For "good" Germans, yes. Jews, on the other and, were not allowed to own guns at all. Occupied countries were ordered to surrender all firearms.

Jews were not allowed rights at all.

Occupied territory has nothing to do with domestic law does it

A segment of the population was not allowed gun ownership because that segment was controlled. That's the point of the discussion.

The Nazis did indeed employ gun control. Quibbling over where they did it is still quibbling.

So the jews in germany were like the blacks under the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd.

But the point is that the nazis abolished most gun regulations from the republic era.
However. Can you name any state which has not had firearm regulations?


The devil is in the detail as always, and since militarily occupied territory is a whole different legal sphere it is well outside the scope.

Exactly.

But they still confiscated guns from the "wrong" people.

No. That's part of the old "Federal Control vs States' Rights" argument. We want Federal control over some things but not over others. Where the line is drawn in each case is always the proverbial bone of contention.

So Hitler did believe in gun control for anyone but the select few. This is what most gun-control advocates want. Ted Kennedy wanted strict gun control, but had armed bodyguards with him wherever he went. I fail to see a difference.

Somalia

So the 2nd amendment as enacted gave the same sort of gun regulation as Hitler had?:hmmm:

Do you mean all the guns they couldn't have under the previous government?


Wrong way round, he believed in everyone having guns apart from the select few.


Perfect, Thanks Tarjak:rotfl2:

TBH Somalia does actually have gun regulations, it just didn't have an effective government organisation to enforce them.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

It is actually an excellent argument for there being a strong law enforcement capability to prevent citizens from doing whatever they want with weapons. Since the establishement of central governement and reestablihsment of the military, the ratio of gun homicides has dropped from 33.1:100,000 per annum in 2002 to 1.5:100,000 in 2008.

No. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right for "everybody", just as the First and Third and the others do. They didn't consider the slaves to be Citizens, so they witheld the right. Just as Hitler did. And they were both wrong to do so.

What the previous government did or didn't do is irrelevant, just as it was for the founding Americans. An injustice was done. We finally corrected it as best we could. The point is that Hitler was only for gun rights for his own elite.

Quibbling again.

So by "everybody" you mean terms and conditions were applied to the right to bear arms from the moment ink was put to paper

Not so, you cannot confiscate something someone doesn't have.

Details Steve details.:03:
To go back to the bit you originally said was quibbling.
Do you remember the recent episode about the current US "owner" of a Polish rifle that was taken from a German soldier by a GI which the Polish government are claiming as their property?
The terms the allies set for weapons in occupied territory upon surrender was exactly the same as the Axis had set in their occupied territories.:yep:


@Tarjak
I know, its what makes it a perfect example to bring up.

No. I said that already. I also said that I didn't excuse them for that. Just as I don't excuse Hitler.

Okay, the smug, arrogant "wink" is the last straw. I've already been chided again for quoting, you, so I guess we're done.

Yes. I was making it clear.
So you don't agree with the 2nd as it was written?
Important details you see, which come to the core of the issue since it is the meaning of the 2nd which is in question.


So a "wink" is smug and arrogant???
You appear to have lost the plot there.

Let me tell you a little story!
 

I wanted to have a LEGAL fire range for Air Guns out back of my home.
So I did the proper stuff and made a call to local Village numbers.
Simple question..............
Is it legal to fire Air Guns where I'm at?

THAT opened up a world of hurt and MANY hours spent getting a some what LEGAL answer that STILL is not 100%!

I was told first that they defer to the Sheriff's Office judgement for our county.

OK. Call them and get this kind of crap layed on me.
"It's a fire arm so we follow Ohio Code"

HMMM KAY...

Guess what? Air Guns are NOT defined as a fire arm under Ohio Laws.
So the local LEO's do not know what a fire arm is it seems!

I called the Mayor of my Village and chatted with him.
He tried the same line until I started demanding references to printed Laws.
As it turns out?
There are NO laws on the books that stop me from fireing any weapons, of any caliber, right where I sit now!

I can fire a .50 cal through my house if I so please and be legal doing so as long as it hits nothing someone can complain about!

Many people think that what is a law in one area applies to them.
It don't all the time.

I don't give a crap about Califorication laws and other States that do that.
You may assume laws that really do not exist!

Get rid of them completely. Problem solved

Get rid of what or who? Guns? Gun Owners? Anti-Gun lobbyists? People who want to get rid of them completely?:hmmm: