Where’d you get that fact?
‘First they came for the bazookas,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t have a bazooka.
Then they came for the machine guns…’
There’s no way that there’s enough people rising at the same time. Americans have too much to loose, compared to Iraqis anyway. If the slippery slope is going to start, there’s nothing anyone could do to stop it.
Also You should update Your dictionaries there. What You call liberty and freedom, is everywhere else called anarchy.
Nazi’s loosened gun control for people friendly to them, armed their guys, and absolutely confiscated remaining guns from the Jews. The idea is, it’s easier to kill the guys you want to kill if they don’t have guns. It’s nice if they don’t have guns to begin with, but if you can take them away before you kill them, it’s almost as good. Do you disagree with any of this?
Also there was a lot of propaganda used to make Nazism popular with the people. Also following WWI, Germany was economically depressed, so even with the loosening of gun laws it’s not like everyone could afford to arm themselves. Regarding Nazi’s it’s thought that Hitler benefitted much from gun control measures instituted before he came to power.
On a related note, this thread gets to the heart of the matter by asking if Americans of Japanese ancestry would have been justified in having an armed revolt against government troops trying to put them in internment camps.
What do you think Czarcasm?
I think I just posted a link to another thread that ties in strongly with this one.
I see that. But you have not posted your opinion in that thread either. I’m just asking your opinion. So what do you think about it?
The observation that the Guards are state-based and thus regional, plus they are (not counting deployments overseas) part-time volunteers rather than career professionals.
My understanding is that Nazis deregulated long arms for everybody, friendly or not, who wasn’t a Jew. The thing you’re missing is that guns did not prevent the rise of Nazism, guns did not prevent the erosion of rights in the Reich, and guns being available to the general populace did not prevent the persecution of minorities.
Right, so guns were just expensive, and therefore failed to prevent tyranny. Should there be a form of gun welfare to make sure that everybody who wants one can get one? Got any cites on how much a gun cost post Weimar, as a proportion of the average salary? And how exactly did Hitler benefit from Weimar gun restrictions?
Military careers are pretty short. I’m not seeing a big difference between part time volunteers and full time volunteers. They’re both volunteers. US reserve branches are part time as well. I don’t see how that would make them more representative of the population as a whole.
You are asking about my opinion of another thread…in this thread?
Sorry-I try to avoid hijacking threads, so if you want to ask me about the other thread, you can do it over there.
Dave, aside from the Jews, how many guns did non-Nazi friendly Germans have one year Nazi’s changing gun laws? How many did they have one year after?
Arming most everyone seems to have worked well for Swizerland. Agree?
No, but if you can find any I would be happy to hear what you come up with.
Scroll down to part C.
Kable,
Let’s assume that there’s no restrictions at all, would You get a rocket launcher? I’d guess You’d be happy with just few pistols and an assault rifle. How about if tomorrow there would be a ban for rocket launchers. Would You ( and Your assault rifle ) join You neighbor Bubba who says the government can have his rocket launcher only from his cold hands? ( That’s ignoring the fact that if You approach him, especially armed, he’ll blow Your head off ). Of course You don’t.
Fast forward few years and then comes a ban for assault rifles, like the one You have? Would You go to barricades and expect that pistol owners join You?
How many times gun restrictions have become tighter? Every time somebody have lost his weapon of choice, but have there been uprisings? No, because people are happy to see that the others who have better arms are getting downgraded.
So do You have all kind of guns You would like to have? If not, why are You not trying to overthrow the oppressive government with Your friends right now?
Freakenstein, if rocket launcher’s were legal and reasonably priced. I would probably get one. Once I got it, I don’t think I would want it taken away. I think what you are really pointing out is the slippery slope of gun control and how gun grabbers are careful to ask for only as much as they can get away with at a given time. I do have almost every gun I would like to have, though at this point I do want to get another AR15 to set up for prairie dogs.
A corollary: it’s easier to inflict pain and mayhem on the people around you if you have guns, than if you don’t.
Agree or disagree?
Kable,
You did not answer My main questions.
But never mind, I really didn’t expect You would.
Of course.
Maybe you asked too many questions at once. What one did you most want me to answer?
This is Your second response to Me, so I guess by now You would have tackled ‘The neighbour Bubba’-question and the ‘pistol owners following You’-question.
Skip the third and tell Me, why are You now answering these questions and not overthrowing those oppressors who don’t let You have that rocket launcher.
So your idea is that the rule of law is useless because… Some bankers didn’t go to jail? (Just out of curiosity, is there any particular banker you have in mind, or is just “banker,” generically, adequate?)
And you say that literacy and education are “nice,” but only the successful application of force results in power. But that’s sort of the whole point, isn’t it? That guns are awesome when it comes to imposing your will on other people. But only sort of “meh” when it comes to preventing them from imposing their will on you. For that you really need things like education and the rule of law.
To put it simply: guns are great when it comes to killing. Not so great when it comes to keeping from being killed.