- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,731
- Reaction score
- 32,384
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how incomparable they are. Either:
a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.
or
b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.
At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)
Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.
Economically, true. However, Stalin went far further than Lenin did and basically abandoned communism from a political standpoint into authoritarianism.
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how incomparable they are. Either:
a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.
or
b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.
At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)
Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.
Marxism is the same thing as the second amendment?
Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt.
Do firearms empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
My mistake then. It's a common refrain that I hear from people who support communism.
Agreed and I'd add that, once you're the one in power, the needs of the masses seem to matter less and less compared to what you can get for yourself and, not to sound like Gordon Gekko, but that kind of greed is not always bad. Shoot, there has to be a little of that in everyone or there'd be no incentive or motive to do anything differently or, maybe, better.
If it wasn't for Lenin accepting people into his ranks that he knew were less than great people Stalin would have never had a path to gain power in the first place. Sure Stalin still needed to killed a lot of people to obtain power, but without the position that Lenin gave him it would have never even been possible for him to obtain it in the first place.
What communists might not realize is that you have to do some pretty awful things to put their system in place and that means you need some pretty awful people to do it. Lenin however knew this and it's why he gave people like Stalin a position in his government.
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how 'incomparable' they are. Either:
a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.
or
b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.
At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)
Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.
No, but it is a concept (using concept/ideology loosely here).
Ask US Conservative. He's the one who believes marxism kills people.
This critical thinking is sadly absent from your claim that Marxism killed 100 million people.
Still waiting on your data.
Eh, I see it as Lenin being a very poor judge of character and being more focused on ideology than the enactment of that ideology. There is nothing wrong with the ideology, but the act of putting it into place goes against human nature, so those in power MUST do terrible things for it to happen... at which point it ceases to be communism and becomes authoritarianism.
Economically, true. However, Stalin went far further than Lenin did and basically abandoned communism from a political standpoint into authoritarianism.
And WHEN have you ever seen me do that. Jumping to conclusions, X?
Gordon Gekko was right. Greed is good. It propels us and progresses us. But it's also true that once one is in power, the farther they get from the masses, the less they understand or care about them.
Eh, I see it as Lenin being a very poor judge of character and being more focused on ideology than the enactment of that ideology. There is nothing wrong with the ideology, but the act of putting it into place goes against human nature, so those in power MUST do terrible things for it to happen... at which point it ceases to be communism and becomes authoritarianism.
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. - Vladimir Lenin
You actually made me think of something else though. When Lenin was dying apparently he came to realize that Stalin was assuming more control over the government than what Lenin gave him and that bringing Stalin into the government might have been a mistake. Still, I'm not convinced he wasn't following his own advice when he brought Stalin on board.
He may have, but Lenin was no dummy. He probably realized that he made a serious error in bringing Stalin in, but also realized that trying to get rid of him would get him killed.
You dont think an ideology that fundamentally opposes human nature and leads to authoritarianism has something wrong with it?
Then how is it that the second amendment kills people? What was the purpose of the second amendment?
I said that IDEOLOGY IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION DOES. Last I heard, Ideas in and of themselves are just ideas.
I'm no marxist, I just want to flip the tables on a ridiculous argument tactic abused by the pro-gun crowd.
that really doesn't track because at best, the 2A meant that there were arms the killers wouldn't have had, which of course is not true. Communism motivated the killers and their application of that hateful philosophy created a mechanism where massive genocide could take place
where did Lenin's henchman with the ice ax go?
You dont think an ideology that fundamentally opposes human nature and leads to authoritarianism has something wrong with it?
I think you mean Stalin's henchman with the ice axe who went to Mexico and killed Trotsky.
The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty.
I never said that the second amendment kills people.
I do believe that the application of the second amendment creates a mechanism whereby gun homicide is more likely to take place (to paraphrase turtledude).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?