Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Symmetry]

Without any rights? You are joking right? The only rights you have are directly linked to gun ownership?

YES! Crispy, please try to understand. As a Brit, you are missing all the reasons. As I have pointed out before, there is no reason why you should be familiar with American's rights (and how we defend them), our Constitution, our history, and the way WE do Freedom.

How long did people rights last in Germany after Hitler took all the guns? Russia with Stalin? China with Mao?

Once the guns are taken away, what reason does the government have to respect those rights????????????????

I think we did this routine before when you claimed that the Nazis took away people's guns. As a matter of fact, they did the opposite and relaxed restrictions on gun ownership, with the obviously notable exception of Jewish people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]

The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]

The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]

Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

[Phatscotty]

So my definition of freedom is different from yours? My definition of justice is different from yours?

Why, just because it's in the constitution, is it automatically right and above question or reproach? After all the constitution has changed over time. ignoring the "would it ever happen because politics" argument think about "should it ever happen because ethics"

Repeatedly falling back on the words on a 200 year old document that at one point advocated slavery is not a strong position. I don't understand why you can't understand that.

If the government goes bat shit crazy, either the army goes along with it (what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away), or the army fights it. Either way your legal guns make sweet FA difference.

I have no idea what your definitions are, but I know you aren't addressing the question I asked, or the history of what happened when leaders took away civilians guns.

Stop changing the subject like that. I'm not falling back on the Constitution, I'm giving you the reasons WHY that is in our Constitution, why it's important.

Guns are for personal defense, not just for militia's. I remember you discovered that on your own not too long ago

[crispybits]

You were the one presenting justifications based on governmental actions. I also addressed in the post before that individual security.

The questions you edited in after I started typing out my response you mean? (and no worries for that btw - i do it to - but telling me I failed to answer them when I havent started a new post since your edit is disingenious)

Symmetry has already showed that your Nazi argument is flawed. I accept that a combination of a disarming of the population with a certain flavour of political agenda can reduce rights as in your two very left wing examples. I wonder if you understand just how far left of what you believe is left wing in America those examples are. It's like the difference between me saying you're right wing and equating you to be a hard line fascist. America is a right-leaning country in the grand scale of global politics, so your left wing is actually centrist at most (and probably actually slightly to the right) from that perspective.

The other question about defending your rights - governmentally you can't any more, the world has moved on sicne the days when the government had the same size toys as you, now they have MUCH bigger, better and more deadly ones - individually isn't stopping people being able to shoot at you preferable to having to shoot back in self defence?

[Phatscotty]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

They are more important than all the others. They are so important, that we should not budge an inch on either of them, no matter what, because we know all too well, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Our government is trusted less now than at anytime in history, corrupt, in bed with Wall Street. They are the LAST thing we should give all the guns to!!!!!

[crispybits]

Stop changing the subject like that.

If the government goes bat shit crazy, either the army goes along with it (what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away), or the army fights it. Either way your legal guns make sweet FA difference.

You care to answer my question in there? Or is the standard that I have to answer all of your questions but you're free to ignore all of mine?

By the way stating something as fact over and over again without providing good arguments when presented with objections doesn't magically make it true.

[Phatscotty]

Stop changing the subject like that.

If the government goes bat shit crazy, either the army goes along with it (what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away), or the army fights it. Either way your legal guns make sweet FA difference.

You care to answer my question in there? Or is the standard that I have to answer all of your questions but you're free to ignore all of mine?

By the way stating something as fact over and over again without providing good arguments when presented with objections doesn't magically make it true.

I love to answer questions! I just don't see one...

is it about matching weapons?

[Lootifer]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

[crispybits]

"what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away"

(I missed the ? but that doesn't make it any less a question)

[Symmetry]

You were the one presenting justifications based on governmental actions. I also addressed in the post before that individual security.

The questions you edited in after I started typing out my response you mean? (and no worries for that btw - i do it to - but telling me I failed to answer them when I havent started a new post since your edit is disingenious)

Symmetry has already showed that your Nazi argument is flawed. I accept that a combination of a disarming of the population with a certain flavour of political agenda can reduce rights as in your two very left wing examples. I wonder if you understand just how far left of what you believe is left wing in America those examples are. It's like the difference between me saying you're right wing and equating you to be a hard line fascist. America is a right-leaning country in the grand scale of global politics, so your left wing is actually centrist at most (and probably actually slightly to the right) from that perspective.

The other question about defending your rights - governmentally you can't any more, the world has moved on sicne the days when the government had the same size toys as you, now they have MUCH bigger, better and more deadly ones - individually isn't stopping people being able to shoot at you preferable to having to shoot back in self defence?

I think he has my on his foe list for pointing out this kind of stuff out. I'm not sure if he even bothers pretending to be anything other than a weird propagandist anymore.

[Phatscotty]

"what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away"

(I missed the ? but that doesn't make it any less a question)

well, it's a stacked question, obviously. Can I really get in trouble for "dodging" it? lol

Okay, if that actually is the question, then here is my answer...

none

Did I get it right?

[crispybits]

So how, based on that answer, can you justify having any weapons to try and resist the government going bat shit crazy?

("it's a stacked question" generally means that you and I both know the answer but you don't like it by the way)

[Phatscotty]

So how, based on that answer, can you justify having any weapons to try and resist the government going bat shit crazy?

whoa whoa whoa. We have to think that through. Let me ask about your example of the government going batshit crazy, as related to tomahawk cruise missles and apache helicopters. How does it all go down? I mean, usually, people envision a government "representative" coming out and you get a knock on the door and it's a guy with sun glasses and an earpiece and they say they are here to take your guns away. Now, that requires a person, and they can't really take a cruise missle with them, or fly to everyone's house in a stealth helicopter. but I bet you they have a handgun with them and some assault rifles right?

I just want to know how you envision the missles and helicopters coming into play. Is the government going to fire missles and destroy only certain neighborhoods, or just fly in and blow up 20 houses a day, until the list of houses to be blown up is empty?

[crispybits]

If you refuse and shoot the guy who comes to take your gun away, what happens next? 10 guys come with bigger guns and take your gun away. You form a militia with some like minded people and hole up somewhere. they find out where you are and storm it. Your ragtag bunch of armed civilians somehow defeat the crack military squad. So they just blow you the hell up.

There is no way you win that fight in the end. Period. Therefore having a gun will not protect you.

[Lootifer]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

???

[Phatscotty]

If you refuse and shoot the guy who comes to take your gun away, what happens next? 10 guys come with bigger guns and take your gun away. You form a militia with some like minded people and hole up somewhere. they find out where you are and storm it. Your ragtag bunch of armed civilians somehow defeat the crack military squad.

Wouldn't be the first time!

[Phatscotty]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

???

god....of all the questions, lol. OKAY!

Bearing arms enables me to protect myself, my family, and my property. If you have no means to protect yourself, you won't remain free for long, and can look forward to a long life of being abused. If you are unable to protect yourself or your family, I would go out on a limb and say that one who can protect themselves and their family is just a wee bit more free than one who does not have the right to protect themself.

[spurgistan]

So how, based on that answer, can you justify having any weapons to try and resist the government going bat shit crazy?

whoa whoa whoa. We have to think that through. Let me ask about your example of the government going batshit crazy, as related to tomahawk cruise missles and apache helicopters. How does it all go down? I mean, usually, people envision a government "representative" coming out and you get a knock on the door and it's a guy with sun glasses and an earpiece and they say they are here to take your guns away. Now, that requires a person, and they can't really take a cruise missle with them, or fly to everyone's house in a stealth helicopter. but I bet you they have a handgun with them and some assault rifles right?

I just want to know how you envision the missles and helicopters coming into play. Is the government going to fire missles and destroy only certain neighborhoods, or just fly in and blow up 20 houses a day, until the list of houses to be blown up is empty?

Dude, this is your schizoid wet dream rationale for assault weapons, not ours.

[Phatscotty]

So how, based on that answer, can you justify having any weapons to try and resist the government going bat shit crazy?

whoa whoa whoa. We have to think that through. Let me ask about your example of the government going batshit crazy, as related to tomahawk cruise missles and apache helicopters. How does it all go down? I mean, usually, people envision a government "representative" coming out and you get a knock on the door and it's a guy with sun glasses and an earpiece and they say they are here to take your guns away. Now, that requires a person, and they can't really take a cruise missle with them, or fly to everyone's house in a stealth helicopter. but I bet you they have a handgun with them and some assault rifles right?

I just want to know how you envision the missles and helicopters coming into play. Is the government going to fire missles and destroy only certain neighborhoods, or just fly in and blow up 20 houses a day, until the list of houses to be blown up is empty?

Dude, this is your schizoid wet dream rationale for assault weapons, not ours.

None of that has anything to do with assault weapons, except for correctly assuming in a non relevant part of the post that the government carries them.

So guess who the skitzo is?

[Lootifer]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

Bearing arms enables me to protect myself, my family, and my property. If you have no means to protect yourself, you won't remain free for long, and can look forward to a long life of being abused. If you are unable to protect yourself or your family, I would go out on a limb and say that one who can protect themselves and their family is just a wee bit more free than one who does not have the right to protect themself.

But what if I live in a society where I have no need to defend myself/others with lethal force? Considering this, are you still more free than me?

[Iliad]

You've had shootings at universities, at schools, the man who shot the crowd including Gabrielle Giffords.

I see you're very good at pushing these events out of your memory.
EDIT:
April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

...

So you're comparing a country of 311 million to a country 22 million? Obviously the country with the higher population will have a higher total number of killings--that's common sense--but it doesn't prove anything. At least compare stats per capita if you're going to compare countries at all, for crying out loud!
[/quote]
Stats per capita, is that your homicide rate is 4 times higher than ours. And we've had one mass shooting since 1996, 0 since then after restritions on gun laws, I've posted how you've had more than 15. Even on per capita you're overrepresented.

Arguing against US gun culture is like shouting at a wall though.

[Symmetry]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

Bearing arms enables me to protect myself, my family, and my property. If you have no means to protect yourself, you won't remain free for long, and can look forward to a long life of being abused. If you are unable to protect yourself or your family, I would go out on a limb and say that one who can protect themselves and their family is just a wee bit more free than one who does not have the right to protect themself.

But what if I live in a society where I have no need to defend myself/others with lethal force? Considering this, are you still more free than me?

Well said. A society where freedom is only possible at the end of a gun isn't really free.

[Phatscotty]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

Bearing arms enables me to protect myself, my family, and my property. If you have no means to protect yourself, you won't remain free for long, and can look forward to a long life of being abused. If you are unable to protect yourself or your family, I would go out on a limb and say that one who can protect themselves and their family is just a wee bit more free than one who does not have the right to protect themself.

But what if I live in a society where I have no need to defend myself/others with lethal force? Considering this, are you still more free than me?

Is that society Heaven?

[Lootifer]

My question was serious.

I feel absolutely no need to defend myself with a lethal weapon, and it's because the society I live in poses little risk; do you think I am letting down my family by not protecting them via a lethal weapon (and relevant training)?

[Juan_Bottom]

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer, they're for hunting people."

She's going to introduce a bill to ban assault weapons.

[Juan_Bottom]

My question was serious.

I feel absolutely no need to defend myself with a lethal weapon, and it's because the society I live in poses little risk; do you think I am letting down my family by not protecting them via a lethal weapon (and relevant training)?

The Shooter's mother bought a gun to protect herself from this kind of violence.