Jim Jefferies - Gun Control

[HunterICX]

If you're for or against it...one things for certain it can be turned into a hilarious subject matter.

Warning: Very strong language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBpuLlw4Xjs

[Oberon]

Gun control you say?

http://media.giphy.com/media/in63uayoJNNeg/giphy.gif

[Wolferz]

He made some good points...
Except for one...
His assessment of Security guard average pay was way too generous.

$16.00 an hour?

:har::har::haha:

I like him. He's funny. :up:

[Platapus]

Pretty funny guy.

[TarJak]

Nice one.:up:

[Rilder]

The special that's from is on Netflix and its pretty great. :up: Lotta good points you gotta admit as well.

[Buddahaid]

Meh. He lost me after the protection gun bit as if all guns are assault rifles. :88)

[TarJak]

You kind of missed the point then :88)

[Jimbuna]

Nice one :)

[DJ Kelley]

All I will say is he has a great accent. Yea Matey.

Now read this one. Sure you got out of massacres, but what did you gain in exchange?

See he is trying to lead everyone to believe that once Australia passed there gun ban, everything just became hunky dory. Not so much. Just read the second link.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

[Flamebatter90]

Just read the second link.

The World Public Union is a conspiracy nutter site, so I don't think there is much to be learned from those statistics. If you have a more credible source, please post it instead.

[DJ Kelley]

The World Public Union is a conspiracy nutter site, so I don't think there is much to be learned from those statistics. If you have a more credible source, please post it instead.


All you have to do is a Google Search for Australian Crime rates after Gun Control.

You will get multiple sources. Have at it. I'm sure you will find some who are credible and others who are less so. The link I posted didn't mention that the rape rate went up significantly also.

[Oberon]

http://x.vukajlija.com/var/uploads/reactions/201206/6863/yafk9.gif

[Tribesman]

The World Public Union is a conspiracy nutter site, so I don't think there is much to be learned from those statistics. If you have a more credible source, please post it instead.

Don't go for half measures, the first link is total bollox too:har:

[Platapus]

Comedy does not equal facts.

He is a comedian, not a political analyst
He is a comedian, no legislation will be influenced by this comedian
He tells jokes. That's what he does. :yep:

[vienna]

Comedy does not equal facts.

He is a comedian, not a political analyst
He is a comedian, no legislation will be influenced by this comedian
He tells jokes. That's what he does. :yep:

Hmm...

e.g., Will Rogers, Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory, Mark Twain...


<O>

[Aktungbby]

George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zwB6GLpo4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zwB6GLpo4) Exposing our government and the fall of Humanity!:har:

[TarJak]

All I will say is he has a great accent. Yea Matey.

Now read this one. Sure you got out of massacres, but what did you gain in exchange?

See he is trying to lead everyone to believe that once Australia passed there gun ban, everything just became hunky dory. Not so much. Just read the second link.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

All you have to do is a Google Search for Australian Crime rates after Gun Control.

You will get multiple sources. Have at it. I'm sure you will find some who are credible and others who are less so. The link I posted didn't mention that the rape rate went up significantly also.
And look which one is the first link when you do that search http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

Come back when you actually know what you are talking about and we may be able to have a reasonable conversation about the subject.

[TarJak]

Comedy does not equal facts.

He is a comedian, not a political analyst
He is a comedian, no legislation will be influenced by this comedian
He tells jokes. That's what he does. :yep:
Correct. One of the "facts" he misinformed his audience on was that we can't get guns down here.

Certain guns are not available to the general public without special license restrictions and other weapons can be purchased as long as you have a license and the appropriate storage facilities which are subject to a police check prior to purchase.

Of course explaining that in a comedy routine would be needlessly tedious.

What he got right is that we've thrown out the spurious home defence argument and replaced it with the "I like guns" argument. Which in all honesty is the only argument that makes sense. :)

[GoldenRivet]

It's funny to me that he talks about lies and BS

Then admonishes us for having "assault rifles"

1. it's already illegal to own an assault rifle in the United States of America (without being a member of law-enforcement military or otherwise specially licensed to do so)

2. I defy anyone who's reading this to tell me where I - as an average joe - can walk into any store in this country and with a five-minute background check by a fully automatic machine gun.

3. It is true that I do own an AR-15. Other than the pistol grip and the "militarized look" of the rifle, it fires the exact same around, at the exact same rate of fire as my old fashioned looking wooden stock hunting rifle (which for about $100 could be made to look just like an M-16)

When I was 17 years old I had an old V-6 Ford Mustang. It wasnt very fast 0 to 60 time of about 6 1/2 seconds seven seconds maybe? It didn't have the throaty rumble of the V-8. It would barely go 100 miles an hour.

I put stripes on it

Suddenly everybody on the block thought I had a race car.

It's the same thing with that old hunting rifle, change out a couple of pieces of cheap cosmetic hardware & put a pistol grip on it suddenly you've got a mass murdering machine of death.

That's what drives me crazy about the pro-gun control bunch

On a daily basis many of them demonstrate to me a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of firearms. It amazes me how many of them are convinced that you can walk into a Sack-n-save and buy a fully automatic fresh out of the Army military style assault rifle with your 24 pack of beer.

It's stupid.

[TarJak]

It's comedy it's meant to be stupid.. Get over it. :)

[GoldenRivet]

It's comedy it's meant to be stupid.. Get over it. :)

I agree that it was funny even if the man is as educated on firearms as an eight-year-old is on the subject of quantum physics.

[TarJak]

Do you mean this one? http://mobile.news.com.au/world/child-genius-carson-hueyyou-11-studying-quantum-physics/story-fndir2ev-1226706742607

:)

[GoldenRivet]

Do you mean this one? http://mobile.news.com.au/world/child-genius-carson-hueyyou-11-studying-quantum-physics/story-fndir2ev-1226706742607

:)

1. You failed to read my post as I said eight-year-olds your link is for an 11-year-old

2. Do you mean to indicate that every 11-year-old on the planet earth exhibits that intelligence and IQ?

Come on Tar

Really?

Folks don't have to like the fact that I own an "assault death weapon machine ghost gun with the thing that goes up"

All they have to do is respect my right to own guns... Even if there are people that don't understand a thing about them

[TarJak]

That's comedy for you. ;)

Read the story. He's been doing quantum physics since before he was 8.

And you like guns. Enjoy them safely.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/JSfDb5Q.jpg

[DJ Kelley]

He lost me when he used his one experience (being robbed while he was naked) a base for every home robbery in the World.

Because he was naked, I guess everyone else will be just as unable to get to a gun if they had one.

Then I am reminded of the growing crime spree taking place in the United States. That is home invasion. These people are not interested in your TV, and in most cases are not interested in anything except breaking in to your home.

The problem is, in most cases they only plan on getting in. They make no plans for getting out. That's when they start displaying the true freaks that they are, and begin tormenting your family right in front of you stuff like that.

And there are multiple cases every year of people waking up in the middle of the night to a break in. Giving them plenty of time to open the safe, load the gun, find the criminal, and take care of business.

[Oberon]

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/122/187/1187122.gif

[TarJak]

Another one misses the point.

[Buddahaid]

Well I like my guns but I'm ambivalent about their practical use in a home invasion so I keep mine locked up. If someone invades my home I'd have to ask them politely to please wait there while I go get my gun. :shucks:

And I see the point but I prefer it as is, risks and all.

[Tribesman]

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/122/187/1187122.gif

I think that says it all.:rotfl2:

[DJ Kelley]

Well I like my guns but I'm ambivalent about their practical use in a home invasion so I keep mine locked up. If someone invades my home I'd have to ask them politely to please wait there while I go get my gun. :shucks:

And I see the point but I prefer it as is, risks and all.


I have a 40 cal pistol. I do keep that one locked up, as it is by far the most dangerous, being semi automatic and all. Plus it has a laser sight for accuracy.

As for my wife, I do allow her to keep the 20 gauge shotgun out. It is only a single shot, but a single 20 gauge shot is enough to put a hole in someone a close to medium range. Plus any would be crook does not know how many shots she has, and its pretty easy to reload.

So if there's more than one, I doubt the second one is sticking around for long once he sees his friend blown in two. Even if she misses, most people don't need much more than a gun shot to convince them to change there plans.:D

[TarJak]

So you like guns then...

http://www.joshworth.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/whoopdedoo.gif

[DJ Kelley]

So you like guns then...

http://www.joshworth.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/whoopdedoo.gif

I feel they serve there purpose. I know that throughout History there have been times when the Government has taken guns away from it's citizens and then gone on a tirade completely stepping on human rights.

Nazi Germany is a prime example. The Soviet Union is another.

Britain has been mostly without guns for awhile, and while they have not gone nearly as bad as the first 2, I have heard of stories where people where treated vary poorly, and things do seem to be getting worse.

Australia has joined the list, but again they are not completely gun free from what I understand. Some people can still get them.

I just think that when Guns are only in the hands of the Government, the Government can generally do whatever they see fit. Wrong or right. And of course criminals will always have access to guns, as they do not obey laws anyway.

[TarJak]

At the risk of taking this thread off the topic of comedy (Unless of course, your post was meant to be funny... :hmmm:), you should do little more research before posting rubbish like that. In terms of Nazi Germany, that old chestnut has been trotted out several times on these boards before and always refuted by references to reliable legal expert studies:

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review (http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr). As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

As for Stalin, the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.

This misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous.

What poor treatment have people in Britain suffered? If you want to purchase a gun, there and you meet the requirements of their legislation, then you can get them.

Read up on the actual law and you may be able to hold a reasoned argument. I can tell you still like guns.

[Stealhead]

Actually that is not true the bit about the Nazis banning firearms http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

The whole problem I have with the argument that gun ownership somehow prevents tyranny is the many regions of the world in which there are no restrictions of firearms (Somalia and Afghanistan are two excellent examples) where warlords roam around at free will imposing their will on everyone else. It is a very weak argument I my opinion if you are pro-firearm.

In Iraq under Saddam there where few regulations on gun ownership yet he stayed in power and the majority of Iraqi citizens never openly resisted. The firearms restrictions ironically enough did not occur in Iraq until the US was present there.

[TarJak]

Actually that is not true the bit about the Nazis banning firearms http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

The whole problem I have with the argument that gun ownership somehow prevents tyranny is the many regions of the world in which there are no restrictions of firearms (Somalia and Afghanistan are two excellent examples) where warlords roam around at free will imposing their will on everyone else. It is a very weak argument I my opinion if you are pro-firearm.

Which bit, DJ Kelley's or mine? Note haven't read your link yet.

EDIT: Never mind I see which one you mean. :sunny:

[Stealhead]

DJ Kelly I should have quoted it. Actually you sort of pulled ninja on my other post bad connection here typed it all up before your #33 did not show up for me though.

[AndyJWest]

I feel they serve there purpose. I know that throughout History there have been times when the Government has taken guns away from it's citizens and then gone on a tirade completely stepping on human rights.

Nazi Germany is a prime example. The Soviet Union is another.

Britain has been mostly without guns for awhile, and while they have not gone nearly as bad as the first 2, I have heard of stories where people where treated vary poorly, and things do seem to be getting worse.

Australia has joined the list, but again they are not completely gun free from what I understand. Some people can still get them.

I just think that when Guns are only in the hands of the Government, the Government can generally do whatever they see fit. Wrong or right. And of course criminals will always have access to guns, as they do not obey laws anyway.

A couple of facts:

Firstly, far from the Nazis 'taking guns away from its citizens', they actually relaxed the strict gun regulations imposed under the Weimar Republic. It was far easier for most Germans to gain legal access to firearms under the Nazis than the years before. True, they restricted the availability of firearms to Jews - but as part of a general process of harassment, and as a consequence of the withdrawal of German nationality from such individuals. No credible academic historian (as opposed to NRA activist) has ever suggested that the German Jewish minority were in any position to mount significant armed resistance - there were simply to few, and what few firearms they had were largely WWI souvenirs, of no practical use. It should also be remembered that the vast majority of the victims of the Holocaust had never been German citizens - they were nationals of the territories occupied by the German military, and disarmed (in as much as they ever had arms at all) in the same way that occupying armies everywhere have always done. Though some Jews managed to put up a fight - and should be praised as the heroes they were for doing so - it was essentially a token resistance, of only minimal consequence to the outcome of the war.

Secondly, I have no idea where you are getting your ideas regarding Britain from - but they are complete nonsense. The homicide rate is down, the general crime rate is down, and any suggestion that 'the government' is going to impose some sort of totalitarian state because the citizenry aren't armed would be laughed at. This sort of paranoia has no place in British political discourse. We may often consider our government crooks, but we also tend to consider them incompetent, and don't for one minute consider them capable of such things - or for that matter see any rational reason why they would want to. Totalitarianism is an utterly inefficient way to run a country, and the average politician is unlikely to want to risk upsetting the existing order that pays him well enough already.

So get your facts right - or stick to arguing about the US situation, rather than coming up with dubious assertions about places and times of which you clearly know little.

[Tribesman]

you should do little more research before posting rubbish like that.

Actually that is not true

So get your facts right ......rather than coming up with dubious assertions about places and times of which you clearly know little.
Can we add firearms legislation to the growing list of things which DJ appears to know nothing about?

[DJ Kelley]

A couple of facts:

Secondly, I have no idea where you are getting your ideas regarding Britain from - but they are complete nonsense.

So get your facts right - or stick to arguing about the US situation, rather than coming up with dubious assertions about places and times of which you clearly know little.

I said I've heard stories. That does not necessarily make them true. I don't know, as I don't live there. And again Britain is not entirely Gun free. Some people can get guns.

Now in the U.S., the trend seems to be that when States allow people to carry guns, the crime rate in that State goes down drastically as criminals realize that they may be shot by anyone now.

And in areas where Guns are banned, such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York City crime rates are highest. One could argue that is based on those areas large populations, but that is a matter of opinion.

As for whether the Jews in Germany could have made a significant resistance or not is completely opinionated, as they did not even try. There is no way to know if it would have been successful or not.

In the World of Special Forces, the fewer the people the more capable they are. This is also true of militia's that have stood against huge armies. They tend to move quicker, strike without warning, and be vary effective at it, training or no training. Key example modern day terrorism.

[Oberon]

As for whether the Jews in Germany could have made a significant resistance or not is completely opinionated, as they did not even try. There is no way to know if it would have been successful or not.

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/01/22/you_fail.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule

[DJ Kelley]

A couple of facts:


So get your facts right - or stick to arguing about the US situation, rather than coming up with dubious assertions about places and times of which you clearly know little.

Why is it that so many people on this site resort to bitter responses like this. If I say something that is wrong, then by all means just say "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why.

I seem to be hitting people's nerves just by stating my opinion, yet I am constantly hit with little remarks like this. Is there some hidden rule on this forum, do not post any ideas that disagree with anyone else???? I mean really.

As far as facts are concerned, in today's internet society a fact is just a matter of opinion also. I can take any argument and provide a ton of so called facts to back it up. That does not necessarily mean the facts are actual facts.

[AndyJWest]

Why is it that so many people on this site resort to bitter responses like this. If I say something that is wrong, then by all means just say "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why.

I seem to be hitting people's nerves just by stating my opinion, yet I am constantly hit with little remarks like this. Is there some hidden rule on this forum, do not post any ideas that disagree with anyone else???? I mean really.

As far as facts are concerned, in today's internet society a fact is just a matter of opinion also. I can take any argument and provide a ton of so called facts to back it up. That does not necessarily mean the facts are actual facts.

That the Nazis relaxed the previous strict gun-control laws of the Weimar republic is not opinion, it is verifiable fact. And it will remain fact, regardless of how much postmodernist babble you put on it. And if you don't like having your opinions confronted with reality, I suggest you keep them to yourself.

[Tribesman]

As far as facts are concerned, in today's internet society a fact is just a matter of opinion also. I can take any argument and provide a ton of so called facts to back it up. That does not necessarily mean the facts are actual facts.

A fact is a fact.



fact

noun \ˈfakt\ : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information

What you have given is some links which are laughable and some claims which are obviously untrue, they are not facts ....and that is a fact.

[DJ Kelley]

That the Nazis relaxed the previous strict gun-control laws of the Weimar republic is not opinion, it is verifiable fact. And it will remain fact, regardless of how much postmodernist babble you put on it. And if you don't like having your opinions confronted with reality, I suggest you keep them to yourself.

POSTMODERNIST BABBLE!!! Must be a liberal term for anything that goes against what they believe in.

"Keep opinions to yourself".

Just a question of curiosity. Are all Sub Simmers bitter hateful people like this??? Or is it just a few???

Because so far I have not resorted to calling anyone names, or accusing people of lack of intelligence, but this seems to be the norm if you go against the crowd on this forum.


post·mod·ern·ism
pōstˈmädərˌnizəm/
noun
a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”

[Tribesman]

POSTMODERNIST BABBLE!!! Must be a liberal term for anything that goes against what they believe in.
Belief doesn't come into it:rotfl2:

Because so far I have not resorted to calling anyone names, or accusing people of lack of intelligence, but this seems to be the norm if you go against the crowd on this forum.

Your posts are being ripped apart by people of all persuations.
That should tell you something about the content of your posts.
If the pros antis and indifferents are all pointing out that your "facts" are rubbish and your opinions are based on nothing of substance perhaps you should reconsider your opinion and try and use facts to form a new one.

[TarJak]

Why is it that so many people on this site resort to bitter responses like this. If I say something that is wrong, then by all means just say "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why.

I seem to be hitting people's nerves just by stating my opinion, yet I am constantly hit with little remarks like this. Is there some hidden rule on this forum, do not post any ideas that disagree with anyone else???? I mean really.

As far as facts are concerned, in today's internet society a fact is just a matter of opinion also. I can take any argument and provide a ton of so called facts to back it up. That does not necessarily mean the facts are actual facts.

Hey I believe you are wrong. Because facts don't lie.

Perhaps doing some research on what you are posting about before you post making claims about a subject, might make people more amenable to your posts.

Taking a contrary position is fine, as long as there is factual support for your arguments. Your posting history to date, shows a lack of that research and yet you are posting making claims that when challenged break down as not being supported by actual facts that are actual facts.

If you claim that gun control under any regime has an impact, then its up to you to show the facts that support that claim. If there is a counter claim, then you either concede that claim and become better educated or you provide proof that the counter claim is incorrect.

Its not much different to getting a hostile reaction when someone posts bigoted views. The counter views will come out strongly reacting to that bigotry. Don't cry here because someone calls you out on it, prove your case, or set sail for waters where those ideas are accepted.

[DJ Kelley]

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.
By Stephen P. Halbrook

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just to make everyone happy

[AndyJWest]

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Fiction.

And incidentally, you should indicate when you are copy-pasting other people's words, rather than representing them as your own.

[DJ Kelley]

Absolutely. Sounds like they completely relaxed the gun laws. I was so wrong I cannot believe it.

Whatever was I thinking? Please forgive me all Liberal Morons who think it was just the Jews that did not have guns. Maybe we should follow this exact model and do it all over again.

I mean why ever should we think the Nazis where even bad people? Sounds like they where just looking out for mom and pop's safety.

[DJ Kelley]

Fiction.

Because it does not comply with your version of History.

[AndyJWest]

Because it does not comply with your version of History.

No. Because it does not comply with any version of history.

[Tribesman]

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here...... .

If you are going to cut and paste some rubbish from NRO then attribute the words to their author:doh:

That piece is so full of factual errors it is a joke:har:

[Oberon]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/39150/867672-trollunsuccessful.jpg

[AndyJWest]

Absolutely. Sounds like they completely relaxed the gun laws. I was so wrong I cannot believe it.

Whatever was I thinking? Please forgive me all Liberal Morons who think it was just the Jews that did not have guns. Maybe we should follow this exact model and do it all over again.

I mean why ever should we think the Nazis where even bad people? Sounds like they where just looking out for mom and pop's safety.

Truly pathetic...

[TarJak]

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

These words belong to Stephen Halbrook. Did he give you permission to use them? ;) Copyright issues aside, this is the same Stephen Halbrook mentioned in the Fordham Law Review article that I linked to a few posts back. He was wrong in 2004 and I suggest he's likely to still be wrong ten years later if he's still spouting the same rubbish.

I'm beginning to think you are trying to be funny with your posts so maybe we are still OT in relation to comedy. :)

[DJ Kelley]

These words belong to Stephen Halbrook. Did he give you permission to use them? ;) Copyright issues aside, this is the same Stephen Halbrook mentioned in the Fordham Law Review article that I linked to a few posts back. He was wrong in 2004 and I suggest he's likely to still be wrong ten years later if he's still spouting the same rubbish.

I'm beginning to think you are trying to be funny with your posts so maybe we are still OT in relation to comedy. :)

I don't know why we are even arguing about this. We all know the Holocaust never actually happened. It was just made up by the Jews to make everyone feel sorry for them.

This guy is lying too. No one is going to pop your bubble. Hitler was actually a nice guy. It was all a conspiracy. Just don't tell anyone. It's our little secret.

http://www.infowars.com/yes-hitler-really-did-take-the-guns-before-throwing-jews-into-concentration-camps-or-gas-chambers/

[DJ Kelley]

Let me post some sites that you probably actually view. Just so I can blend in better. Don't want to rock the boat too much. Might cause some people to fall into the real world.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

[DJ Kelley]

Don't ever trust wikipedia. People can change it at any point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

[TarJak]

So you're not trying to be funny, just trolling then. Hitler was not nice and was responsible for the holocaust and other atrocities, but that doesn't change the fact that he relaxed the strict Weimar gun laws.

Try to stick to the point of your own claims. Unless of course you just want to troll for a reaction.

[DJ Kelley]

Fiction.

And incidentally, you should indicate when you are copy-pasting other people's words, rather than representing them as your own.

For the record, I thought I had posted the name.

I did not think anyone would actually think I sat here and wrote that entire thing out, but I forgot you are all Liberals, and so you will believe anything. As long as it is not true.

[AndyJWest]

You must have led a very sad and lonely life, DJ Kelley, if you think that calling people 'liberals' is some sort of insult. Though in my case, it is incorrect - I'm a socialist.

...lights blue touchpaper and retires... :Kaleun_Wink:

[DJ Kelley]

You must have led a very sad and lonely life, DJ Kelley, if you think that calling people 'liberals' is some sort of insult. Though in my case, it is incorrect - I'm a socialist.

...lights blue touchpaper and retires... :Kaleun_Wink:

I have no doubt once so ever

[TarJak]

So what happened to "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why."? Or did you forget that you wrote that as well.

[AndyJWest]

I have no doubt once so ever

And very little education, evidently...

[DJ Kelley]

So what happened to "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why."? Or did you forget that you wrote that as well.


No I just gave up being nice. I mean I thought we could have honest discussions, but I'm being called names at every turn, I am being accused of being unintelligent. Accused of spewing venom and hate.

That's when I was being nice, and just offering my opinion. I'm just throwing some of it back now.

Your telling me that some professor at a college proved that History is incorrect as it has been taught for over half a century. As if the guy was actually there or something.

Now that most of the people who where actually there are deceased, we can just say anything we want and claim to be extremely intelligent. I find that to be amazing. I mean what else do we want to change?

I know one. Communism actually works, it has just been tried over and over by the wrong people. That's all. If the right people do it, then human nature won't be a factor, and everyone will just live in this wonderful utopia.:rock:

You all think I'm joking. I'm being serious.

[DJ Kelley]

And very little education, evidently...

I know right. I just know history as it was taught before it was revised by people. So your absolutely right. I'm like on a single digit IQ.

I mean man. I don't know how I even get up in the morning. Let alone how I graduated High School Early, and got straight A's in College.

Must have been just luck.:know:

[Oberon]

So, to sum up:

"Here's a joke."
"Ha, that's quite funny."
"It's not bad."
"It's a terrible joke, I like guns."
"Well, that's not really the..."
"I like guns! Guns are good!"
"That's nice but..."
"Countries without guns are silly and have more crime."
"No they don't."
"Hitler hated guns, communists hate guns, guns are good, liberals are bad. I like guns."
"Hitler didn't hate guns..."
"You like Hitler! You're all liberals because you don't agree with me!"
"What?!"

[ETR3(SS)]

Well when the word "gun" is placed next to the word "control" in a GT post, what do you expect?

[Tribesman]

Your telling me that some professor at a college proved that History is incorrect as it has been taught for over half a century. As if the guy was actually there or something.

:har::har::har::har::har:
Classic.

I mean man. I don't know how I even get up in the morning. Let alone how I graduated High School Early, and got straight A's in College.
It has already been established without any shadow of doubt that English Language and Literature are not your subjects, neither are any of the Sciences, Mathematics, History or Religious Studies.
So what exactly did you get straight A's in?:hmmm:

[Oberon]

Well when the word "gun" is placed next to the word "control" in a GT post, what do you expect?

Aye, it is rather a red rag to a bull in Grand Theatrics. :03:

[Betonov]

Don't you just love living in one of the most peaceful countries in the world that has a ban on guns and parliamentary elections every year and all the freedoms the western world ever thought of, and then listen to people that live oh so far away telling me how I live in a feudal tirany with no prospect of getting successful and older than 25 without rotting in a governmental prison camp.

[Tribesman]

Aye, it is rather a red rag to a bull in Grand Theatrics. :03:
Its early days yet, the topic may still spread into the merits of teaching Storkism in schools or perhaps the theory of intelligent falling.:D

[AndyJWest]

So, to sum up:

"Here's a joke."
"Ha, that's quite funny."
"It's not bad."
"It's a terrible joke, I like guns."
"Well, that's not really the..."
"I like guns! Guns are good!"
"That's nice but..."
"Countries without guns are silly and have more crime."
"No they don't."
"Hitler hated guns, communists hate guns, guns are good, liberals are bad. I like guns."
"Hitler didn't hate guns..."
"You like Hitler! You're all liberals because you don't agree with me!"
"What?!"

:Kaleun_Applaud:

[TarJak]

No I just gave up being nice. I mean I thought we could have honest discussions, but I'm being called names at every turn, I am being accused of being unintelligent. Accused of spewing venom and hate.

That's when I was being nice, and just offering my opinion. I'm just throwing some of it back now.

Your telling me that some professor at a college proved that History is incorrect as it has been taught for over half a century. As if the guy was actually there or something.

Now that most of the people who where actually there are deceased, we can just say anything we want and claim to be extremely intelligent. I find that to be amazing. I mean what else do we want to change?

I know one. Communism actually works, it has just been tried over and over by the wrong people. That's all. If the right people do it, then human nature won't be a factor, and everyone will just live in this wonderful utopia.:rock:

You all think I'm joking. I'm being serious.
So you did read the peer reviewed report then. Or the German legislative documents on which he based the case he put in his paper didn't you..

As opposed to the revisionist history the the NRA have been peddling..

I've been trying to have this honest discussion but so far all your arguments seem to be based on is your opinion that you are right. Which seems to be your only argument in most of the discussion that can be seen in your posting history.

[Jimbuna]

http://s8.postimg.org/54yp7aeg1/adminwatch_2.gif (http://postimage.org/)

[Tribesman]

So you did read the peer reviewed report then. Or the German legislative documents on which he based the case he put in his paper didn't you..

As opposed to the revisionist history the the NRA have been peddling..

I've been trying to have this honest discussion but so far all your arguments seem to be based on is your opinion that you are right. Which seems to be your only argument in most of the discussion that can be seen in your posting history.
Come on TarJak you only have to read.......Your telling me that some professor at a college proved that History is incorrect as it has been taught for over half a century. As if the guy was actually there or something.

Now that most of the people who where actually there are deceased, we can just say anything we want and claim to be extremely intelligent. I find that to be amazing. I mean what else do we want to change?
.....to understand exactly what you are dealing with.

A generous person would give DJ the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply posting the most ridiculous nonsense he can imagine as a joke.
Though generosity can have limits and evidence points to him actually believing the nonsense he writes.
Such is life eh.

[Stealhead]

http://s8.postimg.org/54yp7aeg1/adminwatch_2.gif (http://postimage.org/)


You have a permit for that six gun? :D

[Jimbuna]

You have a permit for that six gun? :D

Only when necessary :03:

[Buddahaid]

What it he call in an Armed Response Team.

Sheesh, I guess I made a couple of typing omissions.

[Jimbuna]

They'll simply get brigged :know:

[Sailor Steve]

Sheesh, I guess I made a couple of typing omissions.
You are a typing ommission! :O:

And you were born out of context. :O::O:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Buddahaid]

You are a typing ommission! :O:

And you were born out of context. :O::O:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'll have you know I was born by appointment sir. :O:

[Platapus]

He lost me when he used his one experience (being robbed while he was naked) a base for every home robbery in the World.

You stopped listening to a comedian because you did not like the way he set up the punchline?

[Buddahaid]

I confess I didn't finish watching it at that point as well but mainly because I didn't think he was very funny. :yawn:

[TarJak]

And that's fine. Comedy is a funny thing. People laugh at different things.:sunny:

[Oberon]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/104334/large/TMW2014-09-10extended1.png

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/08/1327465/-Cartoon-Capt-Kirk-vs-the-internet

[Stealhead]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/104334/large/TMW2014-09-10extended1.png

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/08/1327465/-Cartoon-Capt-Kirk-vs-the-internet


:har:

[Buddahaid]

Now that is funny. :haha:

[TarJak]

I smiled but didn't LOL.:)

[Sailor Steve]

I read it out loud trying to mimic all the voices. I didn't find it funny, but that may be because I didn't like the delivery.

[TarJak]

I read it out loud trying to mimic all the voices. I didn't find it funny, but that may be because I didn't like the delivery.

:har:

[Nippelspanner]

I feel they serve there purpose. I know that throughout History there have been times when the Government has taken guns away from it's citizens and then gone on a tirade completely stepping on human rights.

Nazi Germany is a prime example. The Soviet Union is another.
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHWWWWWWWWWWWWWW GGGGGAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111


SERIOUSLY?


It is tough as nails to get a gun now in Germany and oh wonder...NO NAZI REGIME!

The whole "government takes guns to suppress" argument is so full of crap I always want to make something KAPUTT so angry it makes me.

Jesus Christ, wake up from your propaganda dream world will ya? :/\\!!
What are you? August Nr.2 who's constantly blubbering about "chains of oppression" when a country has strict gun laws?

This is ridiculous beyond measurement.
But from someone who "allows his wife to..." I sure won't expect common sense or that he thinks about all the nice catchphrases others throw at him.

[TarJak]

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHWWWWWWWWWWWWWW GGGGGAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111


SERIOUSLY?


It is tough as nails to get a gun now in Germany and oh wonder...NO NAZI REGIME!

The whole "government takes guns to suppress" argument is so full of crap I always want to make something KAPUTT so angry it makes me.

Jesus Christ, wake up from your propaganda dream world will ya? :/\\!!
What are you? August Nr.2 who's constantly blubbering about "chains of oppression" when a country has strict gun laws?

This is ridiculous beyond measurement.
But from someone who "allows his wife to..." I sure won't expect common sense or that he thinks about all the nice catchphrases others throw at him.
But hey, he likes guns.:D

[Tribesman]

But hey, he likes guns.:D
But hey, I like guns, I enjoy shooting.
Why don't I come up with arguments on the same level as some people who like guns?:hmmm:
Oh yeah, according to that piece of rubbish he linked to I live in one of only two countries in the world that have banned guns completely, so maybe that's it:rotfl2:

[Betonov]

Great, you angered a German.

See you in 4 weeks, I need to go weld some antitank traps and barricades along the northern border :nope:

[TarJak]

Great, you angered a German.

See you in 4 weeks, I need to go weld some antitank traps and barricades along the northern border :nope:

Now that's comedy!:har:

[DJ Kelley]

Okay I will do my best to sum up this argument. I made a huge mistake by arguing with a bunch of liberals and one admitted socialist who thinks there is a difference between socialism and liberalism. And then accused me of not being smart. :up:

It all boils down to control. If you give up your right to own a gun, and someone breaks into your home, the control is in the hands of the criminal and the local government. Depending on where you live, you can call the cops and hopefully they will respond quickly and foil the criminal in the process of the crime. If you live somewhere like Detroit, your up a creek without a paddle. Detroit Police are extremely under manned, and crime is vary high.

Estimates place response time to an hour or more for Detroit Police. Not that they don't care, they just generally have there hands full with other things. That is plenty of time for the next Jeffrey Dahmer to do whatever they originally had planned and then some.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323997004578642250518125898

I know, it is just a NRA sponsored site and they are all lying. Just save it Please.

Even if you live somewhere that has a quick police force, there is still no guarantee that you or your family will be rescued. It all depends on what is going on, how fast the police can get there, and then hope to GOD,:timeout: oh scratch that, evolution I know. Hope to mother nature that you and your family have not been taken hostage.

Now if you have a gun, does that mean you are guaranteed to stop the crime? No! It all depends on what happens. If you are caught naked like the comedian, then you are still up a creek with no paddle, and no clothes. Gun or no Gun, your just screwed. However, there is a chance that you will hear the break in, and have time to get your weapon ready. And hopefully you have clothes on.

If the criminal is a super secret ninja assassin, then yea your just dead. However, most criminals are real humans who will make noise because they are nervous about being caught, new to the idea of crime and breaking in to a home, clumsy fools, and so on. Bottom line you can hear the noise and respond appropriately.

[DJ Kelley]

Now on to the idea of suicide and accidental death by firearm. I am not going to post any links for this, because this is from personal experience. Not only do I have a degree in Psychology, but I also at one point in my life attempted to commit suicide. It was many years ago, and I reached a point of depression that was so deep I just decided enough is enough. The point of that statement is, that I did not shoot myself. Even though there was a loaded shotgun within arms reach. Why did I not use the shotgun like the singer of Nervona? I mean it is guaranteed to work, unlike a pistol. Simple! Because I didn't want to.

So the point that I am getting at, is if a person reaches a point where they are going to commit suicide, gun or no gun they are going to do it. There are multiple levels of a person reaching a point of suicide and by the time they reach the last step, there just going to do it however they can. So if we want to stop suicide, then we need to outlaw guns, knives, razor blades, all other sharp objects, ropes, extension cords, any cord that is longer than 2 feet, chairs & stools, sleeping pills, aspirin, pain killers, all house hold cleaning agents, and my personal favorite, we must maintain a constant watch on everyone to make sure they drink enough water.

Now on to accidental death. Yes it is well known that people accidentally shoot themselves every year, or are shot by a friend who was not being safe. I also have personal experience in this, as someone I know vary closely shot and killed his best friend when he was only a teen. It was a complete accident, but it still happened and that person still suffers from alcoholism to this day. However, I also know of a man who watched as his brother and son where electrocuted after there tractor puling a farm implement struck a power line, so I guess we should outlaw farm equipment, and power lines too.

Accidental injury or death is just part of life. Okay, your not going to stop it ever. It's sad, and it sucks especially when it is a child. We all see this concept of a bubble wrap society where everyone grows up never getting hurt. An example would be many schools requiring a permission slip from parents just to let there kid participate in Gym, or Recess. Again I will just make a quick list of the things we must outlaw, and forbid to protect ourselves from generalized human stupidity. We must outlaw Guns, knives, all medication, all Sports (professional, college, and minor), all martial arts practice, all martial arts forms of weapons, Cars, Motorcycles, 4 wheeler s, 3 wheeler s, and all other ATV's, bikes, skateboards, all playground equipment, all workout equipment, stairs, swimming pools, swimming in general, anything electrical, anything flammable, and finally Alcohol (just completely forget the prohibition, I'm sure it will work this time).

We must outlaw all medical procedures, Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals as well, because there is just way too much accidental death in hospitals. Hey! My Grandma died due to a hospital not checking on her regularly. My other Grandma died in her bed due to old age, so that is something else we should outlaw. Beds, sleeping, and no one is ever allowed to age. That means get older, for you really deep liberals.

No one can ever get sick either. That causes way to much death as well.

Last but not least, everyone must constantly wear enough equipment to qualify as a race-car driver and a foot ball player at the same time, just to make sure that nothing we left out will ever hurt them, and GOD forbid (dang did it again), Mother Nature forbid anything ever kill anyone. We must all live in a perfect Utopia.

[DJ Kelley]

Now last but not least. This will be the hardest for you liberals, and one admitted socialist to believe. So I will give you fair warning. This is a hypothetical situation that involves the Government failing. I know, the Government never fails, and is basically (ah I caught myself that time). The Government is not mother nature though, so I'm not sure what you would consider it. They never fail, we will just leave it at that.

Anyway, on to the point. What if the World as we know it just stopped. I am referring to a terrorist attack on the Power Grid of the U.S., or any other major attack against a major target, or a natural disaster where basic Nation Wide services (of any country) just stop dead in there tracks. What do we do? Yes I know the likely hood of this happening is slim to none at best, but just a hypothetical theory. We all want to believe that the Government would come to our aid, such as National Guard, and Police, but what if they couldn't? Now as a Gun owner, I have more chance of survival than a non Gun Owner.

Why?
1.) I have Guns, so when I run out of food, and the local store does as well, I can take my shotgun and hunt rabbits. My wife knows how to cook them. I can also take my rifle and hunt deer.
2.) I can defend myself against would be looters.
3.) I know how to shoot my guns, because I practice with them.

Does it mean I'm guaranteed to survive? No! There is no guarantee of anything, but I have a larger chance.

Now I know what your thinking. This will never happen of course, and your probably right. But even if it did I would just buy guns off the street right? Wrong! If an event of this magnitude took place, money would be worthless, so not sure what your going to use as currency. Plus everyone who doesn't have a gun would be trying to get a gun. Supply and Demand would be a nightmare. And even if you managed to get a gun, if you don't believe in owning guns, then it is likely you have no idea how to use one, so your just going to be shooting air.

I know you will just accuse me of being paranoid of nothing. I assure you I do not expect anything like this to happen, but I do understand the notion that nothing is impossible. No I do not have months of food stored away. But I do live in the country, and I do have well water, so if city water failed I would not be affected at all. If Electricity fails. Well if you have a Generator the fuel in it would last for a little while assuming it is not stolen. Then you would have to resort to attempting to burn wood for cooking and staying warm.

How many of you would still be able to provide for yourself and your families if such a thing of this magnitude was to happen?

[DJ Kelley]

Now without a doubt all you liberals (and one admitted socialist) will accuse me of being desperate, out of arguments, stupid, pathetic, and various other names to try to insult my natural sarcasm. Amazingly enough it is quite similar to a Liberal Politician arguing with any other Politician during an election. Just call them names and insult there intelligence and they will just go away I guess.

And don't forget prejudice. Got to include that one, even if there is no evidence.

All I am doing is taking what Liberals believe in and just placing that in a spot light. That is why it is so ridiculous.

No I'm not sorry if I offended you. I'm past that point now.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/sudFJPX.gif

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a8/a8a142de8bbbbd67999ab9a7ae01a223836f43cfec1b355252 9f47c70b6d49d5.jpg

[DJ Kelley]

http://i.imgur.com/sudFJPX.gif

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a8/a8a142de8bbbbd67999ab9a7ae01a223836f43cfec1b355252 9f47c70b6d49d5.jpg

:har: I actually agree with you on that. Arguing with Liberals is like beating a dead horse.

I think I would have more luck yelling at one of the walls in my home, and getting it to move on its own. :haha:

[Oberon]

:hmmm:

http://media.giphy.com/media/cUNsXlXK7HMUo/giphy.gif

http://media.giphy.com/media/JGF7ctowtLGak/giphy.gif

[Nippelspanner]

Great, you angered a German.

See you in 4 weeks, I need to go weld some antitank traps and barricades along the northern border :nope:
Save yourself the hassle, we'll just drive around it like we did in the past :arrgh!:


I made a huge mistake by arguing with a bunch of liberalsNo, you made the mistake to expect anyone to take you serious.

[Oberon]

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1s60jvWoT1rql23ko1_500.png

[Buddahaid]

News for you. I lean to the liberal side and I like my guns too. Don't implode. :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

No, you made the mistake to expect anyone to take you serious.
That's not fair.
I took him seriously until I read the rubbish he consistently wrote.
It was only at the point where the rubbish had accumulated to a huge pile which grew with every post that I realised he could not be taken seriously at all.

[Betonov]

Save yourself the hassle, we'll just drive around it like we did in the past :arrgh!:



Well, you should have just drove trough and past :O:

Then I wouldn't have to listen to stories about these two guys everytime I meet someone over 70
http://www.jutarnji.hr/multimedia/archive/00599/partizani_599497S0.jpg

[Stealhead]

So the point that I am getting at, is if a person reaches a point where they are going to commit suicide, gun or no gun they are going to do it. There are multiple levels of a person reaching a point of suicide and by the time they reach the last step, there just going to do it however they can. So if we want to stop suicide, then we need to outlaw guns, knives, razor blades, all other sharp objects, ropes, extension cords, any cord that is longer than 2 feet, chairs & stools, sleeping pills, aspirin, pain killers, all house hold cleaning agents, and my personal favorite, we must maintain a constant watch on everyone to make sure they drink enough water.

Now on to accidental death. Yes it is well known that people accidentally shoot themselves every year, or are shot by a friend who was not being safe. I also have personal experience in this, as someone I know vary closely shot and killed his best friend when he was only a teen. It was a complete accident, but it still happened and that person still suffers from alcoholism to this day. However, I also know of a man who watched as his brother and son where electrocuted after there tractor puling a farm implement struck a power line, so I guess we should outlaw farm equipment, and power lines too.

.

I would add high ledges, and stairways to that list and shoe laces.

You do understand that there are plenty of conservatives on this site right? There are lots of members with varying political points of view. The difference between yourself and the others is that you provide weak arguments for your opinions. Part of GT is when you do this you are going to draw attention towards yourself and pretty quickly few members are going to take you seriously.


For example you said "Arguing with Liberals is like beating a dead horse.

I think I would have more luck yelling at one of the walls in my home, and getting it to move on its own."

Yet this is exactly what you have been doing in this thread and some other threads. Like I said there is a popular protocol of discourse used in GT usually it works fairly well if you refuse to follow it you'll not enjoy GT very much.

Maybe this will help
http://www.wikihow.com/Gain-Confidence-for-Debating?utm_source=wikiHow&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=related_test

http://www.wikihow.com/Debate

http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates

http://literarydevices.net/discourse/

[MH]

Now last but not least. This will be the hardest for you liberals, and one admitted socialist to believe. So I will give you fair warning. This is a hypothetical situation that involves the Government failing. I know, the Government never fails, and is basically (ah I caught myself that time). The Government is not mother nature though, so I'm not sure what you would consider it. They never fail, we will just leave it at that.


Actually this is good argument just as theoretical ability to defend against potential tyranny or principal right to self defense.
Just don't bring the statistics about the gun culture decreasing crime and so on....

[TarJak]

@DJK So you still like guns then? How about comedy and humour?

As to calling me a liberal, you do understand that in Australia the Liberals are the right-wing conservative party over here and yet were the government that introduced the Australian gun control legislation don't you? Life is full of complexity isn't it. ;)

[Stealhead]

I assume not as a person might laugh while eating a ham sandwich and choke because chairs are banned they will be unable to perform the self applied Heimlich due to the banning of chairs.

Oh maybe not seems someone has already thought of this eventuality
http://www.sportys.com/morepics/17564a.jpg

[Betonov]

As to calling me a liberal, you do understand that in Australia the Liberals are the right-wing conservative party over here and yet were the government that introduced the Australian gun control legislation don't you? Life is full of complexity isn't it. ;)

:doh:

Land down under eh ?? Now you'll tell me that your clocks go counterclockwise :)

[TarJak]

:doh:

Land down under eh ?? Now you'll tell me that your clocks go counterclockwise :)

Nah we went digital ages ago. Noone down here could work out what the hands on the clock meant.

[Buddahaid]

That's because all the clocks were underhanded.

[TarJak]

Don't be down on our underhanded clocks.:D

[Stealhead]

So you completely skipped the old flip clocks?
http://www.mridout.force9.co.uk/ecw/coroticket_b.JPG

[DJ Kelley]

I would add high ledges, and stairways to that list and shoe laces.

You do understand that there are plenty of conservatives on this site right? There are lots of members with varying political points of view. The difference between yourself and the others is that you provide weak arguments for your opinions. Part of GT is when you do this you are going to draw attention towards yourself and pretty quickly few members are going to take you seriously.


For example you said "Arguing with Liberals is like beating a dead horse.

I think I would have more luck yelling at one of the walls in my home, and getting it to move on its own."

Yet this is exactly what you have been doing in this thread and some other threads. Like I said there is a popular protocol of discourse used in GT usually it works fairly well if you refuse to follow it you'll not enjoy GT very much.

There may be conservatives on this site, that I will not deny as I don't know anyone on this site, but from what I have read (which is the only evidence) a majority are definitley liberal.

It's not that the arguments are weak. It is the fact that the arguments are presented in a different fashion, and to Liberals they would appear to be weak. There are many ways to present an argument, but the 2 at conflict in this particular case are books verse logic. I tend to lean towards using logic to make up my mind, and therefore present an argument based on that. It generally conflicts with Liberal view points and draws out harsh comments.

In the 4 large post that I wrote earlier today, I used extreme sarcasm as is obvious, but I also used logic. Logic and Liberalism generally collide head on like freight trains. This is because Logic follows the liberal concept all the way through and can never deny the point that there views are impossible if followed to the "T". A good example would be the age old concept, of why don't everyone just get rid of there military, and we will all live in peace. Of course Logic says, no that is impossible, as someone would attempt to conquer the World and there would be no resistance for them. Just human nature, but your probably not going to find that in a news article or a book. Why not? Because it's never been tried and likely never will be, so no research can be done.

You should take note, that when I made the statement about the beating a dead horse, I was responding to Oberon. Yet you did not mention the first post. So I did not make the first move in that case, and that was done in another thread. I will not bring up those topics as I don't want to rehash the past, or get off topic, but basically multiple post where presented and it was made to look like I was just a vary hateful person. But those post where all in response to other post, and those other post where not presented, so in a nut shell my words where taken out of context, and that led to another argument all together.

Now this particular argument started when I made the statement about Germany. For over half a century history has taught that Germany did issue strict gun control. I made the comment and I was immediately under fire. Why? Because there was another research project that was done in 2004 I think that supposedly proved this to be incorrect. Now for someone who argues based on books, they would probably except this argument. Logic on the other hand is not so easy. Logic says, why did it take so long for this history to be corrected? After so many people who lived in that time, and experienced all that stuff have passed away from natural causes. That by itself has suspicion written all over it. There was not a strong anti gun movement after WW II ended. Most soldiers in the U.S. where allowed to take there firearms with them when they went back home, because the Army had so much overstock. Even Sherman tanks where broken down, having all the guns removed and then sold to farmers as tractors. There is a strong anti gun movement now, which is another big issue for logic to get over.

Secondly logic follows the age old rule, of where there is smoke there is likely fire. So Nazi Germany is well known for the horrendous things done in concentration camps. They are well known for a vary strict command and control ideal that was so harsh, they chose to cover it up during the 1936 Olympics. Lot's of stories from people who lived there say they where ordered to do different things while the Olympics took place, and once they where over everything went back to normal. I remember reading a document about a woman who had a break down at work due to stress, and as a result they forced her to get surgery preventing her from having any children.

Other children where taken from there parents and placed in training camps, where there was mass statutory rape and lot's of teens got pregnant from none other than the instructors of the camps. So, where there is smoke there is fire. Germany did all of this, but they did not take everyone's guns as History has been told up till 2004. They took the guns away from the Jews, but did not take everyone else's guns away.

When I presented a counter argument by posting a document, the document was immediately accused of having been lying, and debunked back in 2004. Yet the article was dated 2013. Not 2014 which is now based on when I looked it up, but 2013. That is an awkward coincidence. That just led to a whole string of events. As in past topics, people started throwing names around, and started accusing me of being unintelligent. Now I did not resort to calling people names, or accusing them of lack of intelligence. But I couldn't resist. If you want to get under a Liberals skin, just present logical presentation of what they actually believe in. It gets past there illusions every time, and takes into a World they cannot stand which is the Real World.

It is vary much like College. If you want to get straight A's just pretend like you agree with them, and are allowing them to brainwash you. If you want to fail, just use Logic. Logic and college never go together either. They cannot stand it either.

[AndyJWest]

And yet again, DJ Kelley tells us that he is right because he is right, and everyone else if wrong because they are liberals, and liberals are wrong because they don't agree with him, and he is right because he is right, and everyone else is wrong because...

And he calls this 'logic'. :/\\!!

[Stealhead]

It is vary much like College. If you want to get straight A's just pretend like you agree with them, and are allowing them to brainwash you. If you want to fail, just use Logic. Logic and college never go together either. They cannot stand it either.

What college did you go to? I went attended college and never experienced this. One was the University of Maryland which has an overseas campus in Germany for US military members and dependents. I never once had a professor that forced a student to follow his or her political views or fail and the various professors had varying political and religious views. I finished my degree after a break at the University of Florida again I never experienced this "follow my liberal ways or fail" once in that school either. In fact in one course I wrote a paper about the Vietnam War that I know without doubt expressed an opinion and came to a conclusion that was the opposite of the view of the instructor. Never the less I still earned an A and he told me that it was one of the best papers about Counter-Insurgency warfare he had read in years.

Your "books vs.. logic" claim makes absolutely no sense to me at all to be entirely honest. Books and reading in general is the best method to educate oneself about their world of course one must be able to read between the lines and understand when an author is using facts and when they are not and every author has an agenda of some sort. It is the responsibility of the reader to be able to discern.

If I wanted to learn about WWII German U-boats I would learn very little indeed from using merely logic. Using only logic I could surmise that the subs must have been organized in some fashion that they operated at sea and used some kind of weapon to attack enemy shipping. I could also surmise that the crewmen must have spoke German and likely while on shore leave stood in line along side the road and urinated on the new officers car as it passed by(shameless Das Boot reference)

You mentioned the article written in 2013 which referenced a paper written in 2004 which was proven to incorrect simply because a bit of information appears after it has been debunked means nothing especially when it in no provides anything to disprove the debunking. Simply because something was not written until 2004 does not mean that previous information on Nazi Germany gun laws had not be studied or discussed before. It just proves that the original writer of the incorrect information was wrong (or had written his paper with a particular mindset) and that previous persons did not make the incorrect claim. Once something has been debunked if it appears again as accurate(without supporting information as to why) that is an obvious sign of a swayed opinion or better yet propaganda.

[TarJak]

Well said Stealhead.

There may be conservatives on this site, that I will not deny as I don't know anyone on this site, but from what I have read (which is the only evidence) a majority are definitley liberal.
Clearly you don't know many people here. I'd say from what I've seen there's about a 50/50 split. Not that it matters, of course.

It's not that the arguments are weak. It is the fact that the arguments are presented in a different fashion, and to Liberals they would appear to be weak. There are many ways to present an argument, but the 2 at conflict in this particular case are books verse logic. I tend to lean towards using logic to make up my mind, and therefore present an argument based on that. It generally conflicts with Liberal view points and draws out harsh comments.
No. The arguments you've put forward are inherently weak and are not supported by any facts and the "logic" you have espoused is almost completely absent in any of your posts to date.

In the 4 large post that I wrote earlier today, I used extreme sarcasm as is obvious, but I also used logic. Logic and Liberalism generally collide head on like freight trains. This is because Logic follows the liberal concept all the way through and can never deny the point that there views are impossible if followed to the "T". A good example would be the age old concept, of why don't everyone just get rid of there military, and we will all live in peace. Of course Logic says, no that is impossible, as someone would attempt to conquer the World and there would be no resistance for them. Just human nature, but your probably not going to find that in a news article or a book. Why not? Because it's never been tried and likely never will be, so no research can be done.
QED

You should take note, that when I made the statement about the beating a dead horse, I was responding to Oberon. Yet you did not mention the first post. So I did not make the first move in that case, and that was done in another thread. I will not bring up those topics as I don't want to rehash the past, or get off topic, but basically multiple post where presented and it was made to look like I was just a vary hateful person. But those post where all in response to other post, and those other post where not presented, so in a nut shell my words where taken out of context, and that led to another argument all together.
Ahh, so it's not your words that are the problem, but the context in which we the reader, takes them which is at fault. Naughty us.

Now this particular argument started when I made the statement about Germany. For over half a century history has taught that Germany did issue strict gun control. I made the comment and I was immediately under fire. Why? Because there was another research project that was done in 2004 I think that supposedly proved this to be incorrect. Now for someone who argues based on books, they would probably except this argument. Logic on the other hand is not so easy. Logic says, why did it take so long for this history to be corrected? After so many people who lived in that time, and experienced all that stuff have passed away from natural causes. That by itself has suspicion written all over it. There was not a strong anti gun movement after WW II ended. Most soldiers in the U.S. where allowed to take there firearms with them when they went back home, because the Army had so much overstock. Even Sherman tanks where broken down, having all the guns removed and then sold to farmers as tractors. There is a strong anti gun movement now, which is another big issue for logic to get over.
So a well researched, well documented, peer-reviewed essay, by a well respected professor of law, who has actually worked with and derived his conclusions from verifiable primary sources, can simply be discounted because the facts about which he's written don't agree with another version of history believed by some guy from rural USA, who likes guns. :hmmm: Makes sense to me. :nope:

I'd be interested to see evidence of the history taught as part of the school or college curriculum in the US. Or is it just the NRA and gun lobby pushing that barrow.

Secondly logic follows the age old rule, of where there is smoke there is likely fire. So Nazi Germany is well known for the horrendous things done in concentration camps. They are well known for a vary strict command and control ideal that was so harsh, they chose to cover it up during the 1936 Olympics. Lot's of stories from people who lived there say they where ordered to do different things while the Olympics took place, and once they where over everything went back to normal. I remember reading a document about a woman who had a break down at work due to stress, and as a result they forced her to get surgery preventing her from having any children.

Other children where taken from there parents and placed in training camps, where there was mass statutory rape and lot's of teens got pregnant from none other than the instructors of the camps.
Not sure what this has to do with the argument, but the Nazi's were bad people. They did bad things. Doesn't mean their gun laws were less stringent than the Weimar Republic's laws. Unless your logic is that because they were bad, they did things that they actually didn't do.

So, where there is smoke there is fire. Germany did all of this, but they did not take everyone's guns as History has been told up till 2004. They took the guns away from the Jews, but did not take everyone else's guns away.
If you had bothered to read the report you would have found who got rights to which guns and who didn't and also a camparison against the Weimar laws which were more proscriptive around who had what rights to which guns. Under Nazi German laws, the Jews had no rights at all to anything, including property etc. That is in itself inexcusable, however doesn't change the fact that the laws for people other than Jews were more relaxed than the previous government's laws. Which is the point of the report which you have so eloquently refuted.

When I presented a counter argument by posting a document, the document was immediately accused of having been lying, and debunked back in 2004. Yet the article was dated 2013. Not 2014 which is now based on when I looked it up, but 2013. That is an awkward coincidence. That just led to a whole string of events. As in past topics, people started throwing names around, and started accusing me of being unintelligent. Now I did not resort to calling people names, or accusing them of lack of intelligence. But I couldn't resist. If you want to get under a Liberals skin, just present logical presentation of what they actually believe in. It gets past there illusions every time, and takes into a World they cannot stand which is the Real World.
The content of the 2013 document was debunked in 2004. Ideas that hang around are not always right, just because they've been around for a long time.
If you can point to where you were called a name, please do so. Same for where your intellegence was called into question.
You logic is astounding.

It is vary much like College. If you want to get straight A's just pretend like you agree with them, and are allowing them to brainwash you. If you want to fail, just use Logic. Logic and college never go together either. They cannot stand it either.
Its clear that you seem to have had some difficulties at college. Not that it appears to have anything to do with the argument at hand. Which was IIRC about a comedy act that was based on the topic of gun control.

[Stealhead]

I missed the statement about US troops being allowed to take their firearms home with them. This is 100% incorrect the majority of firearms where either placed back into US military stocks and returned to the US others stayed in US depots overseas others where given to allied armies notably France who relied heavily on US military surplus well into the late 50's and some where distributed to the post war German, Italian and Japanese armed forces. Seeing as fully automatic firearms have been illegal before WWII there is no way a US solider would have been able to take his weapon home with him if it where a automatic weapon.

Some troops likely did illegally keep their firearms. In fact the illegal shipping of military firearms usually captured ones via the Us mail was such a problem that by 1944 they began x-raying suspect packages. Now did some troops sneak an M1 Garand or M1 carbine or M1911 home with them? Sure. the rest purchased surplus later in the late 40's or after and just said that it was "the" rifle they used when in fact it was really a surplus rifle they purchased later. I imagine that there was a good deal of illegal (by federal law or military law) home of firearms not to say that most who did it had bad intent. Of course knowing how things roll in the military it usually is REMF's that do this the real combatant usually has less interest and usually better discipline.

[Tribesman]

It is vary much like College. If you want to get straight A's just pretend like you agree with them, and are allowing them to brainwash you. If you want to fail, just use Logic. Logic and college never go together either. They cannot stand it either.
You are Bubblehead. :yeah:
Where do I claim my prize?

It's not that the arguments are weak. It is the fact that the arguments are presented in a different fashion, and to Liberals they would appear to be weak.
Let me be so kind as to help you.
Explore any of the multitude of the "guns" topics on this forum.
Identify all the points on firearm legislation you have tried to make.
See how they have already been dealt with and shown for what they are.
Secondly look at the sources people have posted which were shown to be rubbish.
Match them to the rubbish sources you have posted.

For over half a century history has taught that Germany did issue strict gun control.
Citation please.

I made the comment and I was immediately under fire. Why?
The reaction and the why are obvious. It is a particular line of rubbish which has been trotted out many times.
It has repeatedly been shown to be rubbish, even the most rabid NRA mouthpieces on this forum wouldn't try that line anymore if they had any sense.

They took the guns away from the Jews, but did not take everyone else's guns away.

If the Weimar legislation which arose from Versailles was stricter than the NSDAP backed legislation how did they have guns to take away in the first place?

When I presented a counter argument by posting a document, the document was immediately accused of having been lying
The document was easily identifiable, it's "facts" were familiar, even the sources it used are well known.
That is why it could immediately be called bollox.

You keep using the word "logic".
Is that a word you do not understand like the word "fact"?

[ETR3(SS)]

I just wanted to say...Godwin's Law.

[Platapus]

If your argument is based on the generalization of "the left", "the right", "conservatives" , or "liberals"

Your argument is already weak.

Neither conservatives nor liberals all think alike. There is no one single right or left viewpoint.

Conservatives disagree with conservatives and liberals disagree with liberals.

I think you would have a hard time even defining the words conservative and liberal in a context that would define both extremes for all people.

If your argument is designed to segregate people into different pigeon holes, your argument is already weak.

To influence people, seek to integrate, not segregate.

I can only write for myself, but perhaps others share my opinion: I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I am an individual with complex opinions across many many issues.

I can guarantee that my conservative views do not agree with other conservatives and my liberal views do not agree with other liberals.

People are more complex and to understand people you can't segregate them in to generalities.

Just a tip from an old man.