NSSF Rejects Socialist Rifle Association Membership

Socialist Rifle Association

Courtesy Socialist Rifle Association

We support gun ownership for everyone, left right and center. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, whatever your political persuasion.

We’ve also noted the new-found interest in guns on the part of some leftist groups. Some of them apparently think there are gulags and concentration camps just waiting for them under the current administration. Whatever.

As long as they’re responsible and follow the applicable laws (of which there are far too many), they have the same right to armed self defense as any other American.

When first we heard about the Socialist Rifle Association a few months ago, we contacted them to find out what’s what. We asked if they’d like to write something for us to publish about their organization. The person to whom we spoke (she wouldn’t give us her name) promised to do that, but never followed through.

As for their philosophy regarding guns, according to their web site . . .

The Socialist Rifle Association is an educational organization dedicated to providing the working class with the information they need to be effectively armed for self and community defense. This includes all manner of community defense, from the right of the working class to possess firearms to the ability to be well versed in the fields of medicine, disaster relief, logistics, agriculture, and survival skills.

Our goal is to provide an alternate to the mainstream, toxic, right-wing, and non-inclusive gun culture that has dominated the firearms community for decades. We seek to provide a safe, inclusive, and left-leaning platform for talking about gun rights and self defense, free from racist and reactionary prejudices, while providing a platform for the working class to obtain the skills necessary for all aspects of community defense.

Someone at the SRA apparently had a brainstorm for promoting their org — join the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry’s trade association. So they did. Briefly.

As the SRA describes what happened . . .

On Friday, July 19th, the Socialist Rifle Association became an official non-profit member of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NSSF conducts expansive industry research, provides grants to colleges for firearms sports, and is the largest firearms trade association in America. The decision to become a member of the NSSF was made with the intent of living up to the SRA’s goal of arming and training the working-class for self and community defense.

While we understand the NSSF to be a fairly reactionary institution, our hope was to introduce the concept of left wing gun ownership and advocacy to the larger firearms community, especially through participation in events such as SHOT Show. Our announcement of membership in the NSSF was met with broad support from our members, who, like all proponents of the right to self-defense, want to ensure the protection of Americans’ second amendment rights.

When the NSSF became aware that the SRA had joined, they concluded that the org’s beliefs and goals are counter to what the NSSF stands for. So they refunded the fee the SRA had paid and terminated its membership.

Socialist Rifle Association

Courtesy Socialist Rifle Association

You can read the SRA’s account of the whole kerfuffle here. As they argue . . .

It is worth questioning the NSSF’s wisdom in barring socialists from participating in their trade association. Free market capitalism is deeply unpopular – a 2018 Gallup poll found that a majority of millennials prefer socialism to capitalism, with the latter becoming less popular every year.

While many of these millennials may define “socialism” as some form of social democratic system, it is undeniable that “free market capitalism” is not a winning message with the soon-to-be majority age demographic in America. If the NSSF wishes to preserve the right to bear arms, they would be well served by casting as wide an ideological net as possible, so as to avoid becoming irrelevant.

They also re-printed an email from NSSF’s Mark Oliva . . .

Socialist Rifle Association

Courtesy Socialist Rifle Association

We talked to Oliva who confirmed that the SRA’s account of what happened is accurate. And when you think about the NSSF’s decision for 30 seconds, it makes perfect sense.

The Foundation is the firearms industry’s trade group, funded by manufacturers, retailers and shooting ranges. A NSSF member organization that believes in and advocates the government seizure and ownership of the means of production is contrary to what the NSSF stands for.

Socialist Rifle Association

Courtesy Socialist Rifle Association

Free-market capitalism is what built the firearms industry in this country. If the SRA’s beliefs were implemented — something more people and politicians seem to be advocating every day — that would damage not only the industry but the right to keep and bear arms as well.

Oh, and as for the SRA’s contention that free market capitalism is “deeply unpopular,” that isn’t reflected in recent polling which shows a scant 10% of Americans have a positive view of socialism. It seems that when you ask people outside of college campus faculty lounges, mainstream media news rooms and large coastal cities, the idea of establishing an American worker’s paradise isn’t particularly attractive. Go figure.

Still, the SRA says all the right things about civilian gun ownership . . .

Gun control is a fundamental component of neo-liberal capitalism and its tendency to commodify, infantilize, and enslave working-class people. Socialism, on the other hand, is a philosophy concerned with emancipating working class people and allowing for their greatest development of individual will and expression. And the right to bear arms for self and community defense is a critical component of that mission. It’s a common saying on the left that, “If you go far enough left, eventually you get your guns back.” Indeed, there is a long tradition in both socialist and left-anarchist theory of supporting the right to bear arms.

The only problem with that is it isn’t born out by history. Civilian populations have been disarmed the world over wherever socialism has been implemented, with the attendant disastrous consequences.

But the SRA got themselves a win with the NSSF rejection. They can wave their red flag and trumpet the fact that the NSSF won’t have it as a member (if anyone’s listening). It will probably be a (minor) PR plus in their circles.

If it’s any consolation, though, our offer still stands. If anyone at the SRA is listening, we’d still like to publish something from them laying out their philosophy and their take on the need for armed self defense and the individual right to keep and bear arms. We’d love to hear how and why their brand of socialism won’t turn out the way it has everywhere else. Our door is always open.

comments

  1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The simple way to educate students about socialism is to advise them at the start of them term that in support of world socialism they will each receive the average grade for the entire class. This will encourage them to help their classmates learn the material, and this will be more fair to students of lower achievement levels.

    1. avatar EasyDay says:

      And three things will likely happen:

      1) Wealthy students will drop the class and go elsewhere for a better education,
      2) Lazy students will stay drunk/high and not give a s#!t, and
      3) The ones stuck in the middle will bust their a$$es to get (best case scenario) mediocre grades and wonder if the misery is really worth it as their future prospects grow dimmer each day this rock takes another turn around the sun.

      All the while, “activists” will decry the system (they created) and demand more of the same.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        Well said and so accurate!

        1. avatar Sunrise says:

          Absolutely. Let’s rid America of socialism starting with the collectives like the police, fire department, and libraries.

          Throwing words around doesn’t mean you know what they mean.

        2. avatar Jhn1 says:

          Sorry Jim, trying to respond to Sunrise but the thread is not allowed that deep.
          Fire Departments and libraries were started in the US of A by donors, not socialism. And those Fire Departments were staffed by volunteers (still are in some parts of the country). Police were a city decision that night watchmen were not enough, especially with the cultural changes away from what the Founding Fathers had started. And the post of watchmen themselves predate socialism, actually they are referenced in the Old Testament of the Bible.
          https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bible+verse%2C+watchmen&t=ffab&ia=web

        3. avatar EasyDay says:

          [Also in reply to Sunrise] Absolutely agree that throwing words around doesn’t mean you know what they mean. After you look up “collective,” I suggest you also look up “straw man fallacy.” Otherwise, countering an argument that nobody made just makes you look foolish.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Oh, somebody does exactly this from time to time, with the results you’d expect.

        Moar popcorn.

        I do wonder when the high-concept utopians will realize that we who object with: How’s that gonna work out? tend to be right. Ill dealer law drives dealers out of business, reducing violence not at all. NYS, Conn, and even New Zeland ban / confiscations get tbe compliance we predicted, with the crime n violence non-results tracking, too.

      3. avatar Someone says:

        4. The smart students who tried to succeed in socialist enviroment and busted their asses, quickly realize they are getting barely passing grades for their efforts. Since they are smart, they say – “screw this” and join the dummies in drinking and generally having good times.

        5. In the end everyone fails. That’s what inevitably happens every time you take away the incentive to succeed by striving for greatness. Socialist countries actually punished the successful, pulled them down to share the equal misery and they all ended bankrupt.

        1. avatar Jhn1 says:

          Ahhh, but before that bankruptcy the commissars live well to very well and don’t have to work.
          Or instead of commissar you can call them union management, or community organizer, or protest coordinator, or social justice activist, or …
          and they still make their living off somebody else’s work

  2. avatar MouseGun says:

    Better Dead then Red!

    1. avatar Name says:

      Anytime you’re ready, kiddo

      1. avatar Political gristle says:

        Stop using the idiom ” kiddo” it’s extremely irritating and condescending.
        Thank you.

        1. avatar MEDIC says:

          I think that’s the point. Unless I missed the point and you were joking, too, kiddo

      2. avatar Big E says:

        Yeah, get em tough guy! Why don’t you post your name & address so he can discuss it with you in person?

        Yep, that’s what I thought.

      3. avatar Kiddo says:

        I’m Ready.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      Where were the socialists when Obama was in office and the left was threatening gun control left and right?

      I’ll tell you where – no where.

      There is a problem with the SRA philosophy. It is:

      1) Having gun rights promotes self reliance, independence, and empowers individuals. It implies that you as an individual, are responsible for your own safety.

      2) Socialists are big government people. They want free health care. Free education/college. More government services. More government safety nets. They want “hate speech” laws. And what the socialist democrats aren’t telling them, is they will pay from 5-10% income tax right now – upwards to 50-60% income tax to achieve this. Bernie likes to point to the Nordic countries all the time. Sweden citizens pay around 70% in taxes. So it’s not free after all. It might be free for some – at the expense of others (theft). Big government people are inherently dependent upon government. They are not self reliant, they are not independent. They think they are entitled to other people’s money because of their perceived oppression status and self psychological rationalization that theft is justified in order to achieve perceived equal opportunity.

      Now, #1 above clashes with #2 below.

      The second big government is leaning left again, they will be pro-gun control. And that is because, despite they may value owning guns and using them, they also value nanny statism. And most of them will vote for it.

      1. avatar Josh Kidder says:

        Japan has socialized health care across the board for all it’s citizens.
        Its rapidly aging society and shrinking ranks of premium-paying workers, coupled with the arrival of new drugs and technologies fetching phenomenal prices, are putting immense strains on a system that certainly cannot be sustained. Historically, the Socialist model has never really worked as it was applied. Not sure of any political system where there isn’t somebody who doesn’t want to play fair.
        So just how ‘Socialistic’ is the SRA? I expect it to be more symbolic than anything.

      2. avatar Broke_It says:

        My word, the day I’m making 30 cents on the dollar is the day I’m done being a law abiding tax payer. I know I’m not alone in this so I guess it all hinges on that question with infinite answers. How far is too far?

  3. avatar Texican says:

    You probably confused them with your open-mindedness and it short -circuited the narrative they have about gun owners. That’s why they haven’t responded to your request. Additionally, they probably looked at the website and realized that they would get their rear ends handed to them in short order and their safe space wouldn’t be safe enough!

  4. avatar Maxpowers says:

    Socialism in the end leads to death, sorrow and destruction.

    Even if these people had gotten what they wanted in turning the US into their “Utopia”, These very same revolutionaries would be dragged off to the guluags or lined up against a wall and shot.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Interesting to note that the posters shown in the pics above are purposefully designed to look like vintage Soviet-era communist materials. You’d think that the youngsters today who say “yes socialism has failed in every instance, but that’s because they didn’t do it right” chose to use the same designs instead of updating in their efforts to “do it right”.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        I’m guessing the people involved in the organization were told very different accounts of life in the former USSR and similar regimes than are told by those who lived through it and made it out.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          PS-that and it’s a very unique (and admittedly powerful) style of imagery.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          Bernie Sanders: Government run bread lines are a good thing, because the people are being fed.

          American employers: Don’t do drugs and I’ll hire you so you can buy your own bread.

        3. avatar Ragnar says:

          “The lessons of history teach us, if the lessons of history teach us anything, that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.”
          – Robert A. Heinlein

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Say what you will about the socialists and commies, they have great design skills. Our people could learn a thing or two from them that way.

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          You clearly have never looked at the history of Soviet design in aviation, space (especially manned) exploration, nuclear power, submarine design, etc.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Well, there’s design and then there’s implementation. Kalashnikov is hailed because he was such a genius designer that even a shitty factory / blacksmith could implement his design really well. Most designers, even other geniuses, can’t get to a design that foolproof.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          I was thinking art & visuals, not industrial design. And sure as hell not architecture.

        4. avatar Adambomb286 says:

          I love the style of the Soviet propaganda posters, even though I am totally opposed to almost everything they represent.

      3. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “Interesting to note that the posters shown in the pics above are purposefully designed to look like vintage Soviet-era communist materials.”

        Yep, take a look at Ms. ‘AOC’ ‘s campaign posters, and note the resemblance :

        https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=uSI6Xd_BNZCosgWXsIKwCg&q=aoc+campaign+poster&oq=AOC+campaign&gs_l=psy-ab.1.3.0l10.1837.5605..8268…0.0..0.163.1135.10j2……0….1..gws-wiz…..0..0i131.iGwvRP40ym4

        1. avatar Goffle is Not a Friend says:

          GEOFF WWJWD,

          Why are you using Google? Google who seeks to silence everything conservatives believe in. Google who will not aid the U.S. Military, but will provide direct support to Communist China (and their social score). Google who has de-platformed conservatives on YouTube. Google who has been caught by Project Veritas, saying they will subvert the next election for the leftist candidates.

          Anything that you have, are, or will post is total garbage, because You actively, and freely, support the 5th column seeking to do away with Freedom.

          You are hypocrite.

    2. avatar Dan W. says:

      Let’s skip right to lining them up.

  5. avatar R. Kling says:

    In 2019 America, a child can be born in a state-run hospital, have the state pay for the delivery, be brought home to an apartment paid for by Section 8, then fed with WIC food provided by the state, then freely attend a state-owned school where he gets more “free” food, all the while being supported by “free” food stamps and housing, before dropping out and continuing to collect “free” state-paid welfare benefits including health care until he dies…but it’s still not socialism 🙄

    I wish we could just be grown-ups and admit the USA *is* a socialist country so we can finally get the resolve to tear down the socialist programs that plague this country. A return to the actual capitalism in effect in 1789 would solve one helluva a lot of problems in this country.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Money spent on the war on poverty: over 20 TRILLION
      US debt: over 20 TRILLION

      Source census gov:
      1975 poverty rate: 3.7%
      1985 poverty rate: 5.2%
      1995 poverty rate: 5.3%
      2005 poverty rate: 5.4%
      2015 poverty rate: 6.1%

      The welfare programs are a way of life, not a helping hand.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        *Below 50% poverty rate. Actual poverty rate is higher.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The poverty rate is a bullshit statistic. It has nothing to do with poverty and everything to do with the median income.

        2. avatar Pwr Sewer says:

          “The poverty rate is a bullshit statistic. It has nothing to do with poverty and everything to do with the median income.”

          Curious how so.
          Please elaborate on your keen insight.
          (insert sarcastic meme here)

    2. avatar Ing says:

      We haven’t had true free-market capitalism in this country for over a hundred years now.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Those northern European socialism success stories are less socialist than the US. It’s be nice to have free market capitalism here but the federal and state governments are just to powerful and won’t allow it.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          We do have the free market capitalism of the Crack Dealer. It doesn’t have to be legal to be a capitalistic. It’s not regulated so they run the business as they please. Until they get caught by the police.(smile)

    3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “..I wish we could just be grown-ups and admit the USA *is* a socialist country ”

      No.

      “…so we can finally get the resolve to tear down the socialist programs that plague this country.”

      Very much yes.

    4. avatar Alex L says:

      Haha, I almost completely agreed with you until you said we need to go back to the capitalism of 1789. I am firmly behind tearing down pretty much all the programs you listed, but totally unbridled capitalism is still not a good thing. If you haven’t already, you should read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. At the end of the book he ends up advocating for Socialism which is obviously wrong, but up until then it still paints and excellent picture of just how Hellish life can be without just the tiniest, minimum of government intervention. Again, I can’t emphasize enough how much I want the government to keep its nose out of my business, but a bit of regulation here and there is necessary in order to prevent industry from dominating the lives of the people just as bad as the government can.

      And I should add that the events of The Jungle are all based on real stories and real journalistic work that Upton Sinclair did to find out about the conditions experienced by real workers in Chicago. And this was back when journalism actually meant something, it wasn’t just writing a poorly informed opinion piece on your blog.

      1. avatar Adambomb286 says:

        Absolutely. When you wander off too far in either direction, bad stuff happens and the best system usually falls somewhere in between the extremes.

      2. avatar Thomas says:

        It’s true… capitalism is literally the worst economic system… EXCEPT FOR ALL OF THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIED.

        That is still true today. Capitalism has some huge flaws, like the tendencies to become monopolistic. It needs a impartial “overseer” to temper peoples basic trait of excessive greed. Generally that is government, and also a “blind” and active justice system.

    5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Over one hundred years ago hospitals were owned, funded, and operated by RELIGIOUS GROUPS CALLED CHURCHES. The atheists had nothing to do with them. That was real PRIVATE medical care.
      These churches and synagogues provided the social services that poor people needed. They also took care of new arrivals coming to america. This was all done by the PRIVATE RELIGIOUS, sector.
      Even John Stossel of the fox business channel, has done programs about this history.

      Now the Atheists, who hate religion, have replaced church care with atheist (government) care. And of course they raised taxes in order to pay for all the ‘”free” medical care you get now.

      Over 100 years ago texes were extremely low. Or none at all in many cases.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Taxes.
        I miss the edit button.
        (smile)

      2. avatar Rex Tyler says:

        Over 100 years ago [taxes] were extremely low. Or none at all in many cases.

        Taxes ever being ‘extremely low’ is a matter of perspective and hind sight. Taxes have always been and will always be burdensome to those who must pay them. I think there was a tea party in Boston back in 1773 that had people a little pissed about taxes.
        The first house that pops bought for 13K is now worth 1.3 Mil. It cost money then and it costs money now.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          President Trump understands very well how government regulations raise the price to construct a small private home or a multi story building. And 100 years ago there was less regulation and lower or no taxes. The cost of a “small” house in california is just crazy. In San Francisco forget it. You can’t afford a rat infested dump in that city.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/09/30/the-verdict-is-in-land-use-regulations-increase-housing-costs/#4fafd3364162

          “The cost of regulations on a 2016 new home valued at $348,900 would be approximately $84,671.”

          “The single greatest cause of rising housing prices is excessive regulations that increase the time and cost of building new homes. Government regulations limit the supply and drive up the costs of land. They increase the costs of construction. In some places, out-of-control impact fees drive new home costs beyond the reach of the typical household.”

          https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/319990-regulations-fees-continue-to-plague-home-construction

    6. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The socialist (atheists) want you guns. They also hate religion and replaced the church welfare system with government welfare. The Economics of Religion. A fascinating study. A part of our american tradition. At 9 to 11 minutes in the video, is the real meat of the interview. John stossel was correct. The religious free market is the answer.

      Larry Iannaccone talks to Oliver Marc Hartwich on the Economics of Religion 24 minutes long

  6. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

    Socialists lie.

    End of debate.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      The ones that don’t lie are genuinely delusional.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And often self-delusional. Where there is a clash between ideology and reality it is reality that suffers.

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    Any organization that uses soviet iconography should be declared to be a terrorist insurgency.

    1. avatar Name says:

      Lmao anime avatar

      1. avatar L says:

        Not an argument

      2. avatar Casey says:

        Well, I for one am convinced by your well articulated argument.

        1. avatar RocketScientist says:

          LOL. I mean, in his defense, his argument is literally the same as PwrBottom’s was.

          PwrBottom: “The imagery they use to represent themselves discredits their arguments!!”
          Name: “Oh yeah? Well your argument is discredited because of the imagery you use to represent yourself!”
          Everyone else: “THAT’S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT, NAME!!!”

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that my imagery isn’t associated with a quarter billion dead bodies. Missed that little detail did you?

      3. avatar Pacer says:

        At least anime isn’t designed to fool disaffected halfwits into thinking communism is a great idea. Much like the propaganda the SRA depends on.

      4. avatar Someone says:

        You must be new here. And you have some growing up to do.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Any person that uses an anime avatar ought to be declared a feckless weeb and exiled to a dank basement in Japan. (Trading one ridiculous statement for another.)

      Say what you will about the Soviets (and whatever you do say, I wouldn’t disagree), but their propaganda art was badass. We could learn a thing or two from them in that regard.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not really. I’m still of the opinion that all socialists are just mass murderers waiting for their chance.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Some of your comments on TTAG have been calling for the same damned thing. That’s why I call you a commie. If it weren’t for that, you and I would probably agree on a lot.

          (Cue, “Sorry kiddo…” and much of your typical BS. If you don’t choose that course this time, I apologize in advance.)

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          There’s a difference between justified authoritarianism and socialism. The former has killed far fewer people than the latter and has actually done some good. I’m a big fan of the Republican Rome model.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          At least we can agree on some things. Thank you for the very civil reply.

          Carry on.

    3. avatar Scott says:

      Yep. Josef Stalin murdered more people than Hitler did. Communist countries such as the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. are estimated to have murdered more than 80 million people…most of them their own citizens…in the 20th Century.

      Communism is the form of slavery where the government is the slaveowner, and it’s a crime against humanity. F**k socialists, with friends like them, we don’t need enemies.

  8. avatar Dog of War says:

    Good. Socialism is an absolute cancer upon all of human society and it’s acolytes should be openly shunned and ridiculed any time they show their faces in public. As much as it makes me sound like an authoritarian myself to put it like that my own political ideology sits on the center right deep libertarian on the political compass test. I am hard line anti-socilist because I know both the history of socialism, the current geo-political realities of socialism, and the actions of many current large socialist movements. So there for I fully support this act from the NSSF in rejecting them from membership.

    However I in no way support any legal action that would stripe these socialists or even socialist groups from being able to exercise their essential and enumerated right to weapons ownership any more than I would seek to use the power of the state to strip them of any right. Even though it is generally S.O.P. for a socialist to use these rights with the specific aim to use the power of the state to oppress everyone else. This reality is exactly the reason I despise socialist to begin with.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      “…I in no way support any legal action that would strip these socialists or even socialist groups from being able to exercise their essential and enumerated right…”

      That’s an old an (as far as I can tell) insoluble problem. As the classic exchange from Man for All Seasons goes:

      Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
      More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
      More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Phil, your post was right on point, but I’m afraid it may go over most folks heads.

        “Free-market capitalism is what built the firearms industry in this country.”

        I must disagree with this particular statement, there’s not much in America that was built on true free market capitalism, especially the arms manufacturers.

        All the major firearms manufacturers in the United States were and are built on government contracts, socialized defense spending from the taxpayers.

        And as many investigations have shown, government contracts are hardly ever based on merit or economy, but are usually awarded through the pay off of bribes and corruption.

        Remember those wonderful no bid Halliburton contracts and the $50 hamburgers?
        It is just another form of crony capitalism, with the taxpayers paying the tab to develop the so-called free market capitalist society.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          There never has been “pure” free-market capitalism, any more than there has been pure socialism or communism. Human nature isn’t pure like that.

          However, what we had in this nation’s first 130 years was probably the closest anyone has ever come, and the world is objectively better for it. Look at both the purest and weakest examples of each ideal and then tell me which one you’d rather have. The choice is stark.

          To paraphrase Winston Churchill, a free market system is the worst…except for all the alternatives.

        2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          Various government programs and services is in no way socialism. You are a fine example of why so many people say they approve of it. They are using an erroneous definition of it. “Anything Government “ is not the definition of socialism

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Isn’t it funny how those that bemoan welfare for individuals are more than happy for subsidies to the paid to corporations (ie: corporate welfare).

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          southern cross
          You are so correct!

  9. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Socialism and 2A rights are not compatible, it’s no more complicated than that.

    What these people fail to remember (or willfully ignore) is that the proletariat was only allowed to be armed while they were doing the dirty work for the Lenin’s and Mao’s of the time. Once the revolution was secured, they were confiscated. It’s cute how these people think that the same thing won’t happen again.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      “Socialism and 2A rights are not compatible, it’s no more complicated than that.”

      They could be in theory, but never in practice. Socialism doesn’t work in the real world because it runs counter to some of the most basic scientific laws of human (and, more generally animal) behavior. Thus, while you can sucker people into voting for socialism, to sustain it requires brute force. And no, 2A rights are not compatible with ridged authoritarianism. Marx said there should be a rifle in every worker’s house. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pot Pot, and Castro didn’t agree.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        I agree with your assessment. However, Marx would probably disagree, too, if the rifles were pointed at him.

    2. avatar Napresto says:

      The relationship I’ve always heard between socialism and firearms goes something like this: “The problem with socialism is that you can vote your way into it, but you have to shoot your way out of it.”

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Czechoslovakia begs to differ. See velvet revolution.

  10. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    I would rather allow them to speak in whatever forum them want to speak, and I applaud TTAG for offering to publish a statement from the organization. First, because they should be able to express their ideas. But also because the more Americans hear the undisguised, undiluted socialist message the better.

    But I understand NSSF. The sentence “the means of production won’t seize themselves” is direct advocacy for armed robbery. They aren’t talking about arming themselves to prevent others from imposing their will by force (though they might say they feel threatened). They are talking about arming themselves to impose their will on others. There’s a huge difference between “leave me alone or else” and “give me all you own and live exactly how I believe you should or else.”

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      ^This^

  11. avatar Swarf says:

    Social Democracy is not Socialism, something all sides should get straight.

    Neither of those are Communism, something the SRA seems confused about.

    But, technicalities aside, the SRA are fuckwits who are getting off on tweaking the “OMG soshulims!” crowd just as much as Fox News enjoys contributing to the destruction of the nation for the sake of “stickin’ it to the libs”

    They all suck.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Muh’ not real socialism…

      This is the kind of asshattery that leads VOX to claim that “nationalist socialism” hasn’t been tried before.

      https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20696543/national-conservatism-conference-2019-trump

      1. avatar jsled says:

        Nowhere is such a claim made in that article, but you seem to have a serious problem with understanding things, so I understand why you might be confused.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Reading is fundamental.

          “It’s theoretically possible to have a liberal nationalism, even a socialist nationalism, that welcomes foreigners interested in joining the nation’s ranks.”

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          @Serge: I don’t read Vox for the same reason I wouldn’t take hits off the tailpipe of a running bus, but it’s more than theoretical that you can have a liberal (as in, supportive of individual freedom) nationalism in which foreigners are welcomed. That’s the USA. But I’m guess that’s not what Vox means by “liberal.”

      2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        They still teach the second world war in school right? Just making sure I am reading this correctly to see if gaslighting or stupid is involved in the article.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Support ’em all you want TTAG…I don’t support communist scum. Or socialists. Or muslims. Or dims. Or ANYONE who votes to take my 2A right’s!

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah, the “big tent” brigade will be inviting ISIS in next due to their strong pro-private gun ownership stance.

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        John Adams said it best about our Constitution…

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        I don’t support the 2A for commies or socialists….TTAG is wrong.

        https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045

        1. avatar Jon says:

          The 2A does not allow rights or grant rights. It recognizes God given rights. Whether or not or how people choose to use those rights is up to them. The people can be as armed as they want to me. When they begin actively forcing others with firearms (or any tool) to comply with their beliefs/rituals is when they forfeit their God given right of possessing and using that tool.

  13. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Lol they are just insignificant clowns. There is a guy I work with that preaches socialism and guess what? He’s the weakest, laziest, and slowest guy in the entire company lol.

    Nothing more than pathetic wimps. The people that join these socialist clubs are skinny little hipsters who cant even hold a real job, and they call themselves “the working class” hahaha

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      It’s a stone cold bitch when they outnumber you in the polls though.

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        This is exactly why a constitutionally chartered govt of enumerated, limited powers tends to work better than unlimited, direct democracy.

        And the down-state dweeb-mob in NYS only really exists to give cover to the hereditary patronage n enforcement thug-ocracy out of the administrative capitol.

        It sounds good, but in practice beware the thugs.

        Our workers’ party friends are a bit more overt: gonna take control by force, for the workers. Sounds good until you find out anybody who works without callouses doesn’t count (Cambodia), anybody who owns their own cow doesn’t count (Sovier Kulaks), the primary “work” ends up being snitching, which somehow pays the snitches differently n more (E Germany. I mean the latter-day E U.), if yr not in govt, no.soup for you (Venezuela), and right thinking folk get to go riot on Western campuses, while the no-juiced in get sent to prison provinces (China.)

        Once you start “winning by force” whoever has the most force wins.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Does it surprise enyone that the weakest, laziest, and slowest root for socialism? They have most to gain if everything is stolen from the strong, industrious, smart, fast by the government and then rationed around to all, according to their needs. Maybe the lazy guy won’t be much better off in socialism (very likely he will do worse), but at least everyone around him will be equally miserable.

  14. avatar Dan W. says:

    When you try to be fair and your enemies try to kill you, you lose.

  15. avatar daveinwyo says:

    I really don’t give a flying F. what the little commie wannabe bastards think or want.
    If they can pass a background check, more power to ’em.
    As soon as the little s..ts start waving their guns in my face in a threatening manner I will “stand my ground”.
    Let’s see how the little pukes feel about getting some return fire.
    antifa should be listed as a domestic terrorist org. As such, any one of them caught with a firearm should go to jail and any and all property confiscated. If it turns out to be a so called professor/teacher, no job. If caught teaching this BS, loss of job and charged with sedition. Then drafted and used as mine/IED detectors*.
    I guess that makes me “intolerant”, but I didn’t serve my country just to have these s..ts try and steal it.
    * Fingers in ears, stomping on the ground , at 3 meter intervals, on line abreast 2 ranks deep. Deployed till end of conflict. If killed, no funeral, no pine box. Cremated on the spot ashes mixed with the dust.

  16. avatar tdiinva says:

    When Socialists say “arm the workers” they mean “arm the party members.” They are not a gun rights group in the true meaning of the term. They are willing to exploit the right to bear arms to facilitate the siezure of power. Once in power they disarm all non party members. NSSF was right to refuse them membership and while individuals are free to own firearms their organization is an enemy of the people’s right to keep and bear arms

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Indeed, they promote violent revolution more than anything close to gun rights. Add in the incompatibility with any industry trade group on economic issues…”get the fuck out” is more than these people deserved from NSSF.

      They should’ve kept their application fee since property can’t be privately owned, lol

  17. avatar Dude says:

    “poll found that a majority of millennials prefer socialism to capitalism, with the latter becoming less popular every year”

    Liberals are just conservatives that have yet to grow up.

  18. avatar Hank says:

    Socialism will come and go. The funniest part of the “young” wave of socialism is they all think they’re on the cutting edge of some new, powerful wave that’s just going to take the country by storm and deliver an unending utopia.

    There’s nothing new, or lasting about socialism. Even if they get their wish, and impose their socialist dream state, they’ll live to see its end, just like every single socialist country in history. It’ll collapse before their eyes, or, much more horrifically, evolve into a form of fascism like China did. My guess is they eventually will get their socialist state here, but, the outcome will generate such a backlash America will end up a hyper capitalist reactionary state, similar as to what happened in Russia.

    History never ends, and that’s the ultimate problem with socialism. It can’t last long mathematically. When I see these neosocialists I can’t help but think “there’s nothing new under the sun,”. They’re simply the next wave of a long line of people that were so firm in their convictions yet so wrong in reality, and they’ll learn just like every group like them has. Or I could put it like this: One day there will be no more frontier, and then men like you will go too.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is something akin to tribalism or at most feudalism. Practical socialism is basically feudalism but on a larger scale due to modern communication & industrial technology. Nothing new, indeed.

      The welfare states claiming to be socialist are misusing the term, in an effort to make the future inevitable economic crackdowns resulting from unsustainable welfare spending look like a continuation of existing policy instead of the culmination of their hard work. This “soft socialism” isn’t so much a system of government or economy, as a way to crash out a healthy capitalist society, leaving nothing but autocratic rule to take its place. Nothing new, indeed.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Socialism will come and go. And it will leave millions of dead bodies in its wake.

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    “The means of production won’t seize themselves”
    Yeah, you need socialists running things in order for an economy to completely seize up.

    Also, that bit of ‘marketing’ can be construed as either a threat or advocacy of illegal activity (theft), even without the crude Nork-like depiction of a firearm. I don’t think NSSF lets (actual) neo-Nazi or Klan orgs which advocate violence operate booths at SHOT, either.

  20. avatar Marcus says:

    It’s a “gun rights” organization that fights for the people to carry weapons so long as this “people” is the same as the People’s Liberation Army.

  21. avatar Enuf says:

    The “Socialism” of Marx, Lenin, the former Soviet Union and the current idiot in Venezuela is evil, always self destructing in bloody and messy ends. I see on the SRA’s website they are using language and symbolism similar to this concept of “Socialism”. They do not plainly state their beliefs, but what is there is enough to see them as Anti-American.

    So, no thank you very much to the SRA. I’m fine with liberals owning gns, but Marxists? Um, no, please leave.

  22. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Sure, they have the right to own firearms (at least in the USA). They also have the right to be targets.

  23. avatar Texican says:

    The next time I talk with anyone espousing socialism I’ll ask them how they like their dog or cat cooked. Like in Venezuela! Or which tread do you prefer to be run over with; boot, tire or tank? Probably be a short convo!

    1. avatar 80D says:

      Q: What did socialists use for light before candles?

      A: Electricity.

  24. avatar Mjd says:

    Someone once said ” Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

  25. avatar User1 says:

    Socialist programs are popular with both sides of American politics. If you explain where socialism goes as a natural progression, the average person will reject it. However, people like “free” stuff and they are greedy. So they will still call for some socialism and pretend like it isn’t socialism. That is how it always starts — just a little socialism to provide roads, police, military, schools, health care, unemployment, etc. It’s the same thing with gun control.

    Most gun owners likely support some level of socialism. The right wing gun owners want our current controlled capitalism [crony capitalism] that provides socialism/money for the rich/corporation… The left wing gun owners want socialism entirely focused on the people over the corporation/rich. Even FOX news’ own polling says Republicans support socialist taxation of the rich to provide social services for the people.

    Almost everyone I know supports socialism to an extent. They support forced confiscation of private property to provide social programs to the people. They support government controlling the market through regulations. They want government programs to provide for them and reduce their living expenses. This is all they have ever known living in modern America and they have been taught at school it’s the ideal, thus they continue to advocate for Democratic socialism. They think taxing income of individuals is legal and morally okay. They don’t believe in returning to a currency that actually has value because they want their socialism without getting a bill in the mail.

    I argue a lot with Republicans about moving away from socialism instead of towards it. They freak out and say, “Who is going to build the roads? Who is going to police the streets? Who is going to invade other countries to keep us safe at home? Who is going to pay for their kids schooling? Who is going to give them health care when they are old? Who is going to put out the fires?” They are fine with a fiat currency and corporations being defined as people. They say it’s unrealistic to return America to what the founders attended it to be and how it actually was for most of the country’s history. They argue that the income tax is necessary and if we were to get rid of it we should impose a flat tax instead of no tax.

    The only people I know that argue for genuine free market capitalism and voluntary government are anarchists/voluntarists. Everyone else thinks a non compulsory system is stupid because people are hoarders and won’t provide for others.

    The average person believes taxation through armed force is necessary for a society to function. They actually think people won’t pay for things they want or need without the government putting a gun to their head.

    Democrats and Republicans are stuck in an argument about corporatism versus communism. It’s a super old European debate. It’s a pointless argument because we shouldn’t have either if we want liberty and justice for all. That debate is truly about how much socialism and violence we should have. We shouldn’t even be thinking like that anymore. No more tyranny and no more violence is the ideal we should be working towards.

    We shouldn’t settle for and entrench ourselves in old world systems. When you do, we inevitably get corruption and violence, it’s only a matter of time. History has shown this. America has become part of that history; the experiment has failed. To retain our liberties we need to institute a new and better form of government.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Capitalism can be bad or good, it depends on how it’s used. Currently America is giving capitalism a bad name by setting it up to benefit the corporations at the expense of the people. The U.S. likes to meddle with the markets and create artificial successes. They steal wealth from the people to bail out the corporations. They setup rules/environment to give unfair advantages to big businesses.

      “Capitalism” isn’t necessarily a good word, it’s only good when you put free market in front.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Excellent post! I completely agree.

    3. avatar anonymous says:

      The only people I know that argue for genuine free market capitalism and voluntary government are anarchists/voluntarists. Everyone else thinks a non compulsory system is stupid because people are hoarders and won’t provide for others.

      I agree with this. This was a recent addition to my ideas a couple years ago when Ben Shapiro was talking about charity and Jordan Peterson was talking about responsibility. They are one in the same. To partake in charity is to take responsbility for others. How much responsbility should you take on? The most you possibly can. Now take this and extract it to a economic /government system:

      Imagine there was zero tax. But instead of paying tax, you donated to maintain roads, and build other roads and donated to whatever services you wanted for yourself, or others.

      In a proper system, your neighbor shouldn’t have to feel entitled to government money because they were impoverished. All while your government robbed you at gun point to give money to them. The proper system, is for you, the individual, living a fruitful life, to walk to your neighbors house, put your arm around their shoulders supporting their crying face, and give them some food, and perhaps a job. In this model, you have taken responsibility for them. In this model, there is an emotional connection between you, the giver of support, and them, accepting support, rather than a government model where the accepter of support never sees a face from where the money came from and has no emotional connection to the giver.
      In this model, the one accepting support is less likely to ask for support they don’t need because they have to look at that persons face, they have to see the person that labors on their behalf.

      Now imagine a system were roads are built by funding from the individuals specifically in that community and only by donations. If they don’t donate, they don’t get a road. And those that won’t use them, don’t have to donate. So there is no government force.

      Long story short, it’s better for people to voluntarily take responsibility than have the government steal your money for causes that others voted to take from you.

  26. avatar DaveP. says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it here.
    Don’t arm Socialists, don’t train Socialists, don’t help them get guns in any way. And yes, if they apologize for Socialism they’re Socialists no matter what they call themselves.
    First, if you think you’ll be making a pro-2nd voter out of them, you’ll be wrong. They’ll always find an excuse to vote for Socialist candidates who want to eliminate the Second… ‘for the greater good’.
    Second, if it comes down to actual violence- and both sides think it will- don’t think for a second your Socialist buddy will be on your side. He serves something greater than personal loyalty- he serves The People, you know.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Isn’t America helping out commies in the middle east to kill ISIS? Isn’t Trump trying to unite with Russia to kill ISIS? Doesn’t America send jobs to communist countries? Do American gun owners buy guns from communist leaning countries thereby funding their cause? Don’t we send foreign aid to socialist countries? Didn’t America help install socialists into many governments around the world? Hasn’t the U.S. been working on transitioning their public schools to a communist education system?

      I’m confused.

      1. avatar Enuf says:

        No.
        No.
        Yes, that’s American “I CAN BECAUSE I WANNA!!!” at play.
        Yes, that’s Capitalism for ya!
        No.
        No.

        Hope this helped.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          Apparently you don’t follow much politics and history.

          America does support communist Muslim groups in the middle east and Trump wanted to work with the Russians to defeat ISIS.

          It’s in the history books that America has overthrown governments and put in some socialist puppet.

          America sends a lot of “aid” to socialist countries. Heck, sending the people’s money to other countries is a socialist act itself.

          You should read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America to see how the government is teaching Americans to become communists. How else does a kid come out of public high school wanting “down with America” and more socialism to replace it. It’s something like 60% of them want socialism or think it’s a good idea. That came from somewhere.

      2. avatar DaveP. says:

        “I’m confused.”

        That’s obvious. You’re just not tall enough for this ride.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Maybe you weren’t around in 1991 but FYI Russia stopped being Communist then. Putin may be a Ruusian autocrat but he is anti-communist as Reagan.

  27. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I took the time to poke around in the SRA website. Interesting to note that in the “About” section, they do not list a mailing or physical address, nor do they list the full names of their “Central Committee”. That ought to tell people what these traitors are really all about.

    1. avatar Jon says:

      They provide a map with links to the facebook accounts of their local chapters throughout the country. A brief scroll through any of these pages will give you a pretty good idea of what they endorse. They keep local chapters only. My guess is that organization comes through private meetings whose invitations are spread through facebook private messaging.

      They are good at keeping secrets.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      I heard we don’t have a full list of the BoDs for the NRA nor their current bylaws?

      Commie see, commie do.

  28. avatar Greasecookie says:

    Thanks for opening my eyes, I plan to immediately destroy all my socialist firearms, i.e., any manufactured in a national armory. Which is a bummer, because I really liked the Garand and the 1903. I am somewhat ambivalent about the MAS and the Mauser’s.

  29. avatar Alison says:

    Oh! The guys that when I looked in to them said I was racist against Mexicans, and said I wasn’t Hispanic enough because one of my grandparents was from Mexico? Totally nonjudgmental people… Right… Good. They need to be shunned everywhere as far as I am concerned. They already are following the foot steps of their fancrush the old Soviet Union.

  30. From the SRA website:
    “If you are any of the following: working class, progressive, anarchist, socialist, communist, eco-warrior, animal liberator, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, PoC, LGBTQ+, or anyone else who is interested in learning about firearms and modern self defense — YOU are invited to join the Socialist Rifle Association today!”
    I’m anti racist, anti fascist and working class do you think they would welcome me?

  31. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Not that long ago the SRA would be labeled an un-American group and given the cold shoulder and FBI scrutiny that they deserve.

  32. avatar User1 says:

    Can someone remind me of what the US government did to American industry during the world war?

    1. avatar Big E says:

      Those too stupid to learn from history, repeat it.

      Let’s not repeat our mistakes. Socialism is evil.

  33. avatar George Washington says:

    Nothing wrong with a “workers Paradise”…. Whatever THAT is ….
    I agree, the historical ideas of socialism obviously do not work…. BUT this current financial system sucks for poor people..
    There are a handful of industries the government should control and disperse equally…
    The healthcare industry isn’t one of them….
    The fact that some extremely wealthy people live the way they do, while the working class suffers is ABSOLUTE HORSE SHIT…. AND IT’S TIME TO START CHANGING THINGS TO FAVOR EVERYONE EQUALLY!1
    IT’S TIME TO BRING THE BOURGEOISIE DOWN A NOTCH…JS 😉

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Lets start changing things by disabling caps lock keys.

    2. avatar Big E says:

      George you make some accurate observations, but come to the wrong conclusions. The reason the “system” is screwed up is because of the govt. Winners and losers should be determined by merit and individuals have to suffer consequences or reap rewards for their actions. The current crony system has the govt picking winners and losers. What we need is LESS govt in everything. The govt should protect rights (GUNS!) enforce contracts and mostly get out of the way and shut up. The fact that people are poor isn’t a Govt issue. The fact that companies get preference due to political favoritism should be.

    3. avatar Someone says:

      Any financial system sucks for poor people.
      Socialism just makes sure that everyone is poor. Or dead.

  34. avatar " keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    That’s bullsht. I don’t care who you are. In my world if you like gunms your one of me. I don’t like gays, and the rest of the alphabet, dems ,repubs, socialist, whatever,but if they wanna go shooting and having a good time. I’m on board whomever you are. ., , , , So much hate humans have

  35. avatar GS650G says:

    As a productive member of society I would be in their cross hairs. They can go seize themselves.

  36. avatar Nanashi says:

    “what the NSSF stands for”

    Red flag laws? Bump stock bans?

  37. avatar sound awake says:

    feel good story of the day

  38. avatar Sian says:

    The NSSF is a trade organization, for businesses operating within the firearms industry.

    The incompatibility with socialism is obvious.

  39. avatar enuf says:

    It does appear the NSSF was exactly right in booting the SRA out on its ass.

    There are fundamentally two completely different concepts that both go by the same name of “Socialism”.

    The SRA appears to be the evil type. Based on the mind rot of Karl Marx. Socialism as an evolutionary Step to Communism. Central planning and control of all means of production and distribution. The first failure always arises right there, too many people do not like the idea of being centrally controlled. They have that natural human desire to follow their own path, seek their own fortune, fix cars on the side of the house and sell veggies from their garden, or whatever. Instantly they are counter-revolutionaries and the mind rotted fuckwits who follow Marx and Lenin promptly turn to secret police, disappearances, Gulags, instant trials, Chekist executioners, all that fun Soviet stuff. Every attempt at a Marxist Socialist system instantly self-corrupts and becomes brutal authoritarianism or totalitarianism. In this way the Marxist Socialists are only Socialist in their first fleeting moments. In all the violence, they take but those moments to abandon their lofty utopian goals to become murderous monsters.

    I suspect the SRA is one of those little squealing piglet farms who have neglected to learn history’s many harsh lessons. If I am wrong, they may publish verifiable facts to prove me so and I will not apologize for my insult to them. They lay the ground for, they should have thought things out better.

    On the other hand there is an entirely unrelated concept that also uses the title of “Socialism”. This is a dramatic error in judgment, considering the above stated reasons for all decent folk having a hard time with the term.

    This other concept is simply that The People have the right if they so choose to require of government certain services and protections paid for with their taxes. Because it is a set of “Social Concerns” or benefits to common society, they call it “Socialism”. As in mandating health insurance or a safety net for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed.

    The USA has the largest population living under Socialist Health Care. The combined populations of the VA and Medicare systems are as large as the entire population of the UK and expected to grow by tens of millions in the next decade. .

    The many States with their Unemployment programs are running Socialist programs.

    The many protective laws against what are seen as bad practices of business are Socialist. Food and drug safety. Industrial safety. Financial regulation of massive banks, stock markets, etc.

    This second set of “Socialist” concepts has zero to do with Marxist Socialism and was invented by Capitalists in late 19th Century Germany. Accepted into the USA only in bits and pieces and in some more vital areas only as money making schemes, which was self defeating if delivering health care was the point of the thing.

    So anyway, when all is said and done, the Socialist Rifle Association appears to b e Socialist, which is bad,

    On the other hand, if the SRA were Socialist instead of being Socialist, well then they could be a good thing.

    I do hope this clears up some confusion.

    Especially for Bernie, who thinks himself a Socialist, but he isn’t really. He’s something else.

  40. avatar Big E says:

    I advocate guns for people. Socialists/Communists are not people, therefore I do not support guns for Socialists.

    Socialists (aka Communists) deserve the same thing that their evil ideology has foisted on 100’s of millions over the last 100+ yrs. Misery and extermination.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Marxist Socialists are not “aka Communists”. There important differences which at times have been a factor in conflict between self described Socialist paradises and self described Communist ones. The first is a stepping stone, the evolutionary path to the second thing. Under Marx that is, who supported the people’s right to be armed to the teeth, including cannon.

      They are all people, but people with very terrible ideas about creating a utopian society. There was a lot that shit for brains navel gazing going around among 19th Century Deep Thinkers.

      I do not dehumanize them in my thinking because to fight your enemy you must know as much about them as possible.

      Okay so maybe not all of us need to do that.

      But more is better than fewer.

  41. avatar dwest says:

    The ideology of the SRA is incompatible with the cornerstone of the Founding Documents. Socialism can eat a double-decker sh!tsandwich.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Of Marxist Socialism, couldn’t agree more. Evil, anti-Freedom, Anti-American.

  42. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The Far Right finds it unfathomable that the Far Left owns firearms and advocates owning them. This is because the Far Right know as much about history as they do about Global Warming which is zero. I might remind the Far Right that in 1917 the Far Right lost to the Socialists Red Army and yes they did indeed use guns to win their war against Imperialist Capitalvania.

    Today liberals are arming themselves especially if they are minorities. Under Herr Drumpf and his Nazi storm trooper glazed eyed followers the Left know that they are indeed in extreme danger. The Far Right wants a dictatorship and wants to destroy all forms of democracy and they want a Protestant Christian Caliphate, they also want to strip away the rights of all minorities both in regards to voting, marriage, owning property, freedom to practice their religion, sexual practices, rights to abortion and their right to freedom of speech.

    I might add the Left and all Minorities know that hate groups have exploded under Herr Drump and his Far Right Wing Nazi followers just as it did under Hitler and his Nazi Thugs. Their philosophy and hatreds are lock step with the Hitler Nazis. There is no difference they are one and the same.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The extremes of the two political ideologies that Americans are generally aware of are both bad news. Pretending one extreme is a heavenly utopia and the other extreme the source of all the world’s troubles is dishonest, ignorant and just plain flat out a lie.

      Also not all Socialists are your brand. There are at least two forms and they are worlds apart in ideology.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      The Far Right finds it unfathomable that the Far Left owns firearms and advocates owning them.

      Not really. We’ve been talking about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al, and now Maduro, for years.

      This is because the Far Right know as much about history as they do about Global Warming which is zero. I might remind the Far Right that in 1917 the Far Right lost to the Socialists Red Army and yes they did indeed use guns to win their war against Imperialist Capitalvania.

      LOL. On both the far right and the far left, the public typically isn’t allowed to own guns. And the Socialists didn’t want the populace owning guns either. Of course, as collectives, fighting on the basis of a collective, their militaries get guns. Obviously. Your attitude seems to suggest that we support the concept of what you perceive to be far right. Which is doubtful, because your label of “far right” doesn’t suggest any precisely and your assumption about us is probably also heavily skewed.

      Today liberals are arming themselves especially if they are minorities.

      We have been advocating this for years at TTAG. Who would have ever thought that scary Trump, the host of the celebrity apprentice (LOL) would cause you guys to peek outside your “my government knows what is best for me” bubble? But as socialists, maybe they haven’t gotten out of that bubble after all.

      Under Herr Drumpf and his Nazi storm trooper glazed eyed followers the Left know that they are indeed in extreme danger.

      What extreme danger? I thought Trump was an incompetent inarticulate retard. Did he now become the brilliant villain? Which is it?

      The Far Right wants a dictatorship and wants to destroy all forms of democracy and they want a Protestant Christian Caliphate, they also want to strip away the rights of all minorities both in regards to voting, marriage, owning property, freedom to practice their religion, sexual practices, rights to abortion and their right to freedom of speech.

      Republicans, (moderate right), and libertarians (further right), never wanted a dictatorship to my knowledge. Ever. Complaining about ever increasing government power was our modus operandi. Which is why we advocate for very very small government, limited powers, equal rights, and respect for the constitution, which is actually the opposite of what socialism is about.

      The Far Right wants a dictatorship…

      Definitely not.

      …and wants to destroy all forms of democracy…

      We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Unfortunately, the democratic method for determining elections is the best anyone has come up with. So that’s what we have. If anything, the democratic method by design, marginalizes minorities. (Because the majority elects). But since it is the best we have for elections at the moment, destroying it would be a bad idea.

      …and they want a Protestant Christian Caliphate…

      I don’t know what is meant by this, but the answer is no. The problem is, we are too diverse. Back in the day, everyone had the same morals, and those morals, even if they were atheist, derived from the bible. Things like the golden rule, not being rapey, not stealing peoples stuff, and even separation of church and state themselves, were all from the bible. Back then, you didn’t have to explicitly believe in God in order to also acknowledge that the lessons of the bible had value. But yes, when you get a populace that is very different, and desires to “force” their way on the remainder of the populace (such was socialism) rather than free market (key word “free”) then we get extremely divided on issues. Hopefully not to the point of violence.

      …they also want to strip away the rights of all minorities…

      Gun owners are a minority. Disagree with that.

      …both in regards to voting

      No.

      …marriage…

      No.

      But there is a debate on what marriage is. From the beginning of time up until now marriage was a man and woman. Now this has turned into a man and a dog. A man and a man. A woman and woman. A man and a person that identifies as a 6 year old girl, a woman and a man that identifies as a sexless alien. A genderless dragon and a male biker.

      The reason it has always been a man and woman, is because a man and woman are required to procreate. And and man and woman and child is a “family unit.”

      …owning property…

      Absolutely not.

      …freedom to practice their religion

      I would say this is more supported on the right than the left.

      … sexual practices…

      Nobody cares what you are doing behind closed doors. That said, it’s super gross to me. And you’re not going to change that opinion.

      … rights to abortion…

      Well there is a debate about this. And it mostly revolves around the idea that it is better to not produce a life (example abstinence) , than to produce a life and then murder it. It’s about morals. And abortion has morality issues. And yeah, the saving of lives of infants and fetuses are more on the right than the left.

      … and their right to freedom of speech…

      This is definitely supported more on the right than the left. With the left trying to control your thoughts and legislating things you must say. (like pronoun usage for trannies). This is a privilege being extended to them that even heterosexuals (the overwhelming mass majority of the populace) aren’t provided (If you are a straight white male and someone calls you a girl – the jokester won’t get arrested).

      I might add the Left and all Minorities know that hate groups have exploded under Herr Drump and his Far Right Wing Nazi followers just as it did under Hitler and his Nazi Thugs.

      I think you are confused. Hate groups have exploded in the left under Trump. They terrorize the streets and assault senior citizens while blocking the road. They assault unarmed journalists. They even cover their faces because they know that society doesn’t support what they are doing.

      Their philosophy and hatreds are lock step with the Hitler Nazis. There is no difference they are one and the same.

      Uh… no. The nazi’s were extremely violent and exterminated people. Right now, all the violence is on the left. There is zero right-wing violence right now. And if you think of mentioning the border, I can just say that those people aren’t being exterminated, they went there voluntarily, and they are happy to be there, because they know their chance to get into the US is higher than usual because of endless democrat party pressure to import them for votes.

      So yeah, we have a few disagreements (mostly disagreement). But can you point to the far right as you have depicted above? Where are they? Are they walking in the street? If you are talking about the retarded tiki torch squad in charlottesville that makes up 0.00000008% of the population, then I think your entire statement is overblown.

      You seem to be radicalized and ready to fight against an enemy that doesn’t seem to exist. Hopefully, as a approaching violence ideologue, you don’t paint every Trump supporter as the target of your ideology, or you might because the thing you describe above.

  43. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    ++++++++++++++Quote from Dude:
    “poll found that a majority of millennials prefer socialism to capitalism, with the latter becoming less popular every year”++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Eric Zuesse

    Most Americans want Obamacare to be replaced by what Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes and what both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump oppose: “Replacing the ACA [Affordable Care Act — Obamacare] with a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.” That’s 58% of Americans in the survey. Only 37% were opposed. 5% had “No opinion.”

    Clinton proposes to build upon Obama’s ACA, but 51% in this Gallup survey say they want it repealed; only 45% want it to continue in any form (other than, presumably, socialized medicine, which, as was just noted, 58% of Americans want). Consequently, one of the, if not the, main, reason(s), why Americans want ACA repealed, is in order to obtain socialized healthcare (a possibility that candidate Obama had promised as a possibility in his ‘public option’, which he never even tried to include in his actual healthcare law, the ACA).

    Donald Trump proposes to repeal ACA and simply go back to the old system, but in a form which enables all insurers to provide plans in all states.

    On 19 August 2008, shortly after Obama had won the Democratic Presidential nomination, the Wall Street Journal bannered “Obama Touts Single-Payer System for Health Care,” and reported: “‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,’ Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy,” which was held as a campaign-event in Albuquerque. This statement by Obama was bold; he was at that time appealing for votes not just in a Democratic primary, but now in the general Presidential race, where he had to appeal not merely to liberals, but to a broader cross-section of voters. But he also promised there a ‘public option’ to be included in his plan, and yet even that promise was abandoned by him the very moment he entered the White House — he never pushed for it, and he selected Max Baucus in the Senate to draft his plan: Baucus was firmly opposed to including any “public option”; that’s one of the reasons why Obama picked him.

    Britain’s Independent offered the scientific evidence about this policy-issue, when it bannered, on 15 August 2009, “The Brutal Truth About America’s Healthcare,” and presented actual statistics from WHO and OECD in 2009:

    Health spending as share of GDP: US 16%; UK 8.4%

    Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare): US 45%; UK 82%.

    Per-capita healthcare spending [including both public & private]: US $7,290; UK $2,992.

    Practising physicians per 1,000 people: US: 2.4; UK 2.5.

    Nurses per 1,000 people: US 10.6; UK 10.0.

    Acute care hospital beds per 1,000 people: US 2.7; UK 2.6.

    Life expectancy: US 78; UK 80.

    Infant mortality per 1,000 live births: US 6.7; UK 4.8.

    On 26 October 2009, Reuters headlined “Healthcare System Wastes Up To $800 Billion a Year,” and reported: “The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies,” such as “fraud,” “duplicate tests,” and “redundant paperwork.” Moreover, “The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada [which has comprehensive socialized health insurance].” And yet Republicans were accusing the new Democratic President of threatening to bankrupt the country by pressing to change the U.S. system of health insurance; and opinion polls showed that lots of Americans were terrified of such change.

    Just a week later, The New York Times bannered on November 5th, “Costs Surge for Medical Devices, but Benefits Are Opaque,” and Barry Meier reported how the major medical device manufacturers had blocked an attempt by the Federal Government to measure the effectiveness of stents, artificial hips, and other medical devices; and how these manufacturers managed to achieve phenomenal profit margins, ranging from a low of 23% to a high of 30%: the combination of kickbacks to doctors, plus a lack of objective measures of effectiveness, was the “invisible hand” at work — Adam Smith’s economics in the real world, where the top pickpockets are actually the aristocracy. (Smith’s patron happened to be the Duke of Buccleuch — Henry Scott.)

    Reuters headlined on 14 March 2012, “Factbox: Healthcare by the Numbers,” and reported the latest “Health at a Glance 2011 – OECD Indicators.” The U.S was “1st in Spending … 17.9 percent of U.S. annual gross domestic product, or $8,402” per person. Though we had the highest medical costs, the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of healthcare delivered: 25th in Preventing Death from Heart Disease, 27th in Life Expectancy, 29th in Number of Practicing Doctors (per 1,000 population), 29th in Doctor Consultations, 30th in Hospital Beds, 30th in Medical Graduates, 31st in Health Coverage (insurance), 31st in Infant Mortality, and 31st in Preventing Premature Death.

    In other words: The U.S. paid the most, but got the least. And it’s true even now, three years after the ACA went into effect.

    A CBS/NYT poll taken 4-7 December 2014 asked “Would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?” 50% opposed it; only 43% favored it then.

    But, a year later, on 1-7 December 2015, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked “Now, please tell me if you favor or oppose having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all.” And 58% favored that; only 34% opposed it.

    The wording of such polls is important, because many Americans, especially older ones, have been taught and deeply ingrained to think that the word “socialist” means “communist,” and even some who know that many countries in Europe are democratic socialist nations and aren’t at all communist, retain that trained negative mental association, which was promulgated by the U.S. aristocracy during the Cold War but was never true: democratic socialists were just as opposed to communism as were democratic capitalists. The distinction isn’t between communism versus capitalism but between democracy versus dictatorship (rule by an aristocracy). It was always American propaganda. The Kaiser poll avoided that propaganda-indoctrination, by using the phrase “Medicare-for-all.”

    In fact, the same CBS/NYT poll taken 4-7 December 2014 had also asked “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?” And, 59% said yes, only 34% said no. Moreover, this question had a history in that poll: the question had actually been asked nine times in 2009 (while Obamacare was being drafted), and the percentages favoring that option ranged between 60% at the low end to 72% at the high end, who wanted it; so, the only reason why President Obama assigned his Obamacare to be drawn up by Max Baucus (instead of to Ted Kennedy who wanted to draft it in his committee and who strongly favored the public option, which Baucus strongly opposed) is that Obama had been lying throughout his 2008 campaign, when he said he would include a public option in his plan. Hillary Clinton now is likewise promising to include a public option, so as to gain votes.

    It’s not because the U.S. is a democracy that the U.S. is the only developed country that lacks healthcare as a right, not merely as a privilege for those who are healthy or otherwise can pay for the healthcare they need in order to be productive citizens. It’s instead because the U.S. isn’t a democracy, that only the U.S. builds its healthcare system upon the private-profit and private-charity model. Like the study that’s linked-to there shows (based upon a detailed analysis of 1,779 public-policy issues since 1980), “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” The study found that the only influence the public has is when parts of what a public majority want, get taken up by this or that wing of the oligarchy, which then hires lobbyists and politicians, to get it passed into law, because they’ve figured out some way they can personally profit from it. At least on healthcare, it’s extremely inefficient, from the standpoint of providing maximum benefit to the public at a minimum cost to the public.

    This is not opinion, it is fact; it is news-reporting not news-commentary: Basically, the privatized system rips off the public for the benefit of the elite, at least on healthcare, if not perhaps also on education and other products and services that are essential in order to be able to have a maximally productive economy.

    On 9 February 2016, CNN headlined, “Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans”, and reported, “‘it seems staggering that we get two fewer years of life just for living here,” said Andrew Fenelon, a senior service fellow at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and senior author of the study, which was published on Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”

    Because the U.S. is falling behind in those types of products and services, the U.S. is declining. “Nationwide, the median income of U.S. households in 2014 stood at 8% less than in 1999, a reminder that the economy has yet to fully recover from the effects of the Great Recession of 2007-09. The decline was pervasive, with median incomes falling in 190 of 229 metropolitan areas examined.” That’s from a study released by the Pew Research Center, on 11 May 2016, which was titled, “America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.” The sub-title was “The middle class lost ground in nearly nine-in-ten U.S. metropolitan areas examined.”

    —————

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Got your message last night Vlad. You troll this one and I’ll troll the other one.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      But, a year later, on 1-7 December 2015, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked “Now, please tell me if you favor or oppose having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all.” And 58% favored that; only 34% opposed it.

      That’s because they used the magic word “medicare” and all the stupid baby boomers jumped on board (because they are receiving medicare).

    3. avatar anonymous says:

      which was promulgated by the U.S. aristocracy during the Cold War but was never true: democratic socialists were just as opposed to communism as were democratic capitalists. The distinction isn’t between communism versus capitalism but between democracy versus dictatorship (rule by an aristocracy). It was always American propaganda.

      Disagree. Democratic socialism is the same as aristocrat socialism in that instead of a small group dictating my life, a large group (the entire populace) is now dictating my life. Which is why a limited constitutional republic based on free market is better. Simply because some things are off the table. My rights. My gun rights. My speech rights, my press rights, my right to my money. From the ground up, the constitution was made to protect property. Socialists want to tear that down.

      A socialist system calls for amazingly high taxes. Sweden has a 70% tax rate. Oh hell no. No thanks! I don’t want my neighbors telling me what I can and can’t do with my life, and that is what democratic socialism is. It is the entire populace voting on what to do with my money. And my money is my time, my effort, my sweat, my literal life. F no!

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      On 9 February 2016, CNN headlined, “Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans”, and reported

      Probably because we are productive, so rich, with so much plenty, that even the grossly impoverished are eating themselves to death through obesity, heart disease, and diabetes while sitting in front of a 70″ flat screen TV eating food provided by food stamps, and talking on an obamaphone, in a section 8 government apartment.

    5. avatar anonymous says:

      It’s not because the U.S. is a democracy that the U.S. is the only developed country that lacks healthcare as a right, not merely as a privilege for those who are healthy or otherwise can pay for the healthcare they need in order to be productive citizens.

      healthcare is not a right. It is a public service in those countries. Self defense is a right, our rights are based on natural rights. A government forcing a doctor at gun point to provide health care is not a right. It’s just a tyranny.

    6. avatar anonymous says:

      Because the U.S. is falling behind in those types of products and services, the U.S. is declining. “Nationwide, the median income of U.S. households in 2014 stood at 8% less than in 1999, a reminder that the economy has yet to fully recover from the effects of the Great Recession of 2007-09.

      What are you talking about? The economy is exploding right now. Unemployment is at record lows.

    7. avatar anonymous says:

      That’s from a study released by the Pew Research Center, on 11 May 2016, which was titled, “America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.” The sub-title was “The middle class lost ground in nearly nine-in-ten U.S. metropolitan areas examined.”

      LOL. You want to get rid of the middle class? Impose “Democratic socialism.” That will take care of the middle class really quick. But more than likely, socialists would just redefine the middle class as the impoverished today to claim that the middle class grew in size. LOL

    8. avatar anonymous says:

      After reading your post, my bottom line take away was that there may be come corrupt elements of our government system in play, and your solution is to burn it down and implement a system of straight democracy with “democratic socialism” which would drastically raise taxes on everyone so the government could essentially “take care of them like nannies.”

      I’ll pass.

  44. avatar BusyBeef says:

    We are already a socialist nation.
    Do you pay taxes? Did you drive on a public road? Do your kids go to school? Do the police and fire departments receive public funding? Are you on Medicare? Do you receive social security retirement? Is your military paid for with tax dollars?

    The difference is we are democratic socialists which rely on capitalism to fund the whole thing. The debate is HOW FAR do we go with socialism? Should we pay for health care for everyone, or at least offer a government-funded competitor to free market health insurance? Should we provide education beyond 12th grade? The answer to this question varies among most modern democracies.

    The command economy everyone seems so terrified of is in fact COMMUNISM. Which doesn’t work anywhere without TOTALITARIAN control and a command economy. It is incompatible with free market principles.

    Either way, I think NSSF missed an opportunity to educate and include these people. Their attendance at SHOT would probably be more eye opening for them than for the rest of the attendees.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      The difference is we are democratic socialists which rely on capitalism to fund the whole thing. The debate is HOW FAR do we go with socialism?

      I agree with this. There are aspects that are philosophically social in nature. In other words – “shared.” We share the roads. We share the cost. And “sharing” the cost is socialistic/collectivist.

      Should we pay for health care for everyone, or at least offer a government-funded competitor to free market health insurance? Should we provide education beyond 12th grade? The answer to this question varies among most modern democracies.

      The problem is… anything that is shared is TAKEN. FORCE was used to take it. My property tax pays for the local school and library. My vehicle registration and local taxes pay for the roads. Can you imagine what would happen if I didn’t pay them???? So FORCE is used to share. It is the opposite of private, it is communal.

      And sharing is the opposite of freedom. This is because I no longer have an individual choice in the matter. I must share, even if I don’t want to. Some things we must share. Like roads. It isn’t possible for everyone to have their own private road to their place of employment for example. Reality prevents that. So we must share. For military, it is the same. The cost for the effort, the duty and sacrifice, must be shared, and it must be shared because everyone benefits from it. The entire debate is about “fairness.” But when is too far? Now the Nordic countries – such as Sweden, pay 70% in taxes. And if a person pays 100% in taxes and only gets back what they “need.” That is called slavery. It is no different from a slave in the 1800s. And marxism is – “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Which is basically a statement in support of slavery. You enslave everyone, and they all get what they need. So socialism, to an extreme, is a derivative of Marxism. And today everyone is on the equality train. Equality, equality. But they have even carried equality to their socio-economic status, farther even than equal rights. And to surpass equal rights crosses the boundary into the socialism/marxism sphere, where redistributionism lies. High taxes exist there. Giant colossal safety nets. And of course – you being forced by the government to pay for it all. And then there is a problem with equality argument itself, best articulated by Solzhenitsyn, IMO:

      Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

      ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      Either way, I think NSSF missed an opportunity to educate and include these people. Their attendance at SHOT would probably be more eye opening for them than for the rest of the attendees.

      You could be right on that.

  45. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The political Left however they Define themselves. Libertarians Liberals the Left, have never supported gun civil rights in the United States. If you want to say that it was conservatives who wrote racist gun control laws going back 400 years on the North American continent go right ahead. You would still be wrong.

    Just look from the 1960s on forward and you will see that it is the Left that has prevented law-abiding black people from exercising their gun civil rights. They say they support the Klu Klux Klan marching in black neighborhoods while carrying guns.They say it’s Proof they support the First Amendment. But they have never supported law-abiding black people carrying guns. And that includes the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in the 1960s.

    It’s interesting that the Black Panthers are often referred to as terrorists in today’s literature. However if you look at the literature from Libertarians Liberals and the Left the word “terrorist” is never used to describe the Klu Klux Klan. Which has a 150 year old history in the United States of killing blacks and whites they don’t like.

    However I have read in Reason magazine once that the Klu Klux Klan was referred to as being Liberal. I know the Klan did like using the government to get its way against its enemies.

    What was the Socialist position on the bump stock issue????

    What was the Socialist position on the hearing protection act????

    When right-wingers or left-wingers showed up at political rallies during the 2016 presidential campaign, what was the socialist position on the open carrying of Arms by law-abiding citizens????

    And have their positions changed as of today on these questions?

    Are they helping to make it easier for people to exercise their second amendment civil rights in San Francisco or Portland or Seattle Chicago or New York City???

    I hear crickets.

    Supposedly according to the Libertarians we have a freedom to not associate with people. The NSSF was correct in kicking these Communists out of their group. And that does not make the NSSF hypocrites.

  46. avatar anonymous says:

    Ok Socialists….

    I have guns to maintain freedom – OK?

    Your goal isn’t just gun rights. It’s also socialism. And socialism is the forcing on individuals to partake in group activities. For example. Bernie sanders wants nordic style government. Well… I don’t want to pay 70% in taxes. No thanks. paying 70% in taxes is the opposite of “freedom.” Ok? If you pay 100% in taxes – you are a slave? Agree? Slaves in the 1800s did what they were told, and 100% of their efforts were taken from them, and they were given “what they needed.” Well – marxism is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” And that is the opposite of “freedom.” Ok. If you pay 70% tax, you are 70% slave. And pure socialism is total slavery, and Democratic socialism is mostly slavery. And I don’t want slavery guys.

    The bottom line is – I have guns to be “free.” It’s about freedom here. And the socialist philosophy is antithetical to this conceptualization of freedom. Ok?

    Also – There are lots of gun regulations in socialist countries and socialist government. I don’t want that. That is the opposite of freedom and the opposite of gun rights.

    This is the worst aspect of socialism:
    Suppose I’m on a island. There are 11 people on the island and I am one of them. I know how to do a lot of things. I can grow a garden. I can maintain livestock, etc. So I’m on this island and I say to these other 10 socialists, “Look guys, I don’t want to be a part of your party. Ok? So I’m just going to go to my corner of the island with my seeds that I just picked and a couple of goats that were walking around here, and live by myself. Ok? Maybe once in a while we can trade goods and services with each other. Cool?” And the other 10 socialists walk around me and say, ” Uh…. no. We just voted, and we are going to need those seeds. We are going to need those goats. And we are going to need you to plant the seeds and maintain the goats – ‘for all of us.'”

    This is socialism in a nutshell. The Proletariat tyranny of the fruitful capitalist.

    And this is the worst aspect of Capitalism:
    Suppose you are one of the downtrodden oppressed classes born into poverty. You have nothing, you have no money, and you are just trying to make it in the world. You go to a nice factory and say, “I would like a job here as a stockman? I heard you had an opening.” The capitalist says, “I do have an opening. The work is 8 hours a day from M-F, and we’ll pay you $1.50 an hour.” The worker then says, $1.50 is a little to low. And by low I mean, I exert more calories of energy doing the job than you money you compensate me can buy food.” So the capitalist says, Ok. $2.50 – final offer.

    So the worker can take it and stay in the same job forever, always living in poverty, and never crawling out of the slums. Or the worker can unionize and force the capitalist to pay a higher wage, even though maybe, just maybe, that kind of work isn’t really worth the new wage in comparison of other jobs that didn’t get a new wage at that factory. Or alternatively, the worker can reject the job and go somewhere else where things can be more fruitful. Or the worker can educate himself and become a high level employee or a entrepreneur / capitalist himself.

    The bottom line is, with capitalism, at least he has some options. Some of the options, possibly even most of the options, may not be good for him. But Options he has. In socialism you must partake in the system. There is no option not to partake in the system. You can’t tell them no. In capitalism, you can tell the employer no. You can move to a different city. You can move to the countryside and live independently and self-reliantly by yourself. You have a large array of possibilities in a capitalist system. In the capitalist system you don’t have to work for a capitalist at all. In a socialist system, you must partake in the system. The system is reliant on you partaking, and if you don’t partake (such as not paying your 70% tax) then you will be punished.

  47. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

    Commies, like all leftist shitbags, are the enemy. IDGAF if they are attempting to champion the 2nd ammendment. They are fucking commie leftist shitbags. All leftists, regardless of age, color, Creed, or whatever “gender” out of the 1,572,394 genders that apparently exist, are the enemy. They deserve no peace or quarter.

    You don’t negotiate with the enemy, you destroy the enemy. You don’t reason with the opposition, you eradicate the opposition. You don’t parley with adversaries, you eliminate the adversaries.

    Better dead that red….

    1. avatar BulletsWhereThey Belong says:

      Communism and Socialism are not actually the same there Kiddo.
      And Why do you put Excessive amounts of Green tips in your ass?
      Perhaps a clever booby trap for your adversaries? Ah yes, blow there dicks off when they….ingenious.

  48. avatar ALSCV says:

    “The main vice of capitalism is that not everyone is profitable. The main vice of socialism is tht everyone is miserable”. – Winston Churchill This says it all.

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