[Potemkin]

The intellectual rigor of this critique is just so overwhelming, but I suppose you did not want me to know you were making it as you did not tag me when you quoted me. How honorable of you.

But I expect nothing less, good doctor.

When Drlee describes himself as a 'conservative', he is often ridiculed by American right-wing posters, but in fact he is absolutely correct to so describe himself. He believes in social and political stability and continuity, which require a strong standing army and strong government institutions. Jefferson's vision of the necessity and desirability of a continuing series of future rebellions to prevent encroaching 'tyranny' is anathema to a conservative. This is hardly surprising, since Jefferson himself was a revolutionary who supported the Jacobin Terror in revolutionary France. You expect someone like Drlee to agree with him? Lol. No, as I said, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is not a conservative principle, but a revolutionary principle.

[Rich]

Oh Rich, how I missed my old forum stocker that will take every opportunity to whine about any misinformation you can have, get corrected, not show up again, and a year later show up as if you had never been corrected.

Since you seem to like Trotsky as a source (though that can't be a real quote as he was not in charge of the military during the rebellion), you might read this. But, of course, you won't as it would contradict your fee-fees, and we will just have this discussion again. You'll bring up your feelings, I'll bring facts that prove you wrong, and you'll come back a year later pleading with your citationless feelings again.

Er no!

You were wrong Adam Smith didn't use the term Capitalism.
You were wrong there's no evidence of Marx using the term Capitalism / Kapitalismus. It seems to have first appeared as a Marxist term in the second edition of Das Kapital published by Engels after Marx's death.
You were wrong the POUM was not a Trotskyist organisation. Trotsky never countenanced an alliance with the Bukharinists against the Stalinists.
You were wrong the fall of Drogheda was not the first massacre to happen on September 11.

However I think you may be correct that Trotsky never used the phrase "We shot them down like partridges". Accuracy is important, I welcome correction when I'm mistaken, although this particular detail it in no way undermines my arguments.

You seem to be the one with the feeling problem. Marxist bullshit usually goes unchallenged. I frequently choose to challenge it whether by you or other Marxists. I'm reminded of the way Christain's also seem to have sensitive feelings. They get upset when supposedly aggressive atheists start reading the Bible and calling them out on the bullshit.

[jimjam]

The folks who work so hard at the @NRA are Great People and Great American Patriots. They love our Country and will do the right thing. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! D.Trump 2/22/18

Donald treats us once again to a gem from his bottomless supply of simple minded blather for simple minded Americans.

[Victoribus Spolia]

When Drlee describes himself as a 'conservative', he is often ridiculed by American right-wing posters, but in fact he is absolutely correct to so describe himself. He believes in social and political stability and continuity, which require a strong standing army and strong government institutions. Jefferson's vision of the necessity and desirability of a continuing series of future rebellions to prevent encroaching 'tyranny' is anathema to a conservative. This is hardly surprising, since Jefferson himself was a revolutionary who supported the Jacobin Terror in revolutionary France. You expect someone like Drlee to agree with him? Lol. No, as I said, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is not a conservative principle, but a revolutionary principle.

This is an interesting point and it does have some precedent in political theory as the American revolution was essentially a Whiggish revolution which has more-or-less dictated world history ever since; however, my formerly far-right dismissals of semi-libertarian types associating with traditionalism has recently come under reevaluation thanks to Hans-Herman Hoppe in his work: "Democracy: The God That Failed." Hoppe is an austrian-economics type who argues that (against the views of classical liberals) that égalité exists in contradiction to Liberté and the two are logically incompatible. The book argues that monarchy is the superior form of governance, along with natural heirarchies and social conservativism and that both are somehow compatible with a more libertarian view of economics and property rights....its quite an interesting thesis and has sort of rattled my thinking a bit, he even argues that marxism, socialism, nationalism, and american-style libertarianism are ALL the products of democracy and all are fundamentally intrusive.

He is, attempting, to reconcile conservativism (as religious heirarchal traditionalism) and libertarianism in his theories.....they are incredible compelling....

suffice to say, I will concede your point for now until my ideas, which are currently in flux, settle back into place, but let me also say that such an absolutist view of gun rights may not be opposed to conservatism as you posit. If Hoppe turns out to right (for which I am reserving judgment), then popular government implies statism which implies social decay. If this case can be argued, then government intervention could be argued as necessarily implying the decline of traditional values (conservatism). If this is true, then gun rights would not be opposed to conservatism after all.

I'll keep you posted if Hoppe can convince me to fully break with nationalist-fascist thinking, I have already been moving in this direction for the last six months, so we'll see.

[The Immortal Goon]

You were wrong Adam Smith didn't use the term Capitalism.

Adam Smith didn't use the word capitalism though. Please cite where he did. He was describing a system that became known as capitalism.

You were wrong there's no evidence of Marx using the term Capitalism / Kapitalismus.

His most famous book is Kapitol. I do think it's fair to equate the word "capitalism" within the context of Marxism.

You were wrong the POUM was not a Trotskyist organisation. Trotsky never countenanced an alliance with the Bukharinists against the Stalinists.

Never said it was. It was led by Andres Nin though, Trotsky's old Secretary and a Trotskyist. So it's fair to say there were Trotskyists in it.

You were wrong the fall of Drogheda was not the first massacre to happen on September 11.

Only an idiot would not understand the context of saying "The first 9/11 was Drogheda" after someone said, "The first 9/11 was Pinochet's coup"; and only an obsessive degenerate would try to checkmate me a year later by bringing that up in a thread about a Flordia mass shooting.

What is it about me that obsesses you so much, Rich? Is it that you always come off looking like a fool when you try to claim that Marx wasn't talking about capital when he wrote about kapitol? Do you feel embarassed for yourself?

Or is it something deeper? Do I remind you of one of your parents? What, pathologically, causes you to forum stalk me and try to throw these pathetic turns of phrase at me as if they make you look anything less than hopelessly obsessed?

You claim:

Marxist bullshit usually goes unchallenged. I frequently choose to challenge it whether by you or other Marxists. I'm reminded of the way Christain's also seem to have sensitive feelings. They get upset when supposedly aggressive atheists start reading the Bible and calling them out on the bullshit.

But I don't see the need to single out a capitalist to follow around and try to disprove in such pathetic ways. These grand arguments you bring up by nitpicking very questionable translational issues stripped of contexts do nothing but weaken your side. If the only objection you have to Marxism is that Smith didn't have a name for the system he was describing yet, then you must surely love Marxism as that's a pretty lame argument. It's like asking how there could be sunlight before the 20th century if there was no understanding of radiation.

This isn't a thread about you trying to find every pathetic turn-of-phrase that you don't understand as an underwhelming attack on Marxism. Go start another thread if you want to be publicaly humiliated again. There's no reason to keep forum-stalking me.

[Potemkin]

This is an interesting point and it does have some precedent in political theory as the American revolution was essentially a Whiggish revolution which has more-or-less dictated world history ever since; however, my formerly far-right dismissals of semi-libertarian types associating with traditionalism has recently come under reevaluation thanks to Hans-Herman Hoppe in his work: "Democracy: The God That Failed." Hoppe is an austrian-economics type who argues that (against the views of classical liberals) that égalité exists in contradiction to Liberté and the two are logically incompatible. The book argues that monarchy is the superior form of governance, along with natural heirarchies and social conservativism and that both are somehow compatible with a more libertarian view of economics and property rights....its quite an interesting thesis and has sort of rattled my thinking a bit, he even argues that marxism, socialism, nationalism, and american-style libertarianism are ALL the products of democracy and all are fundamentally intrusive.

He is, attempting, to reconcile conservativism (as religious heirarchal traditionalism) and libertarianism in his theories.....they are incredible compelling....

suffice to say, I will concede your point for now until my ideas, which are currently in flux, settle back into place, but let me also say that such an absolutist view of gun rights may not be opposed to conservatism as you posit. If Hoppe turns out to right (for which I am reserving judgment), then popular government implies statism which implies social decay. If this case can be argued, then government intervention could be argued as necessarily implying the decline of traditional values (conservatism). If this is true, then gun rights would not be opposed to conservatism after all.

I'll keep you posted if Hoppe can convince me to fully break with nationalist-fascist thinking, I have already been moving in this direction for the last six months, so we'll see.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, Hoppe's thinking is ahistorical. He seems essentially to be trying to reconcile individual freedom with ancien regime reactionary conservatism. While it may (or may not) be possible to do this theoretically, such a theoretical, abstract reconciliation would cut across the actual history of the West for the past two centuries or more. And it is history which determines what is actually going to happen, not abstract ideas inside somebody's head. As a matter of historical record, individual liberty (in its bourgeois sense, which is still the dominant sense used in the West) only became possible in a revolutionary environment in which the French monarchy was overthrown (and the British monarchy was kicked out, in the case of the USA). Historically, reactionary monarchism has always been hostile towards individual liberties, even in the restricted bourgeois sense of those liberties. And reactionary monarchism is equally hostility towards equality, regarding both liberty and equality as twin demons of the Revolution. And besides, they are allied concepts, two sides of the same coin. After all, doesn't individual liberty as an abstract value presuppose equality as an abstract value, in the sense that you want everyone to be equally free? Even the unequal outcomes of the capitalist system are justified (implausibly, in my view) in terms of an "equal playing field" and "equality of opportunity". In bourgeois liberal thinking, even inequality is justified in terms of equality. To set up liberty and equality as diametric opposites, as Hoppe does, is evidence of one-sided thinking; dare I say it, even non-dialectical thinking. In the modern West, at the heart of inequality, there is equality; and at the heart of equality, there is inequality. Likewise, the liberties of the modern West presuppose a strong state apparatus to define and protect those liberties, and any state apparatus by definition restricts liberties. At the heart of liberty, there is slavery; and at the heart of slavery, there is liberty. This is the internal contradiction of modernity which Hoppe does not seem to perceive.

[Hindsite]

In all seriousness though:

As a 2nd amendment absolutist, I believe weapons should be military comparable to guarantee the effective execution of guerrilla warfare by the people against a wayward government if such were necessary.

I agree. However, the fully automatic weapons have already been banned, so we must attempt to prevent the banning of weapons from going to extreme. The President has stated that he would favor raising the age to 21 for gun buyers. He also supports school security by eliminating the schools as gun free zones and allowing people working in the schools to have conceal carry permits to defend themselves and the students. Perhaps more can be done, but we must not go to extremes by taking away our freedoms and turning America into a socialist society police state.

In my opinion, it is the state and local governments that should take the lead on solving their own security problems at their schools.

[Suntzu]

Full auto rifles are a waste of money and ammo.

[B0ycey]

He also supports school security by eliminating the schools as gun free zones and allowing people working in the schools to have conceal carry permits to defend themselves and the students.

Americans solution for gun control. More guns.

I think there is no hope for a sensible American gun control solution... ever! There are too many second amendment absolutists there.

[Suntzu]

There are also the 294,000,000 guns to consider.

[Drlee]

I believe weapons should be military comparable to guarantee the effective execution of guerrilla warfare by the people against a wayward government if such were necessary.

Obviously you have never been a soldier. Which private citizens should have the shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles absolutely necessary to have the remotest chance against the most lethal air force in the world?

Potemkin is correct by the way.

I do not intend to follow you down yet another libertarian rabbit hole; particularly one as screwy as Hoppe's natural world. I am too old to be impractical and feel no need to engage in mental masturbation.

I agree. However, the fully automatic weapons have already been banned, so we must attempt to prevent the banning of weapons from going to extreme.

You you think it is "extreme" to ban military style assault weapons with large capacity magazines?

The President has stated that he would favor raising the age to 21 for gun buyers.

Good idea. It already is for handguns but I doubt Trump knows that.

He also supports school security by eliminating the schools as gun free zones and allowing people working in the schools to have conceal carry permits to defend themselves and the students.

There is a great idea. With what training? No doubt you join with me in calling for anyone carrying a concealed weapon to have a license and more importantly training. Surely you do not want untrained people carrying firearms around your children. By the way, in most states armed guards, which is what teachers would then become, must be licensed.

Perhaps more can be done, but we must not go to extremes by taking away our freedoms and turning America into a socialist society police state.

I am sorry. What does owning guns have to do with an economic model? Also. Please tell me again why you think the US is not already, in many ways, a socialist state.

In my opinion, it is the state and local governments that should take the lead on solving their own security problems at their schools.

Some do. California, for example, has already banned assault weapons.

[Hong Wu]

So you're saying that Drlee is a conservative, just not an American conservative

[Potemkin]

So you're saying that Drlee is a conservative, just not an American conservative

He's an American and he's a conservative, therefore he is an American conservative. Seriously though, he believes in the need for social and political stability and continuity. That's enough to qualify him as a conservative, with a small 'c', anywhere in the developed world.

[Suntzu]

Obviously you have never been a soldier. Which private citizens should have the shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles absolutely necessary to have the remotest chance against the most lethal air force in the world?

Potemkin is correct by the way.

I do not intend to follow you down yet another libertarian rabbit hole; particularly one as screwy as Hoppe's natural world. I am too old to be impractical and feel no need to engage in mental masturbation.



You you think it is "extreme" to ban military style assault weapons with large capacity magazines?




Good idea. It already is for handguns but I doubt Trump knows that.




There is a great idea. With what training? No doubt you join with me in calling for anyone carrying a concealed weapon to have a license and more importantly training. Surely you do not want untrained people carrying firearms around your children. By the way, in most states armed guards, which is what teachers would then become, must be licensed.





I am sorry. What does owning guns have to do with an economic model? Also. Please tell me again why you think the US is not already, in many ways, a socialist state.



Some do. California, for example, has already banned assault weapons.

The Afghans brought the Soviets to their knees without much in the way of sophisticated weapons. I spent 20 years in the U.S. Army as a Ranger and intel analyst.

[The Immortal Goon]

Hoppe is an austrian-economics type who argues that (against the views of classical liberals) that égalité exists in contradiction to Liberté and the two are logically incompatible. The book argues that monarchy is the superior form of governance, along with natural heirarchies and social conservativism and that both are somehow compatible with a more libertarian view of economics and property rights....its quite an interesting thesis and has sort of rattled my thinking a bit, he even argues that marxism, socialism, nationalism, and american-style libertarianism are ALL the products of democracy and all are fundamentally intrusive.

And it is history which determines what is actually going to happen, not abstract ideas inside somebody's head. As a matter of historical record, individual liberty (in its bourgeois sense, which is still the dominant sense used in the West) only became possible in a revolutionary environment in which the French monarchy was overthrown (and the British monarchy was kicked out, in the case of the USA). Historically, reactionary monarchism has always been hostile towards individual liberties, even in the restricted bourgeois sense of those liberties.

If it's of any interest, Conor Cruise O'Brien's book about this is pretty interesting. He goes through Citizen Genet's attempt to make the French and American Revolutions a single affair and the problematic nature of American slavery in navigating the concepts of liberty and freedom.

O'Brien, being a dirty unionist, comes down on the side of the institution of the republic being inherently racist. Which I disagree with, but I think it was an interesting meditation on a lot of these ideas.

[Sivad]

Why the anti-tyranny case for the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be dismissed so quickly

[ingliz]

There are a few ARs modified for 5.56 but their accuracy suffers

Twist rates:

You can shoot 5.56 ammo out of an AR15 with a barrel rifling twist rate of 1:14 inches (the 'original' barrel offered in the 60's) and a chamber modified to accept 5.56 ammo. The loss of accuracy is negligible if you select a 55 grain bullet. The Stoner rifle had barrels with twist rates of 1:14 inches, and the M193 Ball was a 56 grain projectile . That said, you would be hard pressed to find an AR15 with a 1:14 barrel. With the trend for heavier bullets in 5.56, a more forgiving 1:9 is standard. This will stabilise anything from a 55 grain projectile to a 69 grain bullet.

[Stormsmith]

Public schools and the armed forces are socialist institutions

[Rich]

Why the anti-tyranny case for the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be dismissed so quickly

What is this drivel?

Yet global military history since 1791 repeatedly demonstrates that mighty armies can be defeated by citizens fighting for the consent of the governed.

Yeah like when has a citizenry defeated its government without the support of another government? The US wouldn't have defeated Britain without the support of the massive governments of France, Spain and Holland. its like these wankers who say, why couldn't the Iraqi people overthrow their government without US and British support, as if ever citizens defeat a government with intact security forces that is determined to stay in power without outside support.

[Suntzu]

Twist rates:

You can shoot 5.56 ammo out of an AR15 with a barrel rifling twist rate of 1:14 inches (the 'original' barrel offered in the 60's) and a modified 5.56 chamber. The loss of accuracy is negligible if you select a 55 grain bullet. The Stoner rifle had barrels with twist rates of 1:14 inches, and the M193 Ball was a 56 grain projectile . That said, you would be hard pressed to find an AR15 with a 1:14 barrel. With the trend for heavier bullets in 5.56, a more forgiving 1:9 is standard. This will stabilise anything from a 55 grain projectile to a 69 grain bullet.

While the cartridge dimension for .223 and 5.56 are the same the camber dimensions and loading pressure are not. Firing military 5.56 in something chambered for .223 can result is serious overpressure.