NationStates Jolt Archive

There seem to be socialist countries that have private ownership of firearms. And yet there isn't a problem. So I'm wondering why Sarah Brady felt she had to say this:

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sarah Brady

There seem to be socialist countries that have private ownership of firearms

I didn't think there were any socialist countries? :confused:

There seem to be socialist countries that have private ownership of firearms. And yet there isn't a problem. So I'm wondering why Sarah Brady felt she had to say this:

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sarah Brady


How about because those that resist her are currently armed?

How about because those that resist her are currently armed?
Well yeah, I would have thought that would be obvious...

It's not that they don't mix, or can't, it's just that if you want to IMPOSE it, it's easier done when the opposing side is unarmed.

Which is true if you want to impose ANY major social/economic changes.

Ah, but I keep hearing that socialism can be gradually voted in - as some European countries appear to be doing.

So, is Sarah planning on overthrowing the current government and taking the US by force?

Oh, and I had to google Sarah Brady, and this is what I got:)

http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/blood.html]Innocent[/url] Blood Drips From Sarah Brady's Hands

It's cold and VERY calculated, the anti-gun strategy of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Inc. When the time is ripe for media coverage, we see Sarah or one of her well-known coolies such as Charles Schumer or Diane Feinstein trot out an example of firearms related tragedy.
In San Fransisco, for instance, HCI exploited a man whose wife was murdered by a madman using a semi-automatic firearm. The effect was as expected. Sheepish legislators, feeling guilt for everything from slavery to child abuse, felt obligated to offer up a sacrifice as a way to placate the gods of liberalism. In this case the sacrifice was a useless attempt to regulate criminals by attacking the rights of the honest citizen. The result of the shameless exploitation of crime victims by HCI was a ban on semi-automatic firearms.

And my favourite quote, from the same site: There was a time, not long ago, when the life of a decent human being was priceless and held as being sacred. Today, our judicial system has taught a generation of predators that a human life is worth what you can get for one. Sneakers, candy or even simple entertainment are the value of a human life now, thanks to liberalism and its mindless followers.

So Sarah Brady is anti-gun and a socialist?

click...click...

Ah, but I keep hearing that socialism can be gradually voted in - as some European countries appear to be doing.

So, is Sarah planning on overthrowing the current government and taking the US by force?
Of course it can be gradual...but it's more fun when it's sudden, jarring, and the weapons are all in the hands of the revolutionaries!

Ah, but I keep hearing that socialism can be gradually voted in - as some European countries appear to be doing.

Something that isn't altogether unlikely in Europe, but completely impossible in the USA.

:rolleyes:

Of course it can be gradual...but it's more fun when it's sudden, jarring, and the weapons are all in the hands of the revolutionaries!
yay fun for everyone!

Well, I still don't get it. There are some European nations with governments that have a lot of socialist ideas and programs - to their benefit, it would seem.

And yet they still have some firearms ownership - it's not completely forbidden as Sarah would have it. Nor do these countries seem to fear their gun owners.

Am I missing something?

You guys have a crap definition of socialist.

Sweden and other countries in a similar mold are not 'socialist' at all. If their healthcare systems etc are well funded, that doesn't make them socialist. It simply means the capitalist government has diverted resources to that sector.

If Sweden had turned socialist and the class struggle had ceased, and the workers of that country had been put in charge of society...I think there would have been more coverage in the newspapers! :D

fun for everyone, that's right:

target practice

If Sweden had turned socialist and the class struggle had ceased, and the workers of that country had been put in charge of society...I think there would have been more coverage in the newspapers! :D
I wouldn't be so sure when's the last time you heard anything about Sweden? :D

Sweden isn't Socialist. You can buy stock in Swedish companies. Its an invesment economy, which is the basis of capitalism. They just happen to use some socialist philosphy in their government programs.

Well, I still don't get it. There are some European nations with governments that have a lot of socialist ideas and programs - to their benefit, it would seem.

And yet they still have some firearms ownership - it's not completely forbidden as Sarah would have it. Nor do these countries seem to fear their gun owners.

Am I missing something?
What you're missing is that you can not define socialism or socialist by the opinions or actions of one person. Which I think you actually AREN'T missing, you're just using it as a base for a good discussion. But I'm literal minded and I like answering direct questions with direct answers, even if the intent is rather more convoluted than what is explicitly said:).

You guys have a crap definition of socialist.

Sweden and other countries in a similar mold are not 'socialist' at all. If their healthcare systems etc are well funded, that doesn't make them socialist. It simply means the capitalist government has diverted resources to that sector.

If Sweden had turned socialist and the class struggle had ceased, and the workers of that country had been put in charge of society...I think there would have been more coverage in the newspapers! :D

yah, of course there are degrees of socialism... one way to measure it imo is to figure out how much re-distribution of wealth there is

you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Before this becomes another endless thread about, "what is socialism really," let's all step back, admit that neither PURE Socialism, nor PURE market Capitalism truly exist, admit that most countries are blends to varying degrees, and focus instead on the real question...is an anti-gun stance actually a Socialist ideal?

Sweden isn't Socialist. You can buy stock in Swedish companies. Its an invesment economy, which is the basis of capitalism. They just happen to use some socialist philosphy in their government programs.
I'm not saying it's completely socialist. But you are at least moving in that direction.

And you're not doing it by force, either. Everyone is happily agreeing with one measure at a time. No problem in doing things that way if you ask me.

I'm not saying it's completely socialist. But you are at least moving in that direction.

And you're not doing it by force, either. Everyone is happily agreeing with one measure at a time. No problem in doing things that way if you ask me.

Nationalisation of certain industries isn't 'socialism' either, it's state-managed capitalism. Is there any workers control in Sweden? Is the capitalist state being dismantled?

Well in countries with successful socialist policies the need for weapons would be far less than in a purely capitalist one. Hence anti-gunners are welcome on board. Quite frankly I view guns as a impediment to socialism, or indeed any major social change as an armed miority could just rise up and supress us all.

To some American Socialists, the idea of Socialism is to centralize and redistribute all power (economic, physical) into the hands of an 'elite'.
In this way, American Leftists are actually more radical than European leftists, who seem to tend to be more interested in what the commoners have to say, than the 'Intellectual Elites' leading 'The Cause'.

Thus, you can have places like Switzerland, where possession is lightly regulated, yet the economy is largely Socialist. Such places break the currently fashionable model of disarming the populace to impose a system of "Social Justice".

I tend to notice that American Leftists of a prominent sort, have a pretty medieval view of the world, and the underlying thought-processes tend to be very much involved in 'taking care of the peasants' whether they want it or not.

OTOH, most of the 'peasants' here want to take care of themselves. Firearms are as much a symbol of this, as they are a dangerous tool. A man with a gun will, statistically, interfere in a criminal's activities more often than a man without. He will also tend to be unafraid in even 'dangerous' neighbourhoods, making him less likely to be subject to a criminal's attentions in the first place.

such inner security doesn't mix well with offers of "Give me your authoritiy and I will care for you" style rhetoric. (there's a reason most Gun-owners are Libertarians or Republicans now, and why most gun-control legislation is backed by the Democrats...)

In America, with no tradition of a Nobility to care for the Peasants, forcing a system in which the Elites care for the Unwashed is something that absolutely requires the unwashed be unable to take care of themselves.

I'm sorry Legs, but I am unable to explain the viewpoint of this one lady who I know nothing about. But I notice that she doesn't back up her opinion with any sort of facts, so she might be crazy or just flamebating (Can you do that in RL?).

I can see no reason why firearms and socalism can't coinside. But then again one has nothing at all to do with the other.

Well in countries with successful socialist policies the need for weapons would be far less than in a purely capitalist one. Hence anti-gunners are welcome on board. Quite frankly I view guns as a impediment to socialism, or indeed any major social change as an armed miority could just rise up and supress us all.

What's wrong with gradually convincing everyone that socialism is a good idea?

You might even convince those with guns to go along with it.

What's wrong with gradually convincing everyone that socialism is a good idea?

You might even convince those with guns to go along with it.
You'll never convince EVERYONE of ANYTHING. It's an impossibility. Just thought I'd point that out:). *ducks out again*

Personally I'd try, it worked for the UK, the problem is that as crime and social injustice decreases the percieved 'need' for guns is lost and people start asking why we need guns.

You'll never convince EVERYONE of ANYTHING. It's an impossibility. Just thought I'd point that out:). *ducks out again*

well it is possible, technically... though as the number of people increases, so do the odds against them being of one accord, keeping all other variables arbitrary.

Personally I'd try, it worked for the UK, the problem is that as crime and social injustice decreases the percieved 'need' for guns is lost and people start asking why we need guns.

It would be hard to convince me here in Virginia. Since the inception of concealed carry of firearms, our violent crime has dropped 60 to 65 percent.

We're safer with more guns on the street in legal hands than we were before with fewer guns on the street in legal hands. Demonstrably so.

It would be hard to convince me here in Virginia. Since the inception of concealed carry of firearms, our violent crime has dropped 60 to 65 percent.

We're safer with more guns on the street in legal hands than we were before with fewer guns on the street in legal hands. Demonstrably so.


I don't disagree for a minute that firearm ownership is necessary in the USA. I do, however, consider it a lamentable state of affairs that only when everyone is armed to the teeth does the crime rate drop to levels similar to those of other countries, many of which are almost completely unarmed.

I don't disagree for a minute that firearm ownership is necessary in the USA. I do, however, consider it a lamentable state of affairs that only when everyone is armed to the teeth does the crime rate drop to levels similar to those of other countries, many of which are almost completely unarmed.

Whatever works.

As an aside, the obvious fact that what works in one country doesn't always work in another is evidence to me that:

a) not everyone needs or wants the same kind of government
b) not everyone needs or wants the same kinds of laws
c) not everyone needs or wants the same political philosophy

I don't believe for a minute that democracy or socialism or any other -ism is a universal antidote for poverty, war, crime, etc., in all countries.

Well in countries with successful socialist policies the need for weapons would be far less than in a purely capitalist one. Hence anti-gunners are welcome on board. Quite frankly I view guns as a impediment to socialism, or indeed any major social change as an armed miority could just rise up and supress us all.

The key word you're missing is "Successful". Socialism requires certain base conditions to succeed.

As for gun-ownership being an impediment, only if it's isolated to a specific class or group within the populace as a whole- It's much, much harder to get someone to do something at gunpoint, if he, and the witnesses around him, are armed as well as you are.


Now, I would agree that open, legal firearms ownership is an impediment to imposed socialist policies-i.e. socialism imposed from the top-down, but from bottom up?

Not as much, I would even say that the more armed your working class is, the less likely they are to be deterred if Socialism is what they want.

Trick being, making it more attractive to them than what they already have.
A Disarmed populace requires less intelligence to coerce.

Whatever works.

As an aside, the obvious fact that what works in one country doesn't always work in another is evidence to me that:

a) not everyone needs or wants the same kind of government
b) not everyone needs or wants the same kinds of laws
c) not everyone needs or wants the same political philosophy

I don't believe for a minute that democracy or socialism or any other -ism is a universal antidote for poverty, war, crime, etc., in all countries.

I was alluding more to the fact that Americans seem to be more predisposed to be unpleasant to one another, if they have perpetual need of guns to ward each other off, something that seems to be unnecessary elsewhere.

There seem to be socialist countries that have private ownership of firearms. And yet there isn't a problem. So I'm wondering why Sarah Brady felt she had to say this:

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sarah Brady

Socialists (including marxists and communists) have been attempting to take this country over from within for almost 100 years now. Due to the fact that once found out, they tend to lose support rapidly they have adapted by infesting the Democratic Party with their ranks and claiming it for their own, but trying to put their own flavor to it with little name tags such as Progressive, New Democrat, Thoughtful, and of course pose as "Liberals".
They have come to accept that the destruction from within is not as practical in the U.S. as it has been in other places. They also realize that Americans will fight back even if they were successful in disposing the government elected by the people. Therefore, to be able to take control of our property, land etc would require their ability to defeat militia's for every inch of ground. Their numbers are too small to make this possible, so, they must first talk American's out of the right to defend themeselves.
Side note: European Socialists are more like what our Democrats used to be before the party was taken over. They are mostly middle class working stiffs just trying to have a decent life.
Our Socialists are indoctrinated eastern bloc wannabes intent on over throw and control, a breed Europeans have already learned about and revoked.

Whatever works.

As an aside, the obvious fact that what works in one country doesn't always work in another is evidence to me that:

a) not everyone needs or wants the same kind of government
b) not everyone needs or wants the same kinds of laws
c) not everyone needs or wants the same political philosophy

I don't believe for a minute that democracy or socialism or any other -ism is a universal antidote for poverty, war, crime, etc., in all countries.
This is about the best thing you've ever said. I'm going to save this quote, and pull it out whenever someone talks about exporting "OUR" culture or imposing it by force as something that is a good thing. I think this exactly points out why that is not the case. Do I have your permission to quote you on it?

Edit: on second reading, I sound a bit sarcastic! Let me assure you that I am completely in earnest!

Nationalisation of certain industries isn't 'socialism' either, it's state-managed capitalism. Is there any workers control in Sweden? Is the capitalist state being dismantled?

hahhaha! State Managed Capitalism! hahhaha That's good, I have got to write that one down.

This is about the best thing you've ever said. I'm going to save this quote, and pull it out whenever someone talks about exporting "OUR" culture or imposing it by force as something that is a good thing. I think this exactly points out why that is not the case. Do I have your permission to quote you on it?

Edit: on second reading, I sound a bit sarcastic! Let me assure you that I am completely in earnest!

Yes you may.

Let's think about this from the Inuit point of view.

Let's say that we have some that hunt for a living. They own a rifle, and some cartridges.

A new, faraway government passes a law saying, "no guns".

Well, either they keep the rifle, and become de facto criminals, or they try and re-learn how to use archaic methods such as the harpoon.

They didn't ask for anyone to tell them how to live - they just want to hunt a few animals the way they always did. But someone with no insight as to how they live just passed a law...

I could say the same thing about exporting democracy by force. Just because we think it's great, doesn't mean that it's just what everyone else needs.

Yes you may.

Let's think about this from the Inuit point of view.

Let's say that we have some that hunt for a living. They own a rifle, and some cartridges.

A new, faraway government passes a law saying, "no guns".

Well, either they keep the rifle, and become de facto criminals, or they try and re-learn how to use archaic methods such as the harpoon.

They didn't ask for anyone to tell them how to live - they just want to hunt a few animals the way they always did. But someone with no insight as to how they live just passed a law...

I could say the same thing about exporting democracy by force. Just because we think it's great, doesn't mean that it's just what everyone else needs.
This example is exactly why I don't entirely support gun-registration (and certainly not the all-out banning of guns). Much like Jordaxia, this forum has really changed my rather flippant views on the whole gun issue. I hunt. I use rifles. Many Natives and non-Natives supplement their diet with wild meat. (I really have no time for those who simply trophy hunt and don't eat the animal) Right now, rifles are still on the 'ok' list in Canada (with exceptions), but you're right...who's to say that they won't be on the list next? And I certainly didn't grow up using a bow and arrows, despite my ancestor's prowess with such! I'd probably end up hurting the animal more! I wouldn't give up hunting with a rifle if they were banned, and that would automatically make me a criminal.

Weird...how is it I haven't really ever thought of it this way before? I've been a bit pro-registration (especially in terms of handguns), but I am so suspicious of government, I can't imagine that I actually thought they would be reasonable about it...

Anyway, it's very true that no one philosophical/economic/political belief is one size fits all...why isn't this more recognised as self-evident?

As I have said many times before, communists control and manipulate socialists and other liberals. They pass themselves of as socialists and have become very adept at hiding their true identity. These fake socialists want to end private gun ownership so they can impose their policies on others, as said by previous posters. When the commies start imposing their more radical ideas they don’t want an already independent feeling and armed to the teeth South opposing them. I am speaking of the US of course.

Well if we're talking about a non-democratic socialism, guns would give the people a different method to "vote" them out.

So, only 'communists' support gun-registration? :rolleyes:

Thus, you can have places like Switzerland, where possession is lightly regulated, yet the economy is largely Socialist. Such places break the currently fashionable model of disarming the populace to impose a system of "Social Justice".
Switzerland: Opponents of gun control often use Switzerland as evidence that access to guns is not linked to crime or violence. They argue that since virtually all adult males are members of the army and have military weapons, there is nearly universal access to deadly weapons yet few gun-related problems in Switzerland. However, Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Université de Lausanne, argues that the rate of households with firearms is actually comparable to that of Canada (27.2%). There is strict screening of army officers and ammunition is stored in sealed boxes and inspected regularly. Despite these controls, Switzerland has rates of gun suicide second only to the US among the countries Killias surveyed and a gun murder rate comparable to Canada's. Although firearms regulations in Switzerland is fragmented and controlled at the regional level, wide ranging reforms are being undertaken to establish national standards.

Some people use guns for killing their neightbors (in Rwanda for example).
There is no one-size-fits-all solution and those which do not fit will necessarily be controlled by the powerful ones. There has always been a struggle between humans and there will always be one until they develop a social consience and civilize themselve. Gun registration is a way to keep the blind people from hurting the majority until they are provided with proper education.

Well, I still don't get it. There are some European nations with governments that have a lot of socialist ideas and programs - to their benefit, it would seem.

And yet they still have some firearms ownership - it's not completely forbidden as Sarah would have it. Nor do these countries seem to fear their gun owners.
People in Europe don't fear gun owners because our gun owners don't kill children on school days.

Except in Dunblane and couple of other places...

People in Europe don't fear gun owners because our gun owners don't kill children on school days.

Nor do ours, if you'll notice it's a deranged minority of American youths that does such things, not America's gun owners.

yah, of course there are degrees of socialism... one way to measure it imo is to figure out how much re-distribution of wealth there is

you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Why do conservatives think that welfare is the be-all and end-all of socialism? It's only a minor part of it.

I'm not saying it's completely socialist. But you are at least moving in that direction.
What makes you think Sweden is becoming more socialist?

To some American Socialists, the idea of Socialism is to centralize and redistribute all power (economic, physical) into the hands of an 'elite'.
Do you have an evidence for this beyond the anecdotal and other things that happen in your brain?

How is welfare, which you love to whine about, concentrating money into the hands of a central elite? There is more of a central control of money under capitalism.

The gun control movement is nothing more than an emotional reaction to the high school shootings. It's not a grand conspiracy to disarm everyone and enslave them.

Nor do ours, if you'll notice it's a deranged minority of American youths that does such things, not America's gun owners.
With an exception in Germany a couple of years ago, European youths don't do that.

Ok, I'll give you that, but I won't concede that it's relevant. Why penalize law-abiding gun owners for the foolish actions of psychotic youths? It's somewhat like deciding that the solution to the problem of drunk-driving is to ban automobiles. I know that guns are limited in their function as opposed to automobiles, but why ban guns if it's not the guns themselves that are the problem?

Ok, I'll give you that, but I won't concede that it's relevant. Why penalize law-abiding gun owners for the foolish actions of psychotic youths? It's somewhat like deciding that the solution to the problem of drunk-driving is to ban automobiles. I know that guns are limited in their function as opposed to automobiles, but why ban guns if it's not the guns themselves that are the problem?

While there is some sense to that, it is very difficult for a psychotic youth to go on an effective killing spree without a gun. Going on a stabbing spree isn't quite as effective, although if I recall, one fellow last year had a good go at it.

There's much sense in that, and I see where the conclusion comes from, but I think it's a faulty conclusion to a valid problem. It's like in engineering: there may be numerous solutions to a given problem, but the point is to come up with the BEST solution, and the one that will produce the least number of negative side-effects. The "ban all guns" solution or even the "ban most guns" solution are like the solutions to the engineering problem that are seen as being unacceptable: sure, they work, but they don't work well enough to be quite up to par.

It's swatting a fly with a hydrogen bomb.

It's swatting a fly with a hydrogen bomb.

Arming the entire population as a means to reduce crime is swatting a fly with a hydrogen bomb.

I would never use that argument, because I don't think it's any more valid than the other things I've mentioned. The purpose isn't to arm them because it will reduce crime, but to allow them to be armed because there's no reason to tell someone they can't own something if they don't use it to the detrement of others.

People seem to forget that in order to achieve that communistic society the people need to overthrow the "oppressive" bourgeoisie.

Now how could we overthrow them? An armed revolution, perhaps?

I would never use that argument, because I don't think it's any more valid than the other things I've mentioned. The purpose isn't to arm them because it will reduce crime, but to allow them to be armed because there's no reason to tell someone they can't own something if they don't use it to the detrement of others.

Well, since the only way in which it is possible to use a gun is to the detriment of others, there's not much point them having it otherwise.

Is it not possible to shoot at targets with a gun? Can you not hunt with a gun? Why would it be wrong to use guns for entertainment?

People seem to forget that in order to achieve that communistic society the people need to overthrow the "oppressive" bourgeoisie.

Now how could we overthrow them? An armed revolution, perhaps?
Maybe you haven't noticed, but all communists are against gun control. They want to arm the workers!

Ok, I'll give you that, but I won't concede that it's relevant. Why penalize law-abiding gun owners for the foolish actions of psychotic youths?
I'm not advocating gun control. I'm just explaining why some people support it.

No harm done either way you take it, there's nothing like a healthy debate!