailed history of the USSR and its red-bannered cohorts like me as a good start. The parallels between early Soviet rhetoric and today’s emotionally unstable college students is an eye-opener.

  4. avatar Jim B says:

    Wow! The author is a victim of PC propaganda himself. The Sioux at Wounded Knee were not unarmed. In fact the Sioux fired the first shot. It was fired by a warrior that was not quite right in the head and said he wasn’t turning in his rifle and started firing.

    What followed was more of a mass screw up of trooper firing back the warriors returning fire and running for cover with women and children. The Army then opened up on them with Hotchkiss guns. Of course it was wrong, but there was blame on both sides. Troopers were on edge because this happened in 1890. The Sioux wars were pretty much over in 1876. The troopers at Wounded Knee only experience with Sioux was listening to stories from the old timers, stories that were of course designed to scare the hell out of them.

    In any case the Sioux were indeed armed and I would hardly call it a mass shooting. More like the final chapter of the Sioux wars.

    1. avatar FlamencoD says:

      Give me a break. The Army was there to disarm the Lakota. The US had been taking the Lakota’s lands for years. Two soldiers tried to seize the deaf Lakota who didn’t want to give up his rifle from behind and in the scuffle his rifle discharged. Then the Army proceeded to kill at least 150, but up to 300 Lakota, including women and children. Women and children scattered when the shots were fired and the Army hunted them down and killed them. It was no battle. There was no blame on the Lakota side. It was a massacre of natives.

  5. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Ahhh… the wonders of scientific Soviet state socialism. Why is socialism so wonderful? Because Soviet socialism is highly scientific.
    Of course the real secret is that the Nazis were really scientific socialists was well. As Frau Goebbels said, ” I just cannot go on living without the wonders of National Socialism.” Socialism for everybody!
    But Sweden is the socialist model for everyone where everyone is happy and content.
    Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. Robert A. Heinlein
    Read more at:
    Mussolini proves you could be fascist and communist and get more or less the same result.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There was a slogan that Communism = Socialism + Electricity.

      It wasn’t long before there was a mathematical revision to the equation.

      Electricity = Communism – Socialism

      Telling jokes like this was the USSR’s idea of an extreme sport. You could get up to 10 years in the Gulag.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        “As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work”

        I’m convinced Communism flourishes where the people have been made humorless (i.e. it is the death of hope). Whole lotta humorless folks in the US these days.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Uh, Communism is Fascism. The author of Fascism was a Communist, he just did not believe it was necessary or desirable to cede local control of the socialist machine to a foreign politburo. Communism is based around ‘peace through submission’ to a superstate that quells conflicts between its member groups and saves the world through expansion, Fascism is more inwardly-focused and believes in ‘peace through annihilation’ and that adjacent states can live in peace so long as they are strong and inwardly focused, but that weaker states (or races) are to basically serve as food for the stronger ones. In reality, Communists had to purge entire populations to pacify them, and Fascists were unable to coexist with anyone that wasn’t a client state.

      The desired result is identical, but each gets to feel good about murdering countless millions for different reasons.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Very well said. Communists are globalists. Fascists are nationalists. Both are Socialists.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Socialists are Communist salesmen. Communists are targets.

          America has already decided.

  6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    This article for the most part is really very good. The author more or less gets it.

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    Anybody who supports socialism is either ignorant of history or seeks to repeat it.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      But it just wasn’t implemented by the right people. If we did it it would work!

    2. avatar binder says:

      Starving people in the street and guns lead to revolt which leads to real socialism. Learn to read history. (I’m 1/4 Tsarist who knew when to get the hell out of dodge.)

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Socialism is the enemy of freedom of every sort, including the freedom to keep and bear arms and of self defense.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      It’s also an incredibly broad, powerful issue for a focused group with limited resources like the NRA to go up against single-handedly

      1. avatar Joe Brown says:

        Thank you. It’s just a tactic to shift focus away from their multitude of failings and stir up fear to up their diminishing donations…

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          No, it is not intended to divert attention from their failings, it is an attempt to undermine the opposition. Without an opposition, truth is what those in control say it is.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          And who is the control that you are speaking of?

  9. avatar barnbwt says:

    I don’t care if LaPierre is ‘right’ about what he’s speaking, he has gone far, far off the reservation at this point. Bitching about socialism & liberals, flexing on bump stocks & other gun control…this turd is polishing himself for a Senate seat or other public office. Transparently obvious. And he’s willing to completely dilute and adulterate the NRA’s simple message and message-ers to do it.

    Time to re-enact the ’77 revolt and kick these guys to the curb in favor of new blood this convention.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:


  10. avatar Scoutino says:

    Socialism sucks ass. Been there, done that, have a T-shirt.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    “They need enemies, so they can divert attention from their failures.”

    All governments need enemies to keep people frightened and under control. Or do you actually think that North Korea is a real threat to the US?

    North Korea is a pimple on the world’s ass.

  12. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Progressiveism is polite/PC way of saying Communist.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The only people who think it’s polite are the people who think the rest of US don’t understand what it means. Like . . . An evil POS MFn (D) insurane company of the same name.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Have you noticed how much that company wastes on television commercials.

  13. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You can look to the socialist Bernie Sanders for a view of the future. You will be murdered by his supporters. It won’t be just one gunman at a baseball field. It will be mobs of people.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Nah, they’re almost always too high to get off the couch, and if they get off it, it’s to go stare blankly at their empty fridge for an hour.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The Burnmeister claims to be a Socialist but most every Vermonter knows he is a Communist.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        No difference, and pretending there is cedes massive ground to the Left. They love to talk about all the different kinds of systems: socialism, communism, “democratic socialism”, “social democracy”, etc. They are all envisioned as slightly different takes on the same idea, but in practical terms, they are indistinguishable. Castro’s Cuba is typically regarded as socialist, while the Soviet Union is considered the epitome of communism. Yet somehow, I don’t think the people who lived, suffered, and died under either regime would have been able to tell the difference, or care. The idea that there is any meaningful difference between any such systems that involved mass redistribution of wealth and partial or full nationalization of industry is ludicrous, and nothing more than a transparent attempt at rebranding the same old evils.

        100 million dead last century. NEVER stop beating on that drum, because it’s our most effective argument against such systems. Modern day advocates of such horrors are ultimately idiots who like the emotional romance behind such systems, and practical or economic arguments slide off them like teflon. They operate on emotion? Fine. Demand that they imagine 100 million dead people, ask them how that makes them feel, and ask if it’s worth it.

  14. avatar anonymoose says:

    I wonder what the 1st Amendment guy is drawing?

  15. avatar ironicatbest says:

    You’ve got socialism all wrong, all that means is I’ve got a M113 and you’ve got a 20mm Vulcan cannon, let’s share , it’s not that their antii -airctaft gun or nothing,,,, look at them tracers,,,,, they just don’t like shoveling hot brass

  16. avatar Mark N. says:

    There is much to be concerned about. The press is engaging in a full court press to vilify, and indeed eliminate the NRA and all similar groups. I have seen “commentators” comparing the NRA to the KKK, suggesting that NRA members are a bunch of OFWGs who are racist, bible thumping killers of children. A deranged young man named Cruz did not murder 17 people and wound 14 more, it was the NRA. The NRA (and Trump) is “insane” to suggest that ALL teachers should be armed (which isn’t what either said). It is only because of NRA money “bribing” politicians that Congress has not enacted an “assault weapons” ban, and that Sen. Rubio is in the NRA’s pocket because he accepted the gigantic donation of $10,000 (which of course he should give back w2hile vilifying the NRA). [Observe that this is the same tactic used to shame anyone who accepted money from Hollywood mogul Weinstein.] This is a full court press. The demoncrats have not had the advantage in the last six years, so they are pulling out all the stops now. We just may be on the verge of an epic battle intended to destroy, undermine, or amend away the 2A, as it is a right that has “outlived its usefulness.”

  17. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    I hate to break this to you folks, but if you’re American, you’re already living in a socialist country and you probably wouldn’t have it any other way. Social Security is socialism. Medicare is socialism. Medicaid is socialism. Unemployment insurance is socialism. Food stamps are socialism.
    The biggest difference between our socialism and Soviet socialism is that our socialism functions as a safety net instead of as the primary economic system. So does socialism in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and just about any other wealthy country.
    America is shining proof that a country can have a robust social safety net and respect gun rights at the same time. Good night from your Southern Idaho gun-toting socialist.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Hey look, a living contradiction!!

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        Not contradictory at all. I like guns, and I care for my fellow human beings.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah you care enough about them to hold a gun to their heads and take their shit.

        2. avatar green Mtn. Boy says:

          Margret Thatcher didn’t quite put it this way but it’s all fine until you run out of other peoples shit.

        3. avatar IdahoBoy says:

          Fine, Serge. If you want to stop paying taxes, stop driving. Roads are paid for by tax dollars, and that’s socialism.

          Everybody is sucking at the government teat. You just have to pay in to get back. You don’t think about it, because it’s part of everyday life. But we’re all socialists.

          Unless of course you live in a shack someplace, commute by horse, and don’t pay taxes.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey fucktard… Giving somebody free shit is not the same thing as improving the commons. Everyone benefits from roads. Nobody benefits from subsidizing lazy lowlifes.

    2. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

      The road to socialist hell is paved with safety nets. Next stop is Safe Space – we need to limit the 1A and 2A to make people feel safe.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      As a wise person once said, we don’t have a “safety net” we have a “safety hammock”. …and no, I don’t think it’s the job of the federal government to provide any of those programs.

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        Then stop driving, especially on the interstate.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again commons != free shit. Go learn basic economics commie.

    4. avatar Echo5Bravo says:

      “Social Security is socialism. Medicare is socialism. Medicaid is socialism. Unemployment insurance is socialism. Food stamps are socialism.” True. Socialism IS great, until you run out of other peoples money. Then whats your plan?

      1. avatar Binder says:

        Well, given how rich the US is, I would say those programs beat the hell out of armed revolt. People don’t revolte when they have enough to eat an a roof over their heads.

        1. avatar Echo5Bravo says:

          $19,000,000,000,000 in debt. 19 Trillion. $63,070.00 per citizen. $ 170,394 per tax payer.
          This is unsustainable. What do you think people will do when the free money stops coming?

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          It’s all fine and dandy until you run out of other peoples money.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Let them revolt. Commie vermin need to get their faces stomped in every few decades just to remind them of their place in the pecking order.

      2. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        Responsible actuarial practices that spread the risk, so that you never run out of money.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          We have 20 trillion worth of national debt. We ran out of other people’s money in the early 2000s.

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The “anti’s” had to do something to hijack the attention. Layers and layers of “protection” failures, then the eee-vil war-mongering jROTC step up in an instant. It illustrated every single thing they claim is wrong.

    No, prevention doesn’t work.

    No, the enforcers / protectors won’t.

    Yes, “regular folks” can protect themselves and each other. (More precisely, there are exceptional people scattered among us “regular folks.” Until the test comes, you don’t know who is who, really.)

    Yes, I’m for disarming people … like whack-jobs who shoot up schools. How about maybe get on that? Maybe a little less time scrounging guns from people who’ve done nothing, and you’d have some time to go after people who … I don’t know … announce they’re going to shoot up a school?

    By playing along, “responding” to the anti’s BS, Confused Wayne and the rest are getting suckered. First into, “Why do you need that gun, vs. this one.” But worse, pulled off the plain argument where they’ve already won. The anti’s had to stage something because the wrong story was flooding out. The mistake is meeting them on their own terms … ever. They aren’t honest brokers, it isn’t a conversation. It’s about having the theater to change the focus of the circus. THAT was NRA Dana’s mistake. If you go in, stick to your frame of the issue.

    “I’m so glad they were able to get so many of you out. I wish the brave ones could have done more.”

    With all the “gun laws” we have, all the monitoring, all the enforcement, all the apparatus imposing on people who have done nothing wrong, the whack job still had a gun to shoot up a school… and the people protecting the kids didn’t. Something’s not working right with those laws. (Unless the point is getting kids killed.) Stick with that.

    Meanwhile, people stepped up in an instant. Stick with that.

    Why am I against “gun regulation?” Because your stupid regulation already left those kids with nothing but their courage to help their friends. How many got killed that didn’t have to because you won’t allow people who stepped up in an instant, the tools to do something better? So, now you want more kids to get killed.

    Ya didn’t disarm the whack-job, and ya did disarm the heroes. That seems backwards, and you want to do more, now?

    Some guy with a pistol stands no chance against a whack-job with an AR-pattern? Sure, look what they did with doors. With their feet. With frakking cloth. A pistol isn’t a predator drone. What more could these kids have done with a side-arm. (I mean, beside huddle outside, listening? Oh, wait, that was the guy you let be armed to protect the place.)

    Let them have guns, and there’s no telling what they’ll do with them. Well, some kid with the presence of mind to usher people outside under fire, I’m OK trusting that kid with a gun. How about you?

    Here’s the only agreement to the disarmament pitch: Disarm the protectors — maybe, after the whack jobs are no more. Unless and until that happens, how about we leave the people willing to die to protect us, better tools to do that with.

    It’s like I commented on Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger’s screeching after one of his entourage got clipped by a drug-war stray. Yeah, citizens shouldn’t have guns. You first. And as uncomfortable as you find it, touring around free-fire neighborhoods behind your phalanx of armed guards, why so big on disarming the people who have to live there? BTW, who’s “in charge” here? I think the fact that those neighborhoods are free-fire zones is on you. Oh, yeah, how’s that SAFE act working out for ya?

    Never accept the premise of their question. Never accept their frame of the discussion. Never treat them like they’re engaging in good faith. Never let yourself get hooked on your own politeness, to meet them “halfway” in conversation. It’s not a “conversation” and they’re certainly not there to learn anything. Treat the situation accordingly.

    Wayne there needs to realize that it’s not his world, and act accordingly.

  19. avatar Michael Clark says:

    What’s more interesting is in the Russia-Trump collusion conservatives called Russian bots. If one looks into the biggest supporters of socialist agendas, it’s those well off. Maybe Soros funded crowds need to disown him or be labeled foreign NGOs. Open Society Foundation, Ruckus Brigade, huffing post, New Yorker, daily beast, as well as a myriad of conservative and moderate Christian organizations funded by one man. His drones fueled hatred in this country as well as many others. The devil take him.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email