Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
It might be good to remember that the National Socialists took power legally, in a democratic fashion.
Sweejak wrote:It might be good to remember that the National Socialists took power legally, in a democratic fashion.
Rather more complex. It was deal making, maneuvering. 43% of the vote.
http://www.johnreilly.info/htdtp.htm
BTW
http://www.ewanco.com/%7eeje/robert.html
There most certainly is a virtual gun ban. The reason being that the government has criminalized 99.9% of any sscenariowhere a citizen would be inclined to use a gun--
If I shoot a gun-toting intruder in my home but he somehow staggers out the front door and collapses in the front yard...I am in great danger of being sent to prison for twenty years (or worse).
If I shoot an intruder in my home in the darkness at 2 in the morning and it turns out he only had a stick in his hand (or something)...I'm in grave danger of being sent to prison for twenty years.
If I were to pull a gun out of my glove compartment and shoot a guy under almost ANY circumstances, no matter how dire (a violent carjacking attempt etc.)...it would an absolute toss of the dice as to whether I would be sent to prison, charged with homicide, or whatever.
Few people (myself included) want to put themselves in that kind of position. You hear of very, VERY few stories where law-abiding citizens took the risk of applying deadly force.
Most people will hesitate to do anything that involves hurting or getting hurt. The biggest challenge in any martial art is teaching people to make the decision to use or not use force, and act on it in time to make a difference. In fact that's the reason behind many aspects of the martial arts that look silly or over the top to outsiders, like the yells, etc.
I think I understood almost nothing of what you said, at least in terms of logic. Sorry. There IS a virtual ban on guns. You want to say it's a "judicial" problem...or a 'legal' or 'legislative' problem"? What are you talking about? How does that change my point? There is a virtual ban. It's the net effect.
And you claim you don't understand that almost all gun handling has been criminalized (and want me to rifle through a thousand tons of legal records for you)? Don't know how to help you with that one.
If you want proof that the government guys send people to prison for having guns, skip the thousand hours of research you had in mind...and look no further than New Orleans. If those lawful gun-owners hadn't turned over their weapons in this illegal confiscation...they would have gone to jail.
Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), "the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition." But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
On June 2006 Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed the NRA-backed Act 275, forbidding the confiscation of firearms from lawful citizens during declared emergencies. Similar legislation had already been adopted in nine other states.
On October 4, 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill). This legislation prohibits the confiscation of otherwise legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency by any agent of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds (effectively, any Federal, state, or local governmental entity). Introduced in Congress by Rep. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, both of Louisiana, this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing the House of Representatives with a margin of 322-99 and the Senate by 84-16.
rothbardian wrote:Erosoplier--
You stated--"You must find life almost unbearable...". At times you seem to be almost laughing out loud at my (silly?) insistence on equal rights. Isn't that a little awkward for a lib like yourself?
Yes, I expect and I demand equal rights...with people who wear blue hats, with people who have blue skin...or with people who claim they have blue blood. Laugh yourself dizzy...I guess. (?)
Another statement you make-- "If the killer weren't allowed access to guns in the first place, no one would be dead, not even the "killer." You must be kidding. If you figure out a way to keep bad people from having guns...so that the good people no longer need guns...please post it here. Meanwhile, Washington DC has a total ban on gun ownership and is still near the top of the nation in murder rates. Go figure.
Switzerland has more guns per capita than probably any nation in the world and has virtually a zero murder rate. Go figure.
If you would like to see all access to guns denied, I hope you mean to include the Blue Hats also...otherwise you're acknowledging that there needs to be at least some access to deadly force in the event of the occasional VA. Tech scenario. In which case we're now back to the beginning of this debate--which is that it is immoral to demand those dying students wait for the Blue Hat to finish his donut...because PCers (like you?) have absurd notions as to the magical qualifications that only blue hat-wearing humans have.
It might be interesting if you were assigned to present a conciliatory lecture to the parents and families of the dead: "Even though your loved ones died...if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have it any other way. Very appropriately, none of the students were equipped to defend themselves...as it should be. And if they had survived (because of some rogue student who had rebelliously and 'illegally' carried a weapon on campus)...their survival would have been the result of inappropriate behavior...and therefore their very survival would have been...well...technically inappropriate. Any questions?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
You also state-- "The game is already lost if you think your right to bear arms..." You're the umpteenth person in this thread to set up this straw man about my alleged daydreams of storming the Pentagon. I have been talking about my right to self defense...and the absurdity of unequal rights...and the absurdity of the magical blue hats.
Having said all that, I am amazed at your brushing aside of history. Recall George Washington. Recall the Revolutionary War. I don't know what part of the world you reside in but...thank the Good Lord you weren't there when the Founding Father huddled up and decided to lay it all on the line for freedom. I can imagine your comments--"You guys are silly...'the game is lost already' if you think you can wrench freedom for the Brits."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests