PDA

View Full Version : Which group of armed men should we fear?



Little-Acorn
09-15-2009, 03:42 PM
The author makes several good points. Chief among them is that the media's near-hysteria over people doing legal things like carrying guns, stand in sharp (but sad) contrast to their indifference to people doing highly illegal things (like passing unconstitutional laws).

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/59169092.html

Which group of armed men should we fear?

by Vin Suprynowicz
Sep. 13, 2009

Touring the country to peddle his collectivist schemes, President Barack Obama made stops in New Hampshire and then in Phoenix during the month of August.

At several of these events, a handful of those who gathered outside the halls to protest wore firearms. No one got arrested, since no one brandished their firearms in a threatening manner. They just wore them, safely slung or holstered, which is still perfectly legal in both New Hampshire and Arizona.

The fact that many Americans need to be re-acclimatized to the normalcy of an armed citizenry was quickly revealed by the nearly hysterical rantings from the Left after the TV cameras picked up fleeting images of these legally owned and carried civilian firearms.

Cartoonist Ted Rall writes a syndicated column. Mr. Rall's Aug. 27 column says: "Two weeks ago, a right-wing man protested outside the president's health care meeting in New Hampshire wearing a gun strapped to his leg. ... A week later, a dozen men appeared outside Obama's appearance in Phoenix brandishing loaded guns ... (including) one, who carried an AR-15 military-style automatic rifle. ...

"Make no mistake: guns don't have anything to do with health care. This is a revival of Klannism. A black man is president, and the good ol' boys don't like it. That's what this is about: putting him in his place. Which, if they or someone they inspire has their way, will be six feet under. ...

"God. The smirks those turds wear!" Mr. Rall went on. "Run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching.' Same ones."

Interesting. I chatted with 28-year-old Chris Broughton, a Phoenix machinist, the man who wore the aforementioned AR-15 slung across his back outside President Obama's Aug. 17 appearance at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, there. (Needless to say, it's the kind that fires one shot each time you pull the trigger -- not an "automatic.")

Is Chris Broughton one of the "same ones" you'll find if you "run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching,' " as Mr. Rall suggests? Only if you look at the guy hanging in the tree. Chris Broughton is black.

"MSNBC actually went so far as to edit the video so they (viewers) could only see the rifle," he told me. "You couldn't see if I was black or white, and then they used that video when they were talking about white supremacists and Nazis, talking about people hating a black president. They purposely cropped the picture so they couldn't see I was black as they used it over this report about dangerous racists and white supremacists. In the original video, my whole body was visible in the video the whole time. ...

"There's one point I've been meaning to make with all these different reporters," Chris said. "People are up in arms about me doing something perfectly legal at a time when our president is traveling the country trying to sell an unconstitutional health reform. ...

"Aren't the hospitals required to treat anyone in the emergency rooms? If they weren't required to treat people, then the costs wouldn't be spread to us, right? If you think about it, we already have universal health care. People are whining because health care costs are out of control. That's because the producers are paying for those who aren't producing. Universal health care will just be more of the same. If more people get free care and the rest of us pay for it, then prices are going to go up, not down. Anyone can figure that out."

I guess to some that's scary, racist talk.

Phoenix talk radio host Ernie Hancock, who was also armed that day, tells me that a group of marching, chanting guys carrying bullhorns and wearing SEIU T-shirts approached the corner where he and Chris were standing outside the Phoenix convention center on Aug. 17.

"They were telling people to get out of their way," Ernie says. "They acted like that was their street corner, like they had it reserved so they could stand there where the TV cameras could see them. But as soon as they saw a bunch of guys already standing on that corner, wearing guns, they got really quiet. One of the cops came up to me later and said, 'You guys did the right thing.' "

Barack Obama has thousands of guys -- many with real machine guns -- to help him promote his vision for a socialist America. But one guy with a semi-automatic, safely slung, standing outside on the sidewalk answering people's questions -- that's scary?

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 12:43 AM
What aspect of the current administration's policies involves the establishment of "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community," as the American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism?

emmett
09-16-2009, 12:55 AM
What aspect of the current administration's policies involves the establishment of "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community," as the American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism?


The taking over of free market companies by government such as GM, Chrysler and others.

Got a harder question?:poke:

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 12:59 AM
The taking over of free market companies by government such as GM, Chrysler and others.

GM and Chrysler do not operate in a "free market"; the very nature of capitalism necessitates a rather substantial state presence. Now, moving forward with that in mind, since GM and Chrysler were only partially subsidized and then not subject to direct state control, that is not even a sufficient condition for nationalization, which is in turn not a sufficient condition for socialism, which necessitates legitimate collective ownership rather than mere state ownership. We instead have a classic case of the state acting in the best interests of capitalism.

emmett
09-16-2009, 01:09 AM
GM and Chrysler do not operate in a "free market"; the very nature of capitalism necessitates a rather substantial state presence. Now, moving forward with that in mind, since GM and Chrysler were only partially subsidized and then not subject to direct state control, that is not even a sufficient condition for nationalization, which is in turn not a sufficient condition for socialism, which necessitates legitimate collective ownership rather than mere state ownership. We instead have a classic case of the state acting in the best interests of capitalism.


That was not an act in the best interests of capitolism at all. Should have been allowed to fail. THAT is what makes free market work.

You know, I've read your explanations about socialist governments and how state owned control of everything guarentees this and that but all I have ever seen in those countries is "need", wasted resources, fat cat upper politicos getting fatter, terrible health care and poverty.

Could you give me an example of a successful Socialist Libertarian society. Name one!

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 01:12 AM
That was not an act in the best interests of capitolism at all. Should have been allowed to fail. THAT is what makes free market work.

Only according to the utopian perspectives of economic rightists. In reality, capitalism's historical and presently existing dependence on a substantial level of state intervention renders any references to "free markets" pointless. They don't exist.


You know, I've read your explanations about socialist governments and how state owned control of everything guarentees this and that but all I have ever seen in those countries is "need", wasted resources, fat cat upper politicos getting fatter, terrible health care and poverty.

I've never said anything like that. I've always said that those political regimes were fraudulent in nature, per my anarchist outlook.


Could you give me an example of a successful Socialist Libertarian society. Name one!

Of course. I typically refer to the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War, as this is the most wide-ranging example and incorporated both industrial collectivism a la Bakunin and agrarian communism a la Kropotkin. As noted by French anarchist observer and historian Gaston Leval:


In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million live, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity…

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

It's curious, then, that support for laissez-faire capitalism, a theoretical abstraction and utopian fantasy with no historical record of existence, should be considered a mainstream political position in this country while support for a political system that has enjoyed actual implementation is rejected as "utopian."

emmett
09-16-2009, 01:18 AM
Why was it unable to continue? I mean it sounds great but seems there would be no mechanism to "defend" it.

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 01:23 AM
Why was it unable to continue? I mean it sounds great but seems there would be no mechanism to "defend" it.

Firstly, the anarchist trade union was allied with the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, which of course suffered defeat at the hands of the military Nationalists under General Franco. Secondly, during the course of the war, Stalinist organizations undermined and sabotaged the anarchist and libertarian organizations in various ways, through the lack of military aid for them by the USSR even though they were supporting other Republican contingencies and more seriously, the direct violent destruction of collectivization in Aragon by the Stalinist PSUC. The libertarian Marxist POUM and anarchist military columns were later disbanded by order of the central government. Most anarchists blame this defeat on the decision of anarchist union representatives and the general support of the rank-and-file to seek a strategic military alliance against Franco rather than sustain their social revolution.

emmett
09-16-2009, 01:30 AM
So my contention that it would be too difficult to defend was correct? Well...obviously it was as it no longer exists as you explained.

This is 2009 Agno, won't work in this country or any other. Nice philosophical pipe dream but it won't work. No incentive for ambition built into it. makes everyone a robot...well...those that will work.

Nighty Night slick...gotta hit the hey.

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 02:03 AM
So my contention that it would be too difficult to defend was correct? Well...obviously it was as it no longer exists as you explained.

Not especially. A fair means of determining that would be to judge a libertarian military body in direct combat with a proportionally sized and equipped orthodox military body, not a deliberately undersupplied libertarian military body subject to sabotage by their "allies" while facing disproportionate military force to begin with. Superior insights can be derived from the legacy of Nestor Makhno. His anarchist military body, the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (or the Black Army, as opposed to the Bolshevik Red Army and the czarist White Army), defended the Free Territory of Ukraine, a society characterized by libertarian collectivization relatively free from Leninist methods. They enjoyed victories against the czarist military commander Anton Denikin and his White Army, as well as substantial defections from the Red Army in Ukraine to their own forces.


This is 2009 Agno, won't work in this country or any other. Nice philosophical pipe dream but it won't work. No incentive for ambition built into it. makes everyone a robot...well...those that will work.

This is a conclusion unsupported by arguments or evidence, and likely instead based on ill-conceived rightist stereotypes about socialist political economy.

bullypulpit
09-16-2009, 04:40 AM
The really amusing thing about this bit of hypocrisy is that had anyone shown up outside an event featuring President Bush, they would have been either dragged away of tweeped by a Secret Service sniper.

I don't worry about guns or their owners unless they lack the maturity and intelligence as to when and where to brandish them.

Gaffer
09-16-2009, 10:17 AM
So my contention that it would be too difficult to defend was correct? Well...obviously it was as it no longer exists as you explained.

This is 2009 Agno, won't work in this country or any other. Nice philosophical pipe dream but it won't work. No incentive for ambition built into it. makes everyone a robot...well...those that will work.

Nighty Night slick...gotta hit the hey.

Hey emmett his society already exists and is very successful throughout the world. They are called ants. Maybe he could change his name to ant-postate.

emmett
09-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Hey emmett his society already exists and is very successful throughout the world. They are called ants. Maybe he could change his name to ant-postate.


Hilarious

SassyLady
09-16-2009, 01:31 PM
The really amusing thing about this bit of hypocrisy is that had anyone shown up outside an event featuring President Bush, they would have been either dragged away of tweeped by a Secret Service sniper.

I don't worry about guns or their owners unless they lack the maturity and intelligence as to when and where to brandish them.

They would only have been taken out if they were liberal progressives because they lack the maturity or intelligence to use them.

Binky
09-16-2009, 02:27 PM
The taking over of free market companies by government such as GM, Chrysler and others.

Got a harder question?:poke:


:laugh2::clap: Good one Emmett!

Agnapostate
09-16-2009, 02:39 PM
Hey emmett his society already exists and is very successful throughout the world. They are called ants. Maybe he could change his name to ant-postate.

Haven't you read E.O. Wilson's book about ants? Their homogeneity prevents them from being anything other than rigidly capitalist, whether Western capitalist or Leninist state capitalist. :poke:


:laugh2::clap: Good one Emmett!

True. Except for the...heh...failure. :slap: