Gun Controllers Unwittingly Support Unsafe Societal Conditions

They know exactly what they propose and how it will affect people, yet they feign ignorance or outright willing stupidity. No one can be as uneducated as those who refuse to see truth.

under the guise of moral high ground. If you're ANTI personal CHOICE, just say so and wear it on your sleeve.

What if we did have sane gun laws in this country? We do have laws regarding all kinds of "personal choices" that harm other people. We have laws regarding the kinds of firearms you can purchase. Frankly, people suffering from acute gun paranoia aren't stable enough to own a 40 caliber machine gun anyway.

The problem is, sane gun laws may reduce gun violence, but they don't reduce overall violence; A murderer is just as likely to murder with a knife as a gun; if someone goes bonkers, not having access to a firearm will not impede them. (IIRC, there was a Japanese man who got onto a bus, stabbed a large group of people, killed a few of them, then ate parts of them as well as himself.) What I'm against is laws that outright -ban- firearms for no particular reason; see the Assault Weapon ban. I'm all in favor of waiting periods (though I think 15 days is a bit much), am not inherently against a handgun registry, and I've got a few personal ideas that might help although they hurt consumers in the pocketbook. Surprisingly, no matter what you may think, I'm all for reasonable gun control; what I'm not for is irrational bans based on feel-good moralistic views with no basis in fact or reality. For instance, you want to buy a machine gun? I'm all for it, but in my ideal world, a purchase like that would get you on a registry and require both a psych eval and a serious waiting period, among other things.

What you call acute gun paranoia, clearly is not.

Those paranoid about guns tend to be VPC and Brady members as well as their local surrogates, not gun owners.

I don't know of any 40 caliber machine gun.

DU used to be hard over about removing zombies...FedExing the granite pizza. Not so much any more.

that you remember me years later and still have to insult me and fantasize about banning me just because you aren't able to discuss these matters intelligently.

but you sure ain't effective now, so don't flatter yourself.

But it is a noticeable sea change here at DU on behalf of the admins. You are not the only admitted zombie either.

I was tombstoned because I was frustrated with the president and advocated for a 3rd party. I understand why that isn't allowed, I was just pissed off, as many of us have been at one point or another.

As for my argument on this portion of the thread, I was mocking the idea that support for control is attributable to my desire to see people harmed. That's nonsensical and unfactual.

I'm so very sorry I got that incredibly important detail wrong.

I would take ideas from Canada, since they have lots of guns but far less gun violence. I think we need to have laws that leave the firearms owner in peace, but also reduce the the overall capability for murderous activity, and the massive numbers of straw sales.

From what I can tell there is universal licensing and registration. We have that for cars in the US, and there has not been a mass car confiscation.

Another idea they have that I think would prevent a great many murders is their spousal notification law.

cartridge marking and registration, both for the same reason. What makes you think that another such program would work. And how do you guarentee that it does not, in the near or far future, used as a confiscation list. Remember that has already happened in California and New york city.

Do you also advocate for a license to vote? Or for any other of the enumerated rights in the Constitution?

Cars are registered as a method of revenue enhancement. They are also the leading cause of violent death in the US. Drivers are tested, licensed, and are supposed to be insured. Many own and operate vehicles that are non of the above. They cause a great amount of suffering.

Spousal notification. Would not work with me as my Loving Wife shoots competition right beside me.

because it has a pretty good track record.

Cars are registered to establish clear ownership, which would be the same reason for gun registration. Cars are registered, their drivers are licensed, and still we haven't seen mass car confiscations.

I've never seen any stories about a man brutally murdering his wife with his absentee ballot.

I think spousal notification would work just fine with you. If your wife is confident that you aren't going to murder her, no problem!

Their murder rate was still 1/4 ours when their federal gun laws were about the same if not laxer than ours. Their crime rates follow the same sine wave ours has, goes up when ours has and drops when ours does. There are some things I doubt you would like about the Canadian system:
non violent felons can legally own guns
18 year olds can legally buy handguns from a store
12 year olds can legally buy ammo from a store
inter provincial sales (a resident of Alberta may legally buy a gun in BC or Ontario) are legal
their internet/mail order sales, gun comes to your door.
None of that is legal here.
If you buy a gun online, you type in your PAL number along with payment and shipping info at check out. Once the seller verifies the PAL number with the RCMP, it comes to the door. If the gun is restricted, go to the RCMP Firearms Centre's website to register it.
inter provincial sales (a resident of Alberta may legally buy a gun in BC or Ontario) are legal

Cars and guns are false equivalents. There are no car prohibition lobby in any country that I know of. Gun prohibtionist lobbies do. Such confiscations have taken place in UK, Canada, California, and Australia.
Car registration generates revenue, that is the whole point of it. Gun registration does not. It cost money and has never provided police evidence or provided public safety benefits.

Cars and guns are false equivalents.

Yup, I've made that point on several occasions, when gun religionists talk about deaths from automobile accidents. Still my point remains, car registration has not led to car confiscations.

I think that there are several ideas in the Canadian system that we could import and improve ours, and I do think that liberalization on some points isn't such a terrible idea. For example, non-violent felons don't seem to be an extraordinary risk in my view. As far as restrictions, I'm very much in favor of spousal notification. This seems like a great idea that would save many lives by limiting the most stupid and pointless gun crimes.

There is no gun prohibitionist lobby in the US. This is hysteria. There is a gun control lobby. As far as I can tell, guns are confiscated only in cases where they have been used in committing a crime. You'll have to enlighten me on any other confiscation efforts. When I google gun confiscation california all I can find is a bunch of hysterically shrill gun religionist websites which don't appear to be credible and neglect to provide details in favor of promoting hysteria.

in the past 40 years from prohibition to control, so not buying it. No, in California's case some guns were reclassified. Of course, there is Australia and UK.
Spousal notification is for the PAL, not the gun. The use of handguns in crimes have increased since many of their laws passed. If access to guns had anything to do with it, Canada should have more machine gun crimes than we did until 1977. As far as I can tell, they didn't even in the 1920s, but they didn't have prohibition and organized crime flush with cash. In case you don't know, while Canada started a registration, background check for handguns in 1934, about the same time we did with machine guns for different reasons, they left machine guns alone until 1952. They started a machine gun registry, but no licensing like for pistols that year, and continued until 1977.
Gun crime levels seem to be more cultural than because of laws. Canadian murder weapons are evenly divided between guns, contact weapons (knives, baseball bats), and bare hands.

Have watched a ton of the back and forth here lately on this topic. The reality as I see it is that no agreement is currently possible on what rational gun laws look like that balance public safety needs with the right to bear arms.

There is not enough trust between gun control advocates and right to bear arms folks to make a reasoned policy. All anyone has to look at is some of the discussion on this topic on DU.

No middle ground answer on the poll either.

Just my thoughts.

back to the 1993 Crime Omnibus Act which included the AWB. The Brady org. was feeling it's oats and decided to try to push the gamet and get what they deemed evil weapons and what they considered hi cap mags banned, and Pres. Clinton went along with it despite numerous pro gun Dems warning him of what would happen.
The passage of this Act was partly responsible for the loss of the Congress in 94 as detailed in Clinton's book, My Life.
The rise of the NRA's power can be tied directly with the AWB.
Gun owners view the gun controllers, rightly or wrongly, as those that want to take away American's gun rights and there are those politicians who re-enforce their fears, hell, there's people right here who re-enforce our fears.

Just my thoughts also.

Had a nice back and forth with some gun advocates here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=80409

I learned a lot and got me hooked on the DU site. These guys were passionate. respectful and brought logic and their reasons for what they advocate. It became obvious to me there was no trust of gun control advocates.

From what you are saying, overreach is responsible. I tend to agree with you as you can see the hyperbole right here on DU at times.

Most Americans would love to see more people in the world have more freedom. However, there is nothing, not freedom, nor money that is so universally unifying as an enemy.

The BBs and the NRA have done more to polarize the discussion than should be tolerated by those on either side of the issue.

Sad They are making leadership on the issue very difficult.

I learned that the first discussion I had on guns here.

TBH I don't know much about the ins and outs of the guns or the related laws. Do not own or use guns myself. Have many friends that are hunters. They NEVER talk about gun laws....seems like a world where status quo OK for most.

Problem is, status quo is probably not the right path, just read the papers....but since the 2 sides have no trust, status quo remains...I blame both sides....no trust means no change.

once you learn what current federal gun laws actually are. The problem with middle ground from here, then the middle ground moves for the next call for restrictions. Since it is really a culture war more than a public safety issue, the best analogy I can think of is treaties with Native Americans.

The Constitution and its Amendments lays out specific functions delegated to the government and specific things the government is not allowed to touch. If the government wants to move into those areas, it must be done through a specific process. I'd go so far as to find a "middle ground" on the Second if, and only if, the government compensates me for the items I give up, and offers guarantees for my security. But it won't and can't, so what do you suggest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=80409

The folks that replied had some great thoughts too. After awhile I surrendered...lol..

They do not trust control advocates AT ALL...maybe with good reason.

I would consider a middle ground position one that makes it really hard for mentally unstable people to get guns, does not unduly impede rights of all people to own them...after all, we do live at the mercy of our fellow man...hopefully we all recognize that.

I wish I had a great answer, I don't...

it's refreshing.

That said, keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons is a goal we all strive for, but doing it w/o infringing on the rights of the law abiding is a tough one. We all agree that the mentally ill shouldn't possess firearms, but how do we get there w/o violations of our rights?
Some have suggested mandatory mental health screenings to own a firearm, IMHO, that's a non starter for me, who determines what the mental health standard for ownership is? The Govt.? Some faceless bureaucrat?
The possibility for abuse of the system is breathtaking.

Some have supported background checks for all sales, private and from FFL's. Right now, a private seller is prohibited by law to access the NICS system to check if a buyer is legal to possess a firearm.
This one's easy for me, open NICS to private sellers to determine if a buyer is a prohibited person or not, if legal, then sale goes through w/o anymore info given, if it's a prohibited person, LE should be notified and an investigation should be initiated to determine if a prohibited person attempted to obtain a firearm.

Another idea floated by one of our more authoritarian controllers is a one strike and your DQ from ever owning a firearm again.
For obvious reason, that's a ridiculous proposition and I would wholeheartedly oppose it.

Same poster said that elderly should be banned from owning firearms due to their age and diminished capacity, I'm just paraphrasing here, but that was his intent. Another non starter, elderly people, of which I'm closing in on, are just as sharp as the youngsters.

Registration of firearms, specifically handguns, has been advocated by some here, another non starter, criminals won't and don't have to register firearms, it only impacts the lawful gun owner and it gives the Govt. a list of who owns what and in my mind, that's a dangerous road to go down, witness the confiscation of "Assault Weapons" in CA after registration.

In closing, there are things that can be that won't infringe on the law abiding citizens RKBA. Better reporting by the states of prohibited persons, timely reporting of those that have been deemed by a court to be mentally unfit to possess firearms, more timely reporting of convicted Felons, convicted Domestic Violence.
Have the Fed. Govt. properly fund the NICS. There are other steps that can be taken to make it harder for prohibited persons to get firearms.

Kind of a long post, something I'm not exactly known for.
Thanks for listening.

You are right to be wary of the slippery slope of some solutions infringing on rights of too many...I could see that in some of the responses to my suggestions.

Enjoyed the chat.

"To know what you know and know what you don't know is the characteristic of one who knows."

Nothing wrong with regulation as long as it works.

「每個共產黨員都應懂得這個真理：『槍桿子裏面出政權』。」

"Every Communist must grasp the truth: 'Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.'"

Arms in the hands of his followers toppled the Republic. After that, the Party was defined as the state, and the sole entity representing the people's welfare, and no good could possibly come of allowing non-Party entities to have political power-emitters.

to argue that Jews, Gypsies, and other outnumbered minority groups could have beaten back the hordes of Nazis if only they had owned more guns.

This is a desperate, cynical ploy, blaming the victim for not adhering to your repellent view of the world, no matter how astonishingly unrealistic. "Gee if only my family of six -- including small children -- had guns, we would have been able to hold off entire brigades." Bull snorking shit.

Take your anti-Semitic, unreasoning bigotry and go away.

What's racist about pointing out a historic fact?

in the hypothetical nonsense that if only Jews had fired back, they would have been able to overcome being tremendously outnumbered by well-organized armies.

Blame the victims much? Maybe if the Jews hadn't dressed like that....

This is all bullshit. I had family members die in the Holocaust, and you know what? Some of them owned guns. And none of them would appreciate their graves being desecrated to be used for propaganda. Nasty, self-serving propaganda.

Hey OP, guess what? You're pissing on the graves of Holocaust and Porrajmos victims like my family, but it's ok. You're PROTECTED. Your gun doesn't protect you in real life; society protects you in real life. And our society says that everyone's free to speak, even idiots and racists.

Your argument is victim-blaming, vicious, ugly, and evil. But that's ok, because you'll be protected from the people who challenge your delusions.

As far as I can tell, rDigital is criticizing the German government for restricting Jews' access to guns, not the failure of Jews to fight back.

and now completely control that nation

... in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic? Do you not understand what the word means? In fact, I find it anti-Semitic the concept that Jews (or anyone else for that matter) should go meekly to their deaths instead of making the enemy pay for every one. Why do you prefer martyrs to fighters?

I have previously provided many examples where only a few, poorly armed Jews fought back against superior forces AND saved lives -- including holding off entire brigades. They didn't hold out forever, but their acts of heroism saved lives -- that is historical fact.

Would you prefer an armed or disarmed victim?

There is no actual study of the circumstances in Europe 1920 to 1930.

Countries with strong central governments and strict gun control had no problems. Yes, there were disturbances but nothing that could sustain revolt. In the UK dissidents were forced to the ballot box where they enjoyed considerable success. In France, which suffered more as a result of the Great War, central government became repressive but the limited access to weapons enabled the centre to hold. Italy had a strong tradition of an armed populace (even though it had dubious legality) and was the first to fall under the fascist yoke. Germany was disintegrating, armed militias of both Left and Right operated with impunity and had easy access to weapons and ammunition.

Essentially your premise is a load of testicles.

Germany did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#Restrictions_imposed_by_the_treaty_of_Versailles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom

and very few guns in the general populace, which is why British Police forces were rarely armed.

I did not say that Germany did not have strict laws but rather that it had a weak government which could not enforce the laws.

Prairie Oysters is an accurate description of your OP

...are under the control of free people, some of the only free people, and they live here in the US. 4.5% of the world's population own half the guns. We don't wait for the government to protect us because when seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away. We operate by trusting the government to deal with those criminals whom we've encountered for the balance of their lives.

The government and our fellow US residents operate in trust relationship. Since our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written most of the world has followed that lead. The world will also follow our lead in freedom, personal arms and the 'pursuit of happiness'.

Niccolò Machiavelli: "Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years." (At the age of 29, was elected as head of the second chancery.)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." (At the age of thirty-two, Story became the youngest ever Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.)

about a modern phenomenon?

Swords are not firearms; neither are longbows, crossbows, slings, spears, javelins, atlatl, francisca, battle axes, claymores or pike. Despite the fevered dreams of romantic fantasy fiction readers the use of such weapons in war requires a lot of training in mass infantry maneuvers. Sparta and Rome both trained their populations in such tactics as did the other warlike ancient states and, in later periods, the Swiss the English and the Zulu all enforced such group training in with the preferred weapons of those nations.

Now to Justice Story who may well have been an educated man, this does not make his unevidenced opinion bear any relation to reality. If he put forward such an notion on todays internet there would be justified cries of "Citation needed"!

Insurrection, however, is a different game, with different tactics and strategies.

- "You are quoting Macchiavelli??"
: You can read, can't you? < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli >

- "...about a modern phenomenon?"
: War, oppression and tyranny are hardly modern.

- "...Justice Story...this does not make his unevidenced opinion bear any relation to reality."
: Your judgement evinces the same regarding yourself.

Oh and BTW, if your questioning my spelling of Macchiavelli and need that extra "c", you'll find it hiding in the corner bar having a drink with your missing apostrophe.

He was writing about medieval weaponry.

You are trying to compare firearms with weapons that required skill and practice to apply deadly force in warfare. Yes, untrained people can use medieval weaponry to kill but effective use in war required extensive training; examine the laws that English kings put into force about the use of the longbow or the murder squads that Spartan youth became against the helots or the amount of time Romans were expected to attend the Field of Mars or the laws Gengis Khan enforced about hunting or the cruelties Chaka inflicted upon Zulu adolescents. On the other hand you are attempting to compare concepts with tools.

I can provide citations, could Justice Storey?

And petty nit-picking about spelling is further evidence of the paucity of your ideas. I didn't use the diphthong in mediæval either.

Like language their innate strength is respected by the wise.
Time is short; more to come. Be safe and have a nice day.

You are doing it wrong.

And you just verbally punched every combat troop in the face.

...I got up too early today but do have any idea where this fellow is headed with this digression?

:scratching head:

..."Sometimes, it's bizarre!"

"You are trying to compare firearms with weapons that required skill and practice to apply deadly force in warfare."

Firearms don't require skill and practice to apply deadly force in warfare?

Doncha know? Them things kill all by themselves.

Leaving this here for a proper response later. However, if you want a head start, try looking at any of the pre-Medieval period western Europe states (Celts, Gauls, Scotts, Germans, Nordics) or the far-north Asian (Russia, the Mongols) or even Japan. In addition, try a brief primer on military history and tactics in relation to each in regards to the weapons of choice of each power in question and -why- they utilized the tactics they did, preferably regarding typical foes and force multipliers as factors in weapon and tactical/strategic development. I'll be back after my workday today (about sixteen hours from now) and we'll have some fun.

(Quick hint: You're wrong, but at least you're wrong for the right reasons. I'll explain why when I come back.)

Didn't very well against the Romans, did they? Nor did they do very well against the well trained Carthaginians and Numideans.

The "Scots" did not exist in Scotland, the Scots only arrived from Ireland during the post Roman period and they are Celtic as well. If you mean instead the Picts then they consistently lost against the Romans although they might have killed a Roman general who was foolish enough to ride with only a minimal escort through "bandit" country. These Hibernians were then largely ignored because their land was too poor to support an occupation. However the constant cattle and slave raids by marauders were a problem hence the Antonine "wall". Hadrian's Wall was, like many Roman building projects, a way of keeping the Legions occupied as well as reducing the length of the line of interruption.

Germans won, using the German auxiliaries (trained by the Romans) under a Roman tutored leader, who was fighting a really stupid Roman general who walked into a prepared ambush site. The Germans later lost, carrying on the loosing streak that had begun with their first contact with the Romans.

Nordics; many had Byzantine training and later Norse kings established vast training camps and barracks. The "hit and run tactics" of Norse raiders succeeded briefly in the British Isles but, for 100 years prior to the Battle of Maldon were continually beaten by trained Saxon huscarls - who were professional soldiers. After Maldon Nordic kings paid far more attention to training and consolidated finally under Cnut. Cnut then won many battles using trained troops in conventional warfare.

I could carry on, but I have my wife to take to the Doctor and then have to start work.

for cultural reasons. Compared to the US perhaps. But it wasn't that hard to get a permit. That is not why the police were rarely armed. That decision was made before any gun laws were passed.

do tell. In practice the proliferation of shooting clubs meant that there were some guns amongst the general populace. Many British Governments encouraged the formation of such clubs following the debacle of the 1st Boer War. These clubs provided a small pool of firearms trained citizens for rapid recruitment into the military.

The fact that the police were established as an unarmed force does not explain the fact that they were kept as an unarmed force despite Establishment fears. Guns were issued to the police on occasion - for example the siege of Sidney Street (although regular troops were also deployed) - and the 19th century is full of incidences where the police used firearms.

Guns and their use by criminals or dissidents was rare (not non-existent) so there was little no need to spend money equipping policemen with arms and ensuring that they had appropriate training. Essentially strong central government and an effective legal system kept guns under control.

as I said gonads

Prior to 1903, there were no gun control laws in the UK.
While some of the cops were issued guns at times, it didn't last long and had more to do with poor training, lack of equipment, and other factors other than successful gun laws. One of which, the cops themselves tend to prefer the status quo.
Guns are used in crimes today than before in UK history, yet the police are still largely unarmed. That shoots your entire premise out the window.
Neither the US nor the UK are unique when it comes to arming cops. UK is in the minority, but no unique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

The UK did not have the same economic problems and was not a new democracy. The other European countries did not have strict gun laws either, but passed them between the world wars fearing political violence like was seen in Germany.

"I believe the situation in Europe in the 1940s would have been much different if the "undesirables" had the individual RKBA that we enjoy here in the USA. "

You sound confused about history. The totalitarian regimes were all in place well before 1940. Did you expect those regimes to start handing out guns to those who had already lost most, if not all, of their rights.

banned members.

I do not think he disrupted at the level of the other banned members.

That seems way over the top.

If someone didn't like that notion they should have responded to it. That's the appropriate way to deal with things you don't agree with.

I'd be interested to see if anyone posted the jury results.

You could agree or disagree with the sentiment that disarming people before murdering them has any correlation. But it certainly isn't offensive, bigoted, hateful, etc to suggest that there might be a connection.

Why don't you hie yourself over there and help me.

I just use that in a general sense.

Sorry.

And I intend to head over there.

see my post #318 taking Warren Stupidity to task about fairness.

one or more will stick and how much you wanna bet that each alert will check ToS.

every one of our posts. So far, so good.

and Mr. Warren Stupidity will declare victory. ToS will be check and Mirt will have a good laugh.
Tired of being a laughing stock.

you have seniority, whereas, I am still a relative newby here so I have to kinda watch my P's and Q's.

The repeated beating-down we've been getting lately is getting out of hand.

is toxic. As it is now, I am ready for it to be shut down. I am tired of being called names and not allowed to throw it back in return.

2A is strong in my state. Not worried.

Let the urban areas figure it out the best way they can.

Glad I live in a rural area.

And my state is strong pro 2A, so I have nothing to worry about, even if I weren't an LEO.

The Second may be strong with you two, but that does not mean it is not in jeopardy. When we grow lax, the Controllers will control the message, and we could only blame ourselves if the 2nd were to fall.

Did we give up when Abolition was waning unpopular? Of course not. When Suffragettes were shouted down? Hell no. When freedom of choice was (is) in dispute? No way in hell. That's not how we, as Americans, should act, and I'll be damned if I let a vocal minority of Controllers try to control my life. In my humble opinion, now is our own testing/breaking point, and if we fail here, we've failed everything we've accomplished up until now. Even if I'm not fighting directly for my own rights, I'll gladly fight for the civil liberties of anyone and everyone throughout the country with tooth and claw.

I certainly don't expect the same from you guys, but I can always hope.

neither of us is talking about giving up the fight, I will never concede any of my rights and will always oppose those that will try to abolish any of those rights.
We're just speaking out of frustration at what we see as a blatant bias against those of us who are pro 2A RKBA.

Rest easy, we'll be there on the front lines along with you and all of our brothers and sisters.

most good. I am not sure DU is that place.

...and I'm frankly surprised that this poster is still a member of DU. As a host of the Jewish Group, I would just say that his post is deeply offensive.

I am not Jewish but,if i understand what he wrote correctly, I do not see anything offensive about that post.

It basically states the Jewish people in Germany would have had a far better chance again those murders if they and others were not disarmed by them before hand.

The term "undesirables" was not a reference he was making toward anyone. It was what / how those murdering monsters termed/viewed those whom they slaughtered.

If I am wrong on my interpretation of this post then I will have to back off my opinion on it but, from the way it reads I don't think I am

First rule of RKBA: Watch what you say. Certain posters will take anything you say and twist it against you, trying to provoke a reaction to their blatant trolling that may get you banned. When that doesn't work, if they don't like what you said, they'll take it to Meta and skewer you with mob-style masturbatory self-validation. Just letting you know what you're looking forward to here.

Otherwise, welcome to DU. Watch your step.

The Nazis were not part of a fricking video game.

If you look for something you can usually find it.

Seek and ye shall find.

Peace be unto you.

It is offensive to me as the grandson of a person who narrowly escaped the holocaust because it perpetrates a lie and an insult. This is just like when I hear people ask "why did they get on the trains?" as if people had some kind of a choice in the matter.

The implication that guns would have protected Jews is also categorically false. Shooting Gestapo officers would only have provoked mass reprisals; the Nazis were big fans of group punishment.

The reason for the mass murder of Jews is more closely connected to centuries of antisemitic teaching in the various Christian churches, but I would be almost as stupid as rdigital if I blamed all Christians for the holocaust.

The core of our civil liberties is not guns. Where is David Khoresh today? How much time did they spend "reasoning" with him? US citizens who take up arms against the US government are going to die, period.

The core of our civil liberties is our right to free speech, not your silly gun obsession.

about 2A. It is very much the cornerstone that allows 1A to have full meaning. Free Speech by an Individual and right behind it the means to verify the weight of the word. It is what guarantees the Individual equality to The Governing Body

silly gun obsession is something else entirely.

closely connected centuries of teaching hatred were facilitated by segregating and dominating and alienating. War is taught that way.

Jews were punished regardless whether they fought back or not. They were hunted down.

It is your right to be offended. I will give you that. The Holocaust was very offensive.

it is extremely offensive.

The idea that the potential for violence guarantees free speech is...how do I put this politely...wrong.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

and doing so in a manner which shows abject ignorance about the facts of the Jewish experience in Europe before 1933. Those who do not learn about history in the first place shouldn't open their mouths.

If he wasn't seeking to use the holocaust for his agenda, then why bring it up?

Willingly, submissively, joyfully hand over control to Soulless, Faceless Body of Government.

and hear how much you sound like a RWNJ. Submitting control (gasp) of income to social security and medicare.

However, your efforts are appreciated. Thank you.

I passed. There is a spectrum of gun control that is rational and does not unreasonably interfere with individual gun owner rights. What the final answer is I don't know. What I do know is that since there is no trust between the 2 sides of the issue, there will NOT be a solution reached.

My understanding of the Warsaw Uprising is that the Jews in that ghetto managed to get a handful of crappy guns smuggled in, then used them to attack German patrols. For over a week, Germans were afraid to enter the Ghetto, and the expression translated from the German was: "The Jews have guns!"

Arming themselves with captured German ordnance, the Jews held out for several weeks before surrendering to the Nazis who brought fighter-bombers and artillery to bear on the ghetto. One of my sources shows a photograph of the German officer in charge and captured Jews who were being treated with respect by the Nazis. They admired the fighting spirit of the Jews.

It is sad that the ghetto Jews had to smuggle in firearms; for some reason those arms present before the Nazis disappeared.